heritage impact assessment: proposed 400 kv power …

HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT:

PROPOSED 400 kV POWER LINE, BEAUFORT WEST

MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT, WESTERN CAPE

Required under Section 38(8) of the National Heritage Resources Act (No. 25 of 1999).

HWC Case No.: 19090610SB1017E

Report for:

Red Cap Nuweveld North (Pty) Ltd

Unit B2, Mainstream Centre, Main Road, Hout Bay, 7806

Tel: 021 790 1392

Email: [email protected]

Dr Jayson Orton

ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd

40 Brassie Street, Lakeside, 7945

Tel: (021) 788 1025 | 083 272 3225


1st draft: 14 April 2020

Revised: 01 October 2020

ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 v

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1. Site Name

n/a

2. Location

• Off N1 and DR02311

• The powerline corridor includes a total of 97 properties in the Beaufort West Magisterial District (see

Appendix 2).

• Its northern end point is at approximately S31°45'37.77" E22°24'50.23"” , centre point is S32° 5'29.60"

E22°41'11.36" and the southern end point (at the Droërivier Substation) is at S32° 24’ 23” E22° 31’ 50”.

3. Locality Plan

Extract from 1:250 000 mapsheets 3122 & 3222 showing the location of the proposed power line corridor

(blue shaded polygon). The yellow area is Beaufort West and the R381 runs northwards from there passing

west of the northern end of the corridor.

0 8 16 24 km

ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 vi

4. Description of Proposed Development

It is proposed to construct a powerline of up to 120 km in length within a defined corridor that would

evacuate electricity from three proposed windfarms (each the subject of a separate application) to be

located about 65 km north of Beaufort West. The project components are as follows;

Project

Components

Description

Specifications Approximate

Disturbance areas

(WCS)

Switching stations

(x3)

• Each wind farm will have a Switching Station yard of 150m x 75m located next

to the Wind Farm Substation. The Switching Station will consist of a

Switchgear building and High Voltage Gantry.

• The switching stations form part of the Gridline infrastructure and will be

handed to Eskom in the operations phase (i.e. becoming part of the National

Grid)

3.4ha

132kV collector

transmission lines

• Up to approximately ≤15km of overhead 132kV high voltage monopole pylon

powerline is required to link the switching stations (x3) to the Collector

switching station/substation. The pylon types that maybe used are illustrated

in the report and on average will be about 260m apart (estimate 65 pylons x

80m2= 0.5ha)

0.5ha

Collector switching

station/substation

• 132kV scenario: 150m x 150m - 132kV collector switching station with

collector & switchgear building and High Voltage gantry (2.25ha)

• 400kV scenario: 300m x 400m – 400kV collector substation with collector &

switchgear building and High Voltage gantry (12ha)

12.0ha

132/400kV Gridline • 132kV scenario: Up to approximately ≤105km of overhead 132kV overhead

powerline (440 x 80sqm = 3.5ha):

o the 132kV pylons types that may be used are depicted in the report

o Monopole spans, without stays, are on average 260m

o Triple pole (‘twin tern’) spans for valleys can be up to 800m

o Pylon type and span distance is determined by topography but the

majority will be the single monopole structures

• Up to approximately 105km of 400kV overhead powerline (estimate 290 pylons

X 100sqm = 2.9ha):

o The lattice pylon types that may be used are depicted in the report

o Cross-rope suspension spans, with stays, are on average 400m

o Self-supporting suspension spans, without stays, are on average 400m

o Pylon type and span distance is determined by topography but the

majority will be the cross-rope suspension structures

3.5ha

Temporary

laydown, staging

and yards areas

and access

roads/tracks

required for the

construction /

decommissioning

phase

• Temporary laydown areas will be identified along the power line route, with

the main equipment and construction yards being based in one of the

surrounding towns or at the wind farm site camp & laydown areas.

• Existing access roads and tracks (upgraded to ± 2-4m wide where needed)

will be used as far as possible and new access tracks would be created where

needed – these would be 2-4m wide (wider than 2m when side drains are

needed or due to the topography).

5ha

56ha

Total disturbance footprint (WCS) 81ha

The reason that two different capacities are being applied for is that it is as yet unknown what the Eskom

requirements for this corridor will be and Eskom will not take a decision at this juncture. The applicant is

thus seeking authorisation for both a 400 kV power line and a 132 kV power line to run from the collector

switching station or collector substation to Droërivier. Although approval for both capacities will be sought,

it is important to note that only one line would be built under the authorisation (if granted). For the purpose

of this assessment, the specialist must also identify, assess and report on the Worst-Case Scenario (WCS).

The WCS considers the impact significance of the development of the 132 kV and 400 kV power line,

identifies which one of the options has the highest negative impact (pre and post mitigation) for each

ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 vii

particular impact, and presents this as the significance rating for that impact. It is argued that if the residual

overall impact of the WCS is deemed acceptable and mitigatable, then the development of either a 132 kV

or 400 kV powerline within this corridor would also be acceptable.

5. Heritage Resources Identified

Palaeontological resources are patchily distributed across the study area but most areas have not been

studied in the field due to the size of the study area. Late Stone Age (LSA) and particularly historical

archaeological sites occur widely across the study area. Some of them have associated graves. Many areas

have not been studied in the field but aerial photography has also informed the assessment. Built heritage

resources are rare and tend to be clustered in the few farm complexes present. The cultural landscape is

largely a natural/rural one with anthropogenic interventions barely visible. The main exceptions are rare

farm complexes that are characterised by the presence of many trees. The landscape views from the N1 and

De Jager’s Pass as well as from within the KNP are considered to be the most significant because of their

accessibility.

6. Anticipated Impacts on Heritage Resources

There is the potential for fossils, archaeological sites and/or graves to be directly impacted, although given

that a pre-construction survey will inform the final layout, the chances of such impacts occurring are small.

Contextual impacts to built structures might occur but heritage structures are very rare on the landscape.

The landscape itself will also experience impacts through the presence of the powerlines and substations in

what is otherwise a natural/rural landscape.

7. Recommendations

Because there are no significant impediments to development of a powerline of either 132 kV or 400 kV

within the proposed corridor, it is recommended that the proposed corridor be authorised but authorisation

should be subject to the following conditions:

• The final alignment of the gridline must be subjected to a pre-construction archaeological survey.

This would be to determine whether any micrositing of infrastructure is required to ensure in situ

protection of heritage resources or, if this is not possible, whether any mitigation should be

implemented;

• In areas where palaeontological sensitivity is inferred to be high, the final alignment of the powerline

must be subjected to a pre-construction palaeontological survey. This must determine whether any

recording and/or collection of fossils might be required or if any areas should be avoided;

• A palaeontological chance finds procedure must be incorporated into the EMPr;

• The final alignment must be determined in consultation with a visual specialist to ensure that:

o the final escarpment crossing minimises visual impacts, especially as seen from De Jager’s

Pass; and

o visual impacts to scenic valleys and ridgelines along the final route are minimised as far as

practical;

• Pre-construction planning must allow for buffers around archaeological and palaeontological sites

and graves of at least 30 m and of 200 m for Grade IIIB and up structures and 100 m for Grade IIIC

structures. Alternatively the implementation of mitigation measures may be required and these

would be determined as part of the pre-construction survey;

• If any archaeological material or human burials are uncovered during the course of development

then work in the immediate area should be halted. The find would need to be reported to the

heritage authorities and may require inspection by an archaeologist. Such heritage is the property of

the state and may require excavation and curation in an approved institution.

ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 viii

8. Author/s and Date

Heritage Impact Assessment: Jayson Orton, ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd, 01 October 2020

Archaeological specialist study: Jayson Orton, ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd, (included within HIA)

Palaeontological specialist study: John Almond, ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd, October 2020

Visual impact assessment: Bernie Oberholzer and Quinton Lawson, March 2020

ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 ix

NEMA EIA regulations, 2014 as amended, Appendix 6: Requirements of Specialist reports

Requirement Reference

(1) A specialist report prepared in terms of these Regulations must contain—

(a) details of—

(i) the specialist who prepared the report; and Section 1.4

(i) the expertise of that specialist to compile a specialist report including a curriculum

vitae;

Section 1.4 &

Appendix 1

(b) a declaration that the specialist is independent in a form as may be specified by the

competent authority;

Page ii

(c) an indication of the scope of, and the purpose for which, the report was prepared; Section 1.3

(cA) an indication of the quality and age of base data used for the specialist report; n/a

(cB) a description of existing impacts on the site, cumulative impacts of the proposed

development and levels of acceptable change;

Sections 6.5-

6.7

(d) the duration, date and season of the site investigation and the relevance of the season to

the outcome of the assessment;

Section 3.2

(e) a description of the methodology adopted in preparing the report or carrying out the

specialised process inclusive of equipment and modelling used;

Section 3

(f) details of an assessment of the specific identified sensitivity of the site related to the

proposed activity or activities and its associated structures and infrastructure, inclusive of

a site plan identifying site alternatives;

Section 1.1.2

(g) an identification of any areas to be avoided, including buffers; Section 10 &

Appendix 4

(h) a map superimposing the activity including the associated structures and infrastructure on

the environmental sensitivities of the site including areas to be avoided, including buffers;

Section 10

(i) a description of any assumptions made and any uncertainties or gaps in knowledge; Section 3.8

(j) a description of the findings and potential implications of such findings on the impact of

the proposed activity or activities;

Sections 5 & 6

(k) any mitigation measures for inclusion in the EMPr; Sections 6 & 7

(l) any conditions for inclusion in the environmental authorisation; Section 11

(m) any monitoring requirements for inclusion in the EMPr or environmental authorisation; Section 7

(n) a reasoned opinion—

(i) whether the proposed activity, activities or portions thereof should be authorised; Section 10.1

(iA) regarding the acceptability of the proposed activity or activities; and

(ii) if the opinion is that the proposed activity, activities or portions thereof should be

authorised, any avoidance, management and mitigation measures that should be

included in the EMPr, and where applicable, the closure plan;

Section 11

(o) a description of any consultation process that was undertaken during the course of

preparing the specialist report;

Sections 3.7 &

9

(p) a summary and copies of any comments received during any consultation process and

where applicable all responses thereto; and

Section 9

(q) any other information requested by the competent authority. n/a

(2) Where a government notice gazetted by the Minister provides for any protocol or minimum

information requirement to be applied to a specialist report, the requirements as indicated in

such notice will apply.

Government

Notice No. 320

has been

gazetted, and a

verification

report aligned

with the

requirements are

appended

(Appendix 2). No

protocol for a

heritage

assessment has

been gazetted.

ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 x

Glossary

Background scatter: Artefacts whose spatial position is conditioned more by natural forces than by human agency.

Brakdak: A roof made with poles overlaid by sticks/bamboo which is in turn overlaid with small vegetation (often

reeds) and then a layer of mud.

Early Stone Age: Period of the Stone Age extending approximately between 2 million and 200 000 years ago.

Holocene: The geological period spanning the last approximately 10-12 000 years.

Hominid: a group consisting of all modern and extinct great apes (i.e. gorillas, chimpanzees, orangutans and humans)

and their ancestors.

Later Stone Age: Period of the Stone Age extending over the last approximately 20 000 years.

Middle Stone Age: Period of the Stone Age extending approximately between 200 000 and 20 000 years ago.

Pleistocene: The geological period beginning approximately 2.5 million years ago and preceding the Holocene.

ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 xi

Abbreviations

amsl: above mean sea level

APHP: Association of Professional Heritage

Practitioners

ASAPA: Association of Southern African

Professional Archaeologists

AZ: assemblage zone

CRM: Cultural Resources Management

DEA: Department of Environment Affairs

DRC: Dutch Reformed Church

ECO: Environmental Control Officer

EIA: Environmental Impact Assessment

ESA: Early Stone Age

GPS: global positioning system

HIA: Heritage Impact Assessment

HWC: Heritage Western Cape

HV: High Voltage

KNP: Karoo National Park

NCW: Not Conservation Worthy

NEMA: National Environmental Management

Act (No. 107 of 1998)

LSA: Later Stone Age

MSA: Middle Stone Age

NHRA: National Heritage Resources Act (No.

25) of 1999

NID: Notification of Intent to Develop

PHS: Provincial Heritage Site

PPP: Public Participation Process

REDZ: Renewable Energy Development Zone

SAHRA: South African Heritage Resources

Agency

SAHRIS: South African Heritage Resources

Information System

VOC: Dutch East India Company

WCS: Worst-Case Scenario

ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 xii

Contents

Glossary ......................................................................................................................................... x

Abbreviations ............................................................................................................................... xi

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

1.1. Project description.................................................................................................................... 1

1.1.1. Aspects of the project relevant to the heritage study ................................................. 4

1.2. Consideration of alternatives ................................................................................................... 5

1.3. Terms of reference ................................................................................................................... 5

1.4. Scope and purpose of the report ............................................................................................. 8

1.5. The author ................................................................................................................................ 8

1.6. Declaration of independence ................................................................................................... 9

2. HERITAGE LEGISLATION .............................................................................................................. 9

3. METHODS................................................................................................................................. 10

3.1. Literature survey and information sources ............................................................................ 10

3.2. Field survey ............................................................................................................................. 10

3.3. Specialist studies..................................................................................................................... 11

3.4. Screening assessment ............................................................................................................. 11

3.5. Impact assessment ................................................................................................................. 11

3.6. Grading ................................................................................................................................... 11

3.7. Consultation ............................................................................................................................ 11

3.8. Assumptions and limitations .................................................................................................. 12

4. PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONTEXT ...................................................................................... 12

4.1. Site context ............................................................................................................................. 12

4.2. Site description ....................................................................................................................... 12

5. FINDINGS OF THE HERITAGE STUDY .......................................................................................... 16

5.1. Palaeontology ......................................................................................................................... 16

5.2. Archaeology ............................................................................................................................ 17

5.2.1. Desktop study............................................................................................................. 17

5.2.2. Site visit ...................................................................................................................... 20

5.3. Graves ..................................................................................................................................... 27

5.4. Historical aspects and the built environment ........................................................................ 27

5.4.1. Desktop study............................................................................................................. 27

5.4.2. Site visit ...................................................................................................................... 31

5.5. Cultural landscape .................................................................................................................. 33

5.6. Visual impact assessment ....................................................................................................... 36

5.7. Statement of significance and provisional grading ................................................................ 40

5.8. Summary of heritage indicators ............................................................................................. 41

6. ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS ........................................................................................................ 45

6.1. Impacts to palaeontological resources ................................................................................... 46

6.2. Impacts to archaeological resources ...................................................................................... 46

6.3. Impacts to graves .................................................................................................................... 47

6.4. Impacts to the cultural landscapes ......................................................................................... 48

6.5. Existing impacts to heritage resources ................................................................................... 50

ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 xiii

6.6. Cumulative impacts ................................................................................................................ 50

6.7. The No-Go option ................................................................................................................... 51

6.8. Levels of acceptable change ................................................................................................... 51

7. INPUT TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM .................................................... 51

8. EVALUATION OF IMPACTS RELATIVE TO SUSTAINABLE SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC BENEFITS ......... 52

9. CONSULTATION WITH HERITAGE CONSERVATION BODIES ........................................................ 52

10. CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................................................................ 52

10.1. Reasoned opinion of the specialist ....................................................................................... 54

11. RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................................. 54

12. REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................... 55

APPENDIX 1 – Curriculum Vitae .................................................................................................... 59

APPENDIX 2 – Farm portions and erven forming part of the powerline corridor ............................ 61

APPENDIX 3 – Inventory of finds ................................................................................................... 64

APPENDIX 4 – Mapping ................................................................................................................ 82

APPENDIX 5 – Palaeontological specialist study ............................................................................ 92

APPENDIX 6 – Visual impact assessment ....................................................................................... 93

ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 1

1. INTRODUCTION

ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd was appointed by Red Cap Nuweveld North (Pty) Ltd to conduct an assessment of the

potential impacts to heritage resources that might occur through the proposed construction of a 132 kV or

400 kV powerline and associated infrastructure. The line would run from an area 65 km north of Beaufort West

to the existing Eskom Droërivier Substation which lies about 10 km southwest of Beaufort West (Figures 1 & 2).

The project falls entirely within the Beaufort West Magisterial District and a total of 97 properties are involved

(Appendix 3). Its northern end point is within a cluster of three proposed wind farms (each being assessed

separately) at approximately S31°45'37.77" E22°24'50.23", centre point at S32° 5'29.60" E22°41'11.36" and the

southern end point at the Droërivier Substation is at S32° 24’ 23” E22° 31’ 50”.

This specialist assessment has been produced as part of an iterative design process being undertaken for this

project. As part of this process, various corridor options have been considered, assessed and further refined to

ensure adherence to the environmental and technical constraints present on site. Previous processes include a

Screening Phase and a Pre-Application Scoping Phase which included the production of a Pre-application

Scoping Report. Specialist recommendations made to further refine the corridor were included in the Pre-

application Scoping Report. The refined corridor that resulted from the Pre-application Scoping Phase is

assessed in the present report and the findings of this report will inform the outcomes of the Scoping Phase of

the project.

1.1. Project description

It is proposed to construct a powerline and associated infrastructure of 120 km length that would evacuate

electricity from three proposed windfarms (each the subject of a separate application) to be located about

65 km north of Beaufort West. The application seeks authorisation of a corridor in which the powerline would

be located. The project components are as follows;

Project

Components

Description


Disturbance

areas (WCS)

Switching stations

(x3)

• Each wind farm will have a Switching Station yard of 150m x 75m located next to the

Wind Farm Substation. The Switching Station will consist of a Switchgear building and

High Voltage Gantry.

• The switching stations form part of the Gridline infrastructure and will be handed to

Eskom in the operations phase (i.e. becoming part of the National Grid)

3.4ha

132kV collector

transmission lines

• Up to approximately ≤15km of overhead 132kV high voltage monopole pylon

powerline is required to link the switching stations (x3) to the Collector switching

station/substation. The pylon types that maybe used are illustrated in Figures 3 and

4 and on average will be about 260m apart (estimate 65 pylons x 80m2= 0.5ha)

0.5ha

Collector

switching

station/substation

• 132kV scenario: 150m x 150m - 132kV collector switching station with collector &

switchgear building and High Voltage gantry (2.25ha)

• 400kV scenario: 300m x 400m – 400kV collector substation with collector &

switchgear building and High Voltage gantry (12ha)

12.0ha


Project

Components

Description


Disturbance

areas (WCS)

132/400kV

Gridline

• 132kV scenario: Up to approximately ≤105km of overhead 132kV overhead powerline

(440 x 80sqm = 3.5ha):

o the 132kV pylons types that may be used are depicted in Figures 3 and 4

o Monopole spans, without stays, are on average 260m

o Triple pole (‘twin tern’) spans for valleys can be up to 800m

o Pylon type and span distance is determined by topography but the majority will be

the single monopole structures

• Up to approximately 105km of 400kV overhead powerline (estimate 290 pylons X

100sqm = 2.9ha):

o The lattice pylon types that may be used are depicted in Figure 5

o Cross-rope suspension spans, with stays, are on average 400m

o Self-supporting suspension spans, without stays, are on average 400m

o Pylon type and span distance is determined by topography but the majority will be

the cross-rope suspension structures

3.5ha

Temporary

laydown, staging

and yards areas

and access

roads/tracks

required for the

construction /

decommissioning

phase

• Temporary laydown areas will be identified along the power line route, with the main

equipment and construction yards being based in one of the surrounding towns or at

the wind farm site camp & laydown areas.

• Existing access roads and tracks (upgraded to ± 2-4m wide where needed) will be used

as far as possible and new access tracks would be created where needed – these

would be 2-4m wide (wider than 2m when side drains are needed or due to the

topography).

5ha

56ha

Total disturbance footprint (WCS) 81ha

The reason that two different capacities are being applied for is that it is as yet unknown what the Eskom

requirements for this corridor will be. The applicant is thus seeking authorisation for both a 400 kV power line

and a 132 kV power line to run from the collector switching station or collector substation to Droërivier.

Although approval for both capacities will be sought, it is important to note that only one line would be built

under the authorisation (if granted). For the purpose of this assessment, the specialist also must identify, assess

and report on the Worst-Case Scenario (WCS). The WCS considers the impact significance of the development

of the 132 kV and 400 kV power line, identifies which one of the options has the highest negative impact (pre

and post mitigation) for each particular impact, and presents this as the significance rating for that impact. It is

argued that if the residual overall impact of the WCS is deemed acceptable and mitigatable, then the

development of either a 132 kV or 400 kV powerline within this corridor would also be acceptable


Figure 1: Extract from 1:250 000 mapsheets 3122 & 3222 showing the location of the proposed power line corridor (green polygon).

The corridor runs south of Beaufort West and the R381 runs northwards from there passing west of the northern end of the corridor.

Source of basemap: Chief Directorate: National Geo-Spatial Information. Website: www.ngi.gov.za.

0 4 8 12 16 20 24 km


Figure 2: Aerial view of the study area (blue outlined polygon) showing its relationship to the escarpment and Nuweveld Mountains.

1.1.1. Aspects of the project relevant to the heritage study

All aspects of the proposed development are relevant since excavations for foundations and/or services may

impact on archaeological and/or palaeontological remains, while all above-ground aspects create potential


visual (contextual) impacts to the cultural landscape and any significant heritage sites that might be visually

sensitive.

1.1.2. Consideration of alternatives

No alternatives – apart from the No-Go option – are being assessed for the gridline. However, the following

points should be noted:

• A different corridor alignment following the R381 and including the Molteno and Roseberg Passes was

originally proposed but, due to the many constraints and sensitivities identified by a number of

specialists, including heritage, it was not pursued further (screened out) and has been replaced in its

entirety by the present corridor;

• An iterative approach to the shape and alignment of the gridline corridor has been followed and the

corridor has been, and will continue to be, refined through the process as information becomes

available, where needed.

• Due to the large size of the study area (corridor), full surveys for every discipline were not possible. A

wide corridor is being assessed so that there will be ample scope for micrositing of the alignment after

pre-construction surveys have taken place;

• The 132 kV and 400 kV powerlines are not alternatives. Authorisation is being sought for both, but with

the condition that only one of them may be constructed. The assessment therefore reports on the worst-

case scenario in every case; and

• Although the overall position of the powerline in the landscape is fixed at the regional scale, the corridor

approach effectively provides alternatives for the powerline route at the local scale through pre-

construction micrositing (but not for comparative assessment purposes during the EIA).

1.2. Terms of reference

ASHA Consulting was requested to produce a Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) that would meet the

requirements of Heritage Western Cape (HWC) and Appendix 6 of the NEMA EIA regulations, 2014, as amended

(refer to the table in the front of this report for the detailed list requirements and where this has been

addressed). Key requirements for the assessment are:

• Fieldwork must be done to collect data from the proposed corridor;

• A full project description must be included;

• A detailed baseline description of the study area must be provided indicating no-go areas and other sensitive

localities;

• A description of the methodology applied to the assessment must be provided;

• The legal context of the assessment must be indicated;

• Potentially significant impacts must be described;

• An impact assessment must be provided for the before and after mitigation scenarios and for both the

132 kV and 400 kV powerlines and the Worst Case Scenario;

• Cumulative impacts and the no-go option must be considered; and

• Provide a reasoned opinion on whether the project or parts of it may be authorised from a heritage point

of view.


Figure 3: Example of structure Types 1 to 3 under consideration for the 132 kV powerlines. Maximum heights are 26-31 m (left), 26-

32 m (centre and right).

Figure 4: Example of structure Types 4 to 6 under consideration for the 132 kV powerlines. Maximum heights are 22-26 m (left), 24-

26 m (centre) and 16-18 m (right).


Figure 5: Example of structure Types 1 to 3 under consideration for the 400 kV powerlines. Maximum heights are 27-42 m (top), 27-

40 m (bottom left) and 28-41 m (bottom right).

A Notification of Intent to Develop (NID) form was submitted to HWC on 17th October 2019. They responded

with a request for an HIA to be submitted as follows:


It should also be noted, however, that following S.38(3) of the National Heritage Resources Act (No. 25 of 1999),

even though certain specialist studies may be specifically requested, all relevant heritage resources should be

identified and assessed.

1.3. Scope and purpose of the report

A heritage impact assessment (HIA) is a means of identifying any significant heritage resources before

development begins so that these can be managed in such a way as to allow the development to proceed (if

appropriate) without undue impacts to the fragile heritage of South Africa. This HIA report aims to fulfil the

requirements of the heritage authorities such that a comment can be issued by them for consideration by the

National Department of Environmental Affairs who will review the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and

grant or refuse authorisation. The HIA report will outline any management and/or mitigation requirements that

will need to be complied with from a heritage point of view and that should be included in the conditions of

authorisation should this be granted.

1.4. The author

Dr Jayson Orton has an MA (UCT, 2004) and a D.Phil (Oxford, UK, 2013), both in archaeology, and has been

conducting Heritage Impact Assessments and archaeological specialist studies in South Africa (primarily in the

Western Cape and Northern Cape provinces) since 2004 (please see curriculum vitae included as Appendix 1).

He has also conducted research on aspects of the Later Stone Age in these provinces and published widely on

the topic. He is an accredited heritage practitioner with the Association of Professional Heritage Practitioners

(APHP; Member #43) and also holds archaeological accreditation with the Association of Southern African

Professional Archaeologists (ASAPA) CRM section (Member #233) as follows:


• Principal Investigator: Stone Age, Shell Middens & Grave Relocation; and

• Field Director: Colonial Period & Rock Art.

1.5. Declaration of independence

ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd and its consultants have no financial or other interest in the proposed development

and will derive no benefits other than fair remuneration for consulting services provided. The NEMA Declaration

of independence will be included in the EIA and submitted to the Competent Authority along with this report.

2. HERITAGE LEGISLATION

The National Heritage Resources Act (NHRA) No. 25 of 1999 protects a variety of heritage resources as follows:

• Section 34: structures older than 60 years;

• Section 35: prehistoric and historical material (including ruins) more than 100 years old as well as military

remains more than 75 years old, palaeontological material and meteorites;

• Section 36: graves and human remains older than 60 years and located outside of a formal cemetery

administered by a local authority; and

• Section 37: public monuments and memorials.

Following Section 2, the definitions applicable to the above protections are as follows:

• Structures: “any building, works, device or other facility made by people and which is fixed to land, and

includes any fixtures, fittings and equipment associated therewith”;

• Palaeontological material: “any fossilised remains or fossil trace of animals or plants which lived in the

geological past, other than fossil fuels or fossiliferous rock intended for industrial use, and any site which

contains such fossilised remains or trace”;

• Archaeological material: a) “material remains resulting from human activity which are in a state of disuse

and are in or on land and which are older than 100 years, including artefacts, human and hominid

remains and artificial features and structures”; b) “rock art, being any form of painting, engraving or

other graphic representation on a fixed rock surface or loose rock or stone, which was executed by

human agency and which is older than 100 years, including any area within 10m of such representation”;

c) “wrecks, being any vessel or aircraft, or any part thereof, which was wrecked in South Africa, whether

on land, in the internal waters, the territorial waters or in the maritime culture zone of the Republic, as

defined respectively in sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Maritime Zones Act, 1994 (Act No. 15 of 1994), and any

cargo, debris or artefacts found or associated therewith, which is older than 60 years or which SAHRA

considers to be worthy of conservation”; and d) “features, structures and artefacts associated with

military history which are older than 75 years and the sites on which they are found”;

• Grave: “means a place of interment and includes the contents, headstone or other marker of such a

place and any other structure on or associated with such place”; and

• Public monuments and memorials: “all monuments and memorials a) “erected on land belonging to any

branch of central, provincial or local government, or on land belonging to any organisation funded by or

established in terms of the legislation of such a branch of government”; or b) “which were paid for by

public subscription, government funds, or a public-spirited or military organisation, and are on land

belonging to any private individual.”

Section 3(3) describes the types of cultural significance that a place or object might have in order to be

considered part of the national estate. These are as follows:


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 or cultural heritage;

c) its potential to yield information that will contribute to an understanding of South Africa’s natural or

cultural heritage;

d) its importance in demonstrating the principal characteristics of a particular class of South Africa’s natural

or cultural places or objects;

e) its importance in exhibiting particular aesthetic characteristics valued by a community or cultural group;

f) its importance in demonstrating a high degree of creative or technical achievement at a particular

period;

g) its strong or special association with a particular community or cultural group for social, cultural or

spiritual reasons;

h) its strong or special association with the life or work of a person, group or organisation of importance in

the history of South Africa; and

i) sites of significance relating to the history of slavery in South Africa.

While landscapes with cultural significance do not have a dedicated Section in the NHRA, they are protected

under the definition of the National Estate (Section 3). Section 3(2)(c) and (d) list “historical settlements and

townscapes” and “landscapes and natural features of cultural significance” as part of the National Estate.

Furthermore, some of the points in Section 3(3) speak directly to cultural landscapes.

Section 38(8) of the NHRA states that if an impact assessment is required under any legislation other than the

NHRA then it must include a heritage component that satisfies the requirements of S.38(3). Furthermore, the

comments of the relevant heritage authority must be sought and considered by the consenting authority prior

to the issuing of a decision. Under the National Environmental Management Act (No. 107 of 1998), as amended

(NEMA), the project is subject to an EIA. The present report provides the heritage component. HWC is required

to provide comment on the proposed project in order to facilitate final decision making by the DEA.

3. METHODS

3.1. Literature survey and information sources

A survey of available literature was carried out to assess the general heritage context into which the

development would be set. This literature included published material, unpublished commercial reports and

online material, including reports sourced from the South African Heritage Resources Information System

(SAHRIS). The 1:250 000 maps and historical aerial images were sourced from the Chief Directorate: National

Geo-Spatial Information, while CapeFarmMapper (http://gis.elsenburg.com/apps/cfm/#) was also used for

current aerial imagery and cadastral details. Mapping was carried out in Google Earth but using Bing aerial

imagery or Google terrain.

3.2. Field survey

Due to the extreme size of the study area, only targeted fieldwork was carried out in most of the corridor. The

northern section within the wind farm study area was more intensively examined though. The target areas were

determined through a combination of driving the public road that runs in and close to the corridor and

examining aerial photography to look for potentially sensitive areas. These areas were then subjected to foot

surveys. Fieldwork in the grid corridor occurred on 17th and 18th March 2019, 6th and 7th April 2019, 13th, 14th

and 17th May 2019 and 17th to 19th September 2019. The surveys were conducted in autumn, winter and spring


but in this relatively dry area seasonality makes no difference to the visibility of heritage resources on the

ground. During the survey the positions of finds and survey tracks were recorded on a hand-held Global

Positioning System (GPS) receiver set to the WGS84 datum. Photographs were taken at times in order to capture

representative samples of both the affected heritage and the landscape setting of the proposed development.

3.3. Specialist studies

Specialist assessments of archaeology, palaeontology and visual impacts were required by HWC. While the

archaeological study was carried out by the present author, the palaeontological work was done by Dr John

Almond and the visual assessment by Quinton Lawson and Bernard Oberholzer.

3.4. Screening and pre-scoping assessment

Although the screening assessment has not been submitted to HWC, it is pertinent to note that much fieldwork

occurred prior to design of the corridor layout and that all finds and their buffers (minimum 30 m) were rated

with high, medium or low sensitivity. These sensitivity classes were then assigned development criteria that

described whether the sites and/or buffers were no-go. This informed the shape and alignment of the corridor

and will allow the project team to determine an alignment of the powerlines with minimal impacts. The findings

from the field surveys were also rated and assigned development criteria. These have been captured in the pre-

app scoping phase as well as this phase.

3.5. Impact assessment

For consistency among specialist studies, the impact assessment was conducted through application of a

methodology and rating scale supplied by Aurecon.

3.6. Grading

S.7(1) of the NHRA provides for the grading of heritage resources into those of National (Grade I), Provincial

(Grade II) and Local (Grade III) significance. Grading is intended to allow for the identification of the appropriate

level of management for any given heritage resource. Grade I and II resources are intended to be managed by

the national and provincial heritage resources authorities respectively, while Grade III resources would be

managed by the relevant local planning authority. These bodies are responsible for grading, but anyone may

make recommendations for grading.

It is intended under S.7(2) that the various provincial authorities formulate a system for the further detailed

grading of heritage resources of local significance but this is generally yet to happen. Heritage Western Cape

(2016), however, uses a system in which resources of local significance are divided into Grade IIIA, IIIB and IIIC.

These approximately equate to high, medium and low local significance, while sites of very low or no significance

(and generally not requiring mitigation or other interventions) are referred to as Not Conservation Worthy

(NCW).

3.7. Consultation

The draft HIA will be submitted to registered interested and affected parties and key stakeholders as required

by HWC in their response to the NID application (Section 10). The report is also included in the main public

participation process (PPP) required under the NEMA as part of the EIA.


3.8. Assumptions and limitations

The field studies were carried out at the surface only and hence any completely buried archaeological sites and

fossils would not be readily located. Similarly, it is not always possible to determine the depth of archaeological

material visible at the surface. Due to the very large area covered by the corridor, it was not possible to cover

it comprehensively. However, because (1) the survey aimed to target areas that appeared most sensitive and

(2) an extensive desktop study also informed the assessment it is assumed that a high degree of confidence in

the prediction of impacts will still be attained. It is assumed that the recorded heritage sites are in fact

representative of the broader area and, furthermore, the higher density survey coverage of the wind farm study

areas provides an excellent understanding of the nature and typical distribution of heritage resources on the

landscape.

Because it is as yet unknown whether a 132 kV or 400 kV powerline will be built, it has been requested that a

worst case scenario be presented. The present study finds little or no difference in heritage impacts between

the two and assumes therefor that similar impacts would accrue from each type of powerline.

4. PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONTEXT

4.1. Site context

The powerline corridor is located in a largely rural/natural context used for livestock (sheep and cattle) and

game rearing, although the very southern part is alongside the town of Beaufort West with the ultimate end

point being in the large existing Eskom Dröerivier Substation. All local roads are gravel and farm complexes are

few and far between. Outside of the Beaufort West area, human modification of the environment, aside from

roads and occasional farm complexes, some of which have associated agricultural lands, is limited to wind

pumps, small reservoirs and farm fences. A small powerline supplying local farms runs along the DR02311 in

places. Several existing High Voltage (HV) powerlines traverse the area south of Beaufort West, running east-

west, and form part of the national transmission framework for the country. The proposed corridor lies almost

completely within the gazetted central Electricity Grid Infrastructure corridor (DEA 2016) but the northern end

(within the wind farm site) is not included.

The corridor very roughly follows the alignment of the gravel DR02317 and DR02311 (De Jager’s Pass Road) but

completely excludes De Jager’s Pass itself. The DR02317 meets the R381 (which links the Karoo towns of Loxton

[in Northern Cape] and Beaufort West [in Western Cape]), but the northern end of the powerline corridor starts

about 3.6 km away from the R381. In the far south the corridor crosses the N1 and passes to the south of

Beaufort West.

4.2. Site description

The powerline corridor is about 100 km long and varies in width. From the wind farm area in the north it runs

over undulating terrain dominated visually by dolerite hills. Then it loosely follows a river valley and a relatively

flat plain before once more entering an area of undulating dolerite hills. It then approaches and descends the

escarpment before turning towards the southwest along flat terrain at the base of the escarpment towards

Beaufort West.

The corridor is located on land varying in elevation from about 850 m above mean sea level (amsl) in the far

south to about 1800 m just north of the escarpment. It is generally very hilly and rocky, although the majority

of the rocks (especially the shales and dolerite) do not form cliffs but break into pieces through erosion and


weathering. The exception to this is are the bands of sandstone that occur in places and are more resistant to

weathering. These create low cliffs in the order to 1 to 5 m high and sometimes result in the formation of rock

shelters. There are many stream beds in the study area, some of which are quite substantial. Vegetation tends

to be relatively sparse due variably to the elevation and exposure, limited rainfall and the often very rocky

substrates. Some of the rivers have sandy terraces in places and these often host slightly denser vegetation.

Figures 6 to 13 provide a series of views across the study area to show its general character, as well as some

specific aspects and features of the environment. Note that Figures 11 and 12 were taken outside the corridor

(it was shifted eastwards after the screening phase) but still show the general nature of the study area.

Figure 6: View towards the southwest along a small escarpment within the northern part of the powerline corridor. This is also within

the wind farm study area.

Figure 7: A river in the northern part of the corridor as seen from the DR02317.


Figure 8: View towards the northwest across the flat plain in the northern part of the corridor.

Figure 9: View towards the northwest along the DR02311 in a river valley about 10 km north of the escarpment. This is right on the

eastern edge of the corridor.

Figure 10: View towards the southwest from above the escarpment.


Figure 11: View towards the southeast off the edge of the escarpment in the eastern part of the corridor.

Figure 12: View towards the northeast along the DR02311 with the escarpment to the left. The corridor has been shifted eastwards

and would cross this road in the far distance.

Figure 13: View towards the southwest (and towards Beaufort West) along the DR02311 at the foot of the escarpment. The escarpment

lies out of view to the right. The corridor has been shifted eastwards and would cross this road behind the viewer.


Figure14: View towards the west towards the Dröerivier Substation and showing the many powerlines that connect to this substation.

Source: Orton (2011: fig. 7).

5. FINDINGS OF THE HERITAGE STUDY

This section contains a brief summary of the heritage resources located on site and highlights some of the better

examples. A full listing is presented in Appendix 4 and mapping is provided in Appendix 5. Note that the finds

from this and the neighbouring projects are all listed together. This is because there are no other heritage

records for the northern and central parts of the study area and these neighbouring projects provide an

indication of the type and density of heritage resources that might be expected within the powerline corridor.

There is also much overlap at the northern end of the corridor with the wind farm projects.

5.1. Palaeontology

The SAHRIS Palaeosensitivity map shows that the study area is largely of three different sensitivities. The

igneous rocks (i.e. the dolerite) is of zero sensitivity (grey in Figure 15), while the bedrocks are of very high

sensitivity (red). Surface sediments are of low sensitivity (blue).

Figure 15: Extract from the SAHRIS Palaeosensitivity map showing the study area (yellow polygon) to be of variable low to very high

palaeontological sensitivity (blue and red shading shading). Some areas are of zero sensitivity (grey).

Almond (2020) notes that gridline corridor is underlain by continental sediments of the Teekloof Formation

(Lower Beaufort Group, Karoo Supergroup) of Middle to Late Permian age. They were deposited in a range of

fluvial and shallow lacustrine settings in the main Karoo Basin. The Teekloof beds are assigned to five

stratigraphic subunits (members) of the Teekloof Formation, viz. the Poortjie, Hoedemaker, Oukloof,


Steenkampsvlakte and Javanerskop Members. They are associated with a succession of four or five fossil

assemblage zones (AZs), viz. the Tapinocephalus, Pristerognathus, Tropidostoma, Cistecephalus and

Daptocephalus AZs, that are largely defined on the basis of their distinctive vertebrate faunas.

Dense fossil concentrations of small-bodied dicynodonts (herbivorous “mammal-like reptiles”) are recorded

from riverine exposures of the Poortjie and Hoedemaker Members within the gridline corridor where this

crosses the Nuweveld Wind Farm project area (e.g. on Annex Bultfontein 17, Gert Adriaanskraal (Rocklands)

RE/18). Elsewhere within the corridor, away from main drainage lines, the potentially-fossiliferous mudrocks of

the Teekloof Formation are often poorly-exposed due to extensive cover by Late Caenozoic superficial deposits

(alluvium, colluvium, surfaced gravels, soils, calcretes etc). More resistant-weathering sandstone facies are

usually fossil-poor, although locally abundant bone fragments and teeth as well as transported woody plant

stems occur within channel breccio-conglomerates of the Poortjie Member. A low palaeontological sensitivity

is associated with low-relief gridline sectors located between the WEF project area and the Nuweveldberge as

well as in the piedmont zone along the foot of the Nuweveld Escarpment. Major dolerite intrusions underlie

more mountainous portions of the corridor, such as the Harpuisberg, Rooiberg and the Nuweveldberge / Great

Escarpment. The dolerites are unfossiliferous while baking and secondary mineralisation of the adjacent

sedimentary country rocks has often compromised fossil preservation.

Despite poor bedrock exposure levels within the majority of the gridline corridor, available databases of Karoo

palaeontology (e.g. Nicolas, 2007) record a high density of vertebrate fossil sites between Beaufort West and

Loxton. It is highly likely that unrecorded, scientifically-valuable vertebrates and other fossil remains (e.g.

petrified wood and other plants, trace fossils such as tetrapod and invertebrate burrows) are widely present

within the gridline corridor, especially in areas with good hillslope and riverine mudrock exposures. These sites

can only be located and documented through further palaeontological fieldwork. Most high-density fossil sites

are likely to occur along drainage lines.

5.2. Archaeology

5.2.1. Desktop study

The broader Karoo region generally contains sparse archaeological traces from the Early (ESA), Middle (MSA)

and Later Stone Ages (LSA). The vast majority of material tends to be what is referred to as background scatter.

This can be defined as “widespread isolated artefacts whose distribution results from either primary or

secondary causes” (Orton 2016:121). In this dry landscape, archaeological sites are known to be focused most

strongly on water sources. These are usually scatters of stone artefacts and possibly ostrich eggshell fragments

and pottery but may also, in exceptional circumstances, include bone and even archaeological deposits. Rare

rock art sites are also expected to occur. These could be painted or engraved and might be part of the ‘fine line’

or geometric tradition’ styles. It is noted, however, that geometric tradition art – thought to have been

produced by the Khoekhoen – is not yet known from the northern part of the study area but has been recorded

along the escarpment to the south (Figure 16) as well as more recently about 100 km to the east (Hart 2016).

Parkington et al. (2008) have documented many engravings in the Karoo region. They do not map their work

but do provide a historical map of engraving distribution which shows the densest concentration being to the

northeast around the Kimberley region. An interesting aspect of Karoo archaeology is rock gongs. These are

dolerite rocks that are naturally perched in such a way that when struck they release a ringing musical note.

The gongs are identified by heavily worked patches where they have been repeatedly struck. Parkington et al.

(2008) have studied a number of gongs from Nelspoort and Vosburg, some 27 km to the east and 135 km to the

north-north east of the powerline corridor respectively. There are many engravings at Nelspoort (Orton,

personal observation 2010).


Figure 16: Extract from a map showing the distribution of geometric tradition rock art. Source: Smith & Ouzman (2005: fig. 9). The

present study area is in the red circle with Hart’s (2016) observation being just to the east.

No previous impact assessments have been carried out in close proximity to the northern part of the powerline

corridor but a few other studies from further afield can be cited. A fairly major area of recent study is the

Komsberg Renewable Energy Development Zone (REDZ) which is located some 150 km southwest of the present

study area. Like the present study area, it encompasses the escarpment as well as land just south and just north

of it; the environments are, therefore, physiologically similar to the present study area. Van der Walt (2016)

found an area just above the escarpment there to have very few stone artefacts but a rock shelter with fineline

paintings was recorded at the head of a river valley leading off the escarpment. Hart (2015), working just south

of the escarpment edge, noted in his study that precolonial remains were entirely absent and cited the lack of

suitable stone for artefact manufacture as the main reason. Orton (2017) working both above and below the

escarpment (north and east of Hart’s (2015) study area) also noted a remarkable paucity of Stone Age materials

but did record a very impressive precolonial kraal complex on high ground above the escarpment (with minimal

associated LSA materials) and one small geometric tradition rock painting at the base of the escarpment closer

to Merweville. Webley and Hart (2010) examined a site to the east of Loxton and located just two flakes that

they considered to be of MSA origin. Some 70 km northeast of the present study area, Halkett and Webley

(2011) noted fairly widespread background scatter artefacts all of which they attributed to the MSA. About

100 km east of the present study area, Hart (2016) recorded many rock art sites, the majority of which were

engravings of varying age. He also found an exceptional painted site that was layered with paintings of various

ages. Unusually, this site also included engravings on its walls. Hart (2016) noted that the distribution of

engravings did not match that of other aspects of archaeology (including painted sites) which were all focused

along water courses. Other Stone Age traces were rare and generally limited to artefact scatters close to rivers.

Historical archaeological resources, too, are little known from above the escarpment but some inference can

be made from studies carried out further afield. At the southern end of the Nuweveld Mountains, in the KNP,

Kaplan (2005, 2006, 2007) recorded several small ruined stone structures which were said to be kraals, a

homestead and shepherd’s huts. One of them had a small scatter of late 19th to early 20th century historical

artefacts associated with it. A stone-built lime kiln and some animal traps are also on record (SANParks 2017).

Other stone walled ruins are known from the KNP and, according to Anonymous (2016) some were demolished

in order to reuse the stone to build the Klipspringer Pass. This pass was built from 1986 to 1992 (Goetze 1993).

To the west, in the Komsberg REDZ, Hart (2015) found the remains of stone ruins to be very common. He

attributed these to the Trekboers who colonised the area in the 18th and 19th centuries. He noted kraals,


stockposts and occasional farmsteads. Also in that area, Van der Walt (2016) found very few ruins but some

were the remains of Anglo-Boer War fortifications. Not far to the east, Orton (2017) recorded several stone-

built ruined structures above the escarpment and also two small ruined farm complexes at the foot of the

escarpment.

These early packed stone structures are invariably collapsed reducing them to archaeological sites in terms of

the NHRA definitions. While some with taller walls may have had a formal or informal and/or temporary roof

over them, others may have been hartebeeshuise with A-frame-type roofs made of branches and reeds placed

above low stone or mud walls. Governor van Plettenberg, during his travels east to inspect the Colony, noted

near the Sneeuwberg Mountains that the houses of the colonists consisted only of one room structures with

low walls and straw roofs (Theal 1896-1911 cited in Böeseken 1975). In 1811 William Burchell illustrated a

trekboer farmhouse (Van Zyl 1975), while Schoeman (2013) shows an image of such a historical stone dwelling

still in use in the early 20th century (Figures 17 & 18).

Figure 17: Drawing of an early 19th century trekboer farmhouse by William Burchell. Source: Van Zyl (1975:103)

Figure 18: A shepherd’s hut photographed near Beaufort West in the early 20th century. Note the low, narrow doorway. Source:

Schoeman (2013:48).

Several surveys have been carried out below the escarpment around Beaufort West though. Because of the

generally eroding nature of the substrate, Stone Age materials are often found in secondary context or as

background scatter. Artefacts of varying age and generally low significance have been reported around Beaufort

West by Dreyer (2005), Halkett (2009), Kaplan (2008), Nilssen (2011) and Webley and Lanham (2011), while

Deacon (2007) found MSA and LSA scatters nearer to Three Sisters.

The Karoo has been a highly contested landscape at various times in the past. The Khoekhoen first migrated

into South Africa about 2000 years ago. That they lived in the Karoo in precolonial times is testified to by the


presence of geometric tradition rock art and precolonial kraals, while many historical records of their presence

also exist. The only study to attempt to date the Khoekhoe occupation was by Sampson (2010) in an area about

160 km northeast of the present study area. Through dating potsherds associated with kraals he determined

that the kraals – and by implication herding – dated to between about AD 1000 and AD 1750, shortly before the

arrival of the Trekboers. Sampson (2010:847) suggests that there would have been tension between the

indigenous San and the incoming Khoekhoen but considers that their interactions resulted in “a millennium of

(probably uneasy) space-sharing with the locals.”

5.2.2. Site visit

A range of archaeological resources was found. Stone Age material tends to be rare but when present can have

quite high significance. Only occasional isolated artefacts dating to the Pleistocene (i.e. MSA) were seen but LSA

artefacts, always concentrated into scatters were also rarely seen. None of the latter were of much significance

in the powerline corridor. Figure 19 shows an example that included some artefacts in hornfels and

sandstone/quartzite as well as two fragments of pottery and a piece of ostrich eggshell. As expected, it was

located alongside a stream bed.

Figure 19: LSA stone artefacts, pottery and an ostrich eggshell fragment from Waypoint 1703. Scale in cm.

Of more importance are rock art sites. Although some paintings were seen in the wind farm study area (to be

reported separately), none have yet been found in the powerline corridor. Two engravings have, however, been

found. They were very close to one another but yet completely different in age and subject matter. One was a

scraped eland engraving (Figure 20) located on a smooth, flat bounder on the edge of a dolerite plateaux. Figure

6 shows the location with the engraving located at the figures seen standing on the skyline. This engraving is

undoubtedly from the LSA. The second engraving was a pair of scratched images which were very faint and not

discernible. They were located in a similar location to the scraped eland but 140 m to the northeast and on the

other side of a small watercourse. The style suggests that they are quite recent, probably historical.


Figure 20: Scraped eland engraving at Waypoint 1437.

Historical archaeology was very commonly encountered with many ruined stone structures seen. The examples

described and illustrated here come from three old farm complexes. The first is a very dispersed complex and

is located in the northern end of the powerline corridor. It consists of a number of stone-built structures and

related features. Figure 21 shows a small house ruin and Figure 22 some associated artefacts – there were very

few artefacts at this ruin. The artefacts included a fragment of typical late 19th century transfer printed refined

white earthenware. Figures 23 and 24 show two other ruined structures of indeterminate function that are

located 210 and 260 m southeast of the house ruin. Two stone kraals were located to the south of the house

ruin. One was 150 m away and associated with a small rock shelter that contained LSA materials. Being a rather

ephemeral kraal it may well date to the LSA. The other was more obviously historical and lay some 410 m south

of the house ruin (Figure 25).

Figure 21: A stone-walled house ruin at Waypoint 1387.


Figure 22: Ceramic, glass and metal artefacts from

Waypoint 1387.

Figure 23: A stone-walled ruin at Waypoint 035.

Figure 24: A stone-walled ruin at Waypoint 036. Figure 25: A stone kraal at Waypoint 1389.

The second farm complex was probably the most significant one seen in the entire survey. It was very large and,

according to a retired farm labourer still living in the area, was still in use until the 1950s. His grandfather had

lived there. He noted that one of the structures was a shop that supplied the region. A few kraals were present

with Figures 26 and 27 showing an example that was built up against a south-facing rock outcrop. A livestock

dip with associated enclosures was also present (Figures 28 & 29). The most visually impressive structure is a

large northeast-facing house (19 m by 11 m) built with three different materials (Figures 30 to 32). It has stone,

sun-dried mud bricks and fired clay bricks in its walls. Various additions have been made to the structure over

the years. A widespread scatter of glass and ceramics occurs on the rocky ground surface around this ruin

(Figure 33). A long terrace-like wall runs along the side of the river valley in front of this house. The wall supports

the access road into the farm complex. Towards the east another wall protrudes at 90 degrees and runs down

the slope towards the river. The west face of this wall has a number of small built-in cavities (like muurkaste).

Their function is unknown since the wall does not appear to be part of a building (Figure 34). To the south of

this is another long building (20 m by 7 m). It too was built of a mixture of stone, sun-dried mud bricks and fired

clay bricks (Figures 35 & 36). Its long axis runs north south and entrances in the northern and southern walls

were larger than normal, perhaps indicating the structure to have been a barn. The southern entrance, however,

was later reduced to the size of a normal door by extending both the stonework and the brickwork. In Figure

36 the two different types of bricks are evident – the sun-dried mud bricks have started washing away leaving

spaces between the harder and far better-preserved fired clay bricks.


Figure 26: The entrance to a stone-walled kraal at Waypoint

1976.

Figure 27: A side wall of the kraal at Waypoint 1976.

Figure 28: Stone walling associated with a livestock dip at

Waypoint 1986.

Figure 29: View into the livestock dip at Waypoint 1986. It has

become invaded by poplar trees.

Figure 30: A structure built of stone, sun-dried mud bricks and fired clay bricks at Waypoint 1993.


Figure 31: Interior of the front wall of the house at Waypoint

1993. The front door is at the left edge of this photograph.

Figure 32: Interior of the front wall of the house at Waypoint

1993. The front door is at the right edge of this photograph.

Figure 33: Artefacts at Waypoint 1992 and associated with the

house at Waypoint 1993.

Figure 34: The stone wall at Waypoint 1994 with built-in cavities

on its north-western face.

Figure 35: View of the east-facing structure at Waypoint 2000. Figure 36: Detail of the walling at Waypoint 2000 showing stone,

fired clay bricks and sun-dried mud bricks.


A small south-facing rock shelter was found to have some low walling in it (Figure 37). The walling is almost

certainly related to the main farm complex, but it could also be older. Some small patches/motifs of thick, black

pigment were found on a vertical wall in the west side of the shelter (Figure 38). What the motifs mean is

unknown but they are somewhat reminiscent of the black-painted motifs at Kangnas, east of Springbok (Orton

2013).

Figure 37: The small rock shelter at Waypoint 1984 with low

stone walling in it and black pigment on one wall.

Figure 38: Black pigment on the wall of the rock shelter at

Waypoint 1984.

The third example is far less well-preserved than the other two and is located just above the edge of the

escarpment in the southern part of the powerline corridor. It follows a particular pattern which, to the present

author’s knowledge, is seen only in the Karoo. It consists of a walled valley (Figures 39 & 40) with structures and

enclosures built either against the wall or very close to it. The entire length of the wall was about 700 m with

the area enclosed being about 2.6 ha. Most associated enclosures were built along the south-western wall, both

inside and outside of it, but a large kraal was built a short distance up the slope, also to the southwest of the

main valley wall (Figures 39 & 41).

Figure 39: Aerial view of the stone-walled valley at Waypoint 1930. A large kraal (at Waypoint 1936) is visible to the west. Source:

CapeFarmMapper.


Figure 40: View towards the northwest up the valley with an enclosing stone wall at Waypoint 1930.

Figure 41: View towards the northeast across the stone kraal at Waypoint 1936 and looking towards the enclosed valley in the

background. The river valley runs off the edge of the escarpment at the red arrow.

Some stone features and structures were found in isolated positions. These included some long stone walls at

the top of the escarpment, one of which was 360 m long and placed right at the edge of the escarpment

(Figure 42). Another was about 1.3 km long. Figure 43 shows an example of a small stone-walled structure

located on its own. It was probably a shepherd’s hut and would have had a temporary roof structure of sticks

and vegetation or mats.

Figure 42: A long stone wall placed right at the edge of the

escarpment at Waypoint 1927.

Figure 43: An isolated small stone-walled structure, probably a

shepherd’s hut, at Waypoint 1929.


5.3. Graves

A stone-walled graveyard was found associated with the second farm complex described above. Its entrance

faces east. There are eight east-facing graves marked only by stone mounds and unmarked headstones in the

western part of the graveyard (Figure 45), while a single west-facing grave lies just inside the entrance. A further

twelve similar graves lie outside the western wall of the graveyard. About 300 m to the west (upstream) and on

the opposite side of the river, there was a line of eight graves on the river terrace. Like those just described,

they were identified by stone-packed mounds and small unmarked headstones. They were very overgrown with

bush though. A single grave at Waypoint 1429 was also associated with a farm complex. There is always a small

chance of finding unmarked precolonial graves, especially in river terraces which can be excavated by hand.

Figure 44: View towards the northeast of the stone-walled

graveyard at Waypoint 1987.

Figure 45: Looking southwest at the graves in the graveyard at

Waypoint 1987.

5.4. Historical aspects and the built environment

5.4.1. Desktop study

For various reasons including changes to the structure of the Cape Colony, and the desire to seek new grazing

and independence from Dutch East India Company (VoC) rule, farmers started to leave the Cape Colony during

the early 18th century. This process ultimately had its beginnings with the creation of a class of farmers referred

to as free burghers who moved into the region surrounding Cape Town (e.g. Wellington, Paarl, Stellenbosch and

Franschhoek). Willem Adriaan van der Stel, governor of the Colony from 1699 to 1707, abused his power as

governor by favouring his own farming activities when supplying ships with food, thereby making the free

burgher farmers unhappy. The Colonists were also initially not allowed to trade with the Khoekhoen but this

rule was changed in February 1700. Around this time Van der Stel gave grazing licences further from the Colony

in order to increase pastoral production (Penn 20051). These factors were the ultimate start of Colonial

expansion after the Colony had remained confined to the Cape Town area for the first several decades and in

fact perpetuated it during the following decades.

The colonists soon realised that the best way to survive in the relatively arid interior was to be as close to the

year-round rainfall zone as possible. This allowed for seasonal movement into the summer rainfall region to the

1Note that this section on the 18th century trekboers of the Nuweveld and the San and Khoekhoe resistance is based on the

extensive archival and historical research of Nigel Penn (2005) and that his many secondary sources have not been individually cited

here.


northeast or the winter rainfall region to the southwest. In this way they could maximise the availability of water

and grazing for their livestock. The mountains lying within this zone – essentially the escarpment edge – were

also better watered due to their elevated rainfall and more frequent permanent springs. Between about 1740

and 1770 there was a rapid expansion into this zone which extended from the Kamiesberg of Namaqualand,

through the Onder Bokkeveld and the Hantam, to the Roggeveld Mountains, but possibly not yet all the way to

the far northern end of the powerline corridor (Figure 46). This, then, along with the Nuweveld2 Mountains just

east of the Roggeveld constituted the mid-18th century northern frontier zone. The Nuweveld saw 75 farms

being granted in this 30 year period (Penn 2005). According to Botha (1926), the Nuweveld was so named

because it was a new area to be colonised. Note also that the limits of the area under discussion are unknown.

It seems likely, though, that it did not extend very much beyond (north of) the crest of the escarpment. Walker

(1928) maps the 1798 colonial boundary as being just north of the crest of the escarpment (Figure 47).

Figure 46: Map showing the mid-18th century trekboer expansion in the Karoo. Source: Botha (1926: opposite preface). The wind farm

study area is indicated by the red circle.

The Nuweveld Mountains were actually within the summer rainfall area which made occupation slightly more

tenuous because trekking west into the winter rainfall Roggeveld Mountains meant moving into areas already

occupied by other trekboers. The Nuweveld area was thus never properly occupied by colonists during the 18th

century with the local San and Khoekhoen frequently stealing livestock from the colonists. A series of robberies

in December 1775 and January 1776 in the Camdeboo and Swartruggens areas (some 200 km southeast of the

present study area) resulted in a vicious commando being led against the San and Khoekhoen. Forty-five people

were killed and thirty-six prisoners taken by the commando. This attack resulted in the passing of a resolution

by the landdrost that no further commandos be undertaken without his express permission. Soon afterwards,

many hostile San and Khoekhoen began assembling in the Koup, Sak River and Nuweveld areas, protecting

themselves in fortified rock shelters. Although a request was made to mount a commando, the Nuweveld

farmers could not await the outcome but found their small commando to be too weak to make any impact. A

2 Note that the earlier spelling of Nuweveld is Nieuweveld (as used by Penn [2005]) but the modern version is used here.


commando from the Sneeuwberg came to their assistance and the two together killed 111 San and Khoekhoen.

Despite this success, many farmers vacated the Nuweveld area (Penn 2005).

Figure 47: Map showing the extent of the Cape Colony by 1798. Source: Walker (1928:201). The wind farm study area is indicated by

the red circle.

In July of 1779 a group of twelve farmers decided to risk moving back into the Nuweveld area. The result was

an increased intensity of San raids and commando activity that resulted in many deaths. This fighting continued

and by September 1781 the farmers had too few cattle left to be able to sell to the VoC butchers. Commando

activity also ceased because of a shortage of ammunition. By 1786 drought and San resistance resulted in the

colonists once again vacating the Nuweveld and leaving it almost completely free of trekboers until 1793 (Penn

2005).

In June 1792 a large group of about 300 people – described as San by the colonists – attacked the Van Reenen

brothers (who had the contract to deliver livestock to Cape Town) and stole about 600 sheep and 253 cattle.

This act finally prompted the Government to take more serious action and two very well organised commandos

were raised under the direction of two proven local leaders (N. Smit & J. van der Walt) and sent to the Nuweveld

region where they killed more than 500 San. Owing to the lack of surface water, the area was still seen as

marginal and could not support sufficient farmers to withstand or expel the San and/or Khoekhoen. In 1793 Van

der Walt was permitted to move into the Nuweveld and was given two farms rent-free and the power to send

out commandos as he saw fit (Penn 2005).

By the time the British took control of the Cape, the trekboers “had already acquired the characteristics of an

embryo nation” (Van Zyl 1975:125). This was because the VoC had largely left them to look after themselves

which resulted in them becoming quite independent of the Company and its rather weak rule. Due to various

changes implemented under British rule, a growing unease developed amongst the colonists and this eventually

led to a large-scale migration of farmers further north and east, beyond the borders of the Colony; this was the

so-called ‘Great Trek’ of 1834 to 18543 (Muller 1975). Walker (1928), however, comments that this event could

actually be seen merely as an acceleration of a process that had long been underway. The Cape Colony

meanwhile expanded as shown in Figure 48 with the study area fully incorporated by 1825.

3 Authors vary on the dates ascribed to this event with Walker (1928) giving dates of 1835 to 1848.


Figure 48: Map showing the expanding boundaries of the Cape Colony under British Rule. Source: Van Zyl (1975:102). The wind farm

study area is indicated by the red circle.

There appears to have been limited action in the Nuweveld area during the Second South African War (Anglo-

Boer War). Lieutenant-Colonel EMS Crabbe made use of a farm called Waterval along the R381 and just north

of the crest of the escarpment. On 5th February 1902 he moved west to join Major H.W.G. Crofton at

Uitspannen but found that Crofton had been killed by the Boers and his force captured (Watt 2013). This action

occurred west of the R381. Beaufort West did not feature prominently in the war but the railway was, of course,

an important feature relied on heavily by the British for moving supplies around.

Historical buildings occur widely across the Karoo with most dating to the 19th century. Orton et al. (2016:15-8)

noted the following:

In the harsh, resource-scarce Karoo environment with its restricted range of materials, necessity often was the mother of

invention when it came to constructing shelter, resulting in a unique regional vernacular building tradition that displays the

creative and technical achievement required to fashion an existence there. This relied on both traditional and conventional

artisanal skills since buildings were hand-crafted from sun-baked bricks, locally occurring timber and quarried or collected

stone. The result was a variety of local styles that we refer to collectively as Karoo vernacular.”

This varied architecture is evident not only in the towns but also in remote areas. Two building traditions are

unique to the Karoo. Corbelled buildings, which occur to the north and west of the present study area and date

between about 1813 and 1870, evolved from the need to build roofs without wooden beams (Kramer 2012).

Isolated examples are mapped in the Karoo National Park and just to the southwest of the northern end of the

corridor, but none are known from within it. The second tradition is known as Karoostyle and has been

described by Marincowitz (2006). These buildings are typically simple rectangular structures with flat roofs and

parapets. Flat roofs were often of the type referred to as ‘brakdak’ which consists of beams overlaid by sticks,

reeds and then mud mixed with other materials such as manure or vegetation (Fagan 2008).

In rural areas buildings tend to be clustered into farm complexes with relatively few isolated structures. The

complexes can include a variety of styles, while isolated structures are often small Karoostyle labourer’s

cottages. Due to the consolidation of farms into larger holdings in order to increase commercial viability, there

are fewer farmsteads present today than would have been present in the past.


The Molteno Pass, which lies along the R381 between Beaufort West and Loxton, was built by Thomas Bain

from 1875 to 1880. Another section through a steep valley – also built by Bain – is referred to as the Roseberg

Pass. The route is known to have been in use since 1830 when it was just a path. In 1837 local farmers improved

the route to allow for the passage of wagons (Willis 1994 cited in Ross 2013). Storrar and Konick (1984) suggests

that the entire route was originally called Rose’s Berg Pass. The R381 has had a number of sections realigned

during modern upgrades but the steepest section through the Molteno Pass is almost unchanged – just one

obvious short realignment is evident there. De Jager’s Pass lies along the DR02311 about 46 km southeast of

the study area. It too was built by Thomas Bain with completion in 1880 and was known as Wagenaar’s Kloof

until 1899 when it was reconstructed and renamed. It had its origins in an early wagon track into the interior,

also dating back to about 1830 (Ross 2013). Aerial photography also suggests a few sections to have been

realigned over the years.

The town of Beaufort West has a history going back just over 200 years. It was established on the farm

Hooivlakte (originally granted in 1760) in 1818 as a sub-drosty of Graaff-Reinett. The main reason for the

establishment of the town was an attempt to curb the lawlessness in the vicinity of the ill-defined northern

boundary of the Cape Colony. The original streets were on a narrow strip of land between the Gamka River in

the west and the Kuils River in the east (Fransen 2004). It was originally named Beaufort, but the ‘West’ was

added later to avoid confusion with Fort Beaufort and Port Beaufort. The Dutch Reformed Church (DRC) in the

town was established in 1825 under Reverend Colin Fraser. The Parish was vast and included mostly trek boers

moving in and out of the area (Frandsen 2018). The first church of 1826 was replaced by the present one in

1891 (Fransen 2004). Beaufort West became the first municipality in South Africa, having been established on

3rd February 1837 (Frandsen 2018). With the railway from the Cape reaching the town in 1880, it became an

important railway marshalling yard and locomotive depot, especially once the railways had been extended to

the diamond fields of Kimberley and the gold mines at Johannesburg (Bulpin 2001; Frandsen 2018). A number

of important historical buildings occur in Beaufort West (Fransen 2004) but unfortunately, due to the regular

addition of modern structures in between them, significant streetscapes are uncommon.

From the late 18th century onwards many Xhosa moved into the Karoo. This was partly as a result of the Eastern

Cape Frontier Wars but was accelerated after the 1856-57 cattle killing that occurred as a result of a prophecy

(see Frandsen 2018 for further details) and resulted in the subsequent death (through starvation) of some

40 000 people. The people were migrating in a search for employment and food.

5.4.2. Site visit

The main historical features of the study area are buildings. While some farmsteads do fall within the corridor,

the powerline would be routed to avoid them for visual reasons and it is thus isolated, and often now

uninhabited, structures that are of far greater concern. Nevertheless, some significant structures occur in the

farmsteads with Figures 49 to 51 showing examples. In general, there are very few standing structures in the

broader area located away from farm complexes. Such structures were only seen in one place, but this was in

fact an old farm complex (Modderfontein) located just above the edge of the escarpment that has long since

been abandoned (Figures 52 to 55). However, some use has been made of the structures in recent years with

one having been added to and renovated (Figure 54). This complex also has a number of archaeological features

which suggests it was in use for a long time before its eventual abandonment, probably due to being bought by

a farmer who resided elsewhere. Interestingly, that a stone kraal had been in relatively recent use was

demonstrated by wire fencing and a gate added to its entrance to facilitate the corralling of livestock (Figure

55).


Figure 49: Structure in the Leeukloof Farm complex at Waypoint 1850. Figure 50: Structure in the Leeukloof Farm complex at

Waypoint 1850

Figure 51: An unusual double story structure in the Booiskraal Farm complex at Waypoint 1794

Figure 52: A structure at Waypoint 1956 that was probably a humble

farm house at some point.

Figure 53: Interior of the house at Waypoint 1956.


Figure 54: An old stone structure at Waypoint 1959 that was raised with

low-fired clay bricks and turned into a Karoostyle cottage and then far

more recently extended through the addition of a fireplace.

Figure 55: An old circular stone kraal that has been

recently used at Waypoint 1961. A recent wire enclosure

and gate lie at the far side.

Another aspect of built heritage is the mountain passes. De Jager’s Pass, although not falling within the actual

corridor, is only about 2.5 km east of its eastern edge and users of the pass would likely be able to see the

powerline. It is likely, however, that the powerline will cross the escarpment more than 7 km away from the

pass.

Figure 56: Looking northeast along the De Jager’s Pass at a

characteristic stone retaining wall. Recent repairs in the

background feature concrete railway sleepers.

Figure 57: The view towards the southwest from near the top of

De Jager’s Pass. Beaufort West lies in the distance some 35 km

away.

5.5. Cultural landscape

Cultural landscapes are the product of the interactions between humans and nature in a particular area. Sauer

(1925) defined them thus: “The cultural landscape is fashioned from a natural landscape by a cultural group.

Culture is the agent, the natural area is the medium, the cultural landscape the result”. There are four aspects

that require discussion here.

The oldest is the landscape inhabited for thousands of years by the indigenous Bushmen hunter-gatherers and

more recent Khoekhoe herders who left little trace of their passing but did mark the landscape with engravings,

paintings and rock gongs (these aspects of the archaeological landscape have been discussed in Section 5.2

above). This precolonial archaeological landscape is essentially a natural or primeval landscape because it has

experienced so little human modification.


The second aspect is the Trekboer landscape which includes somewhat more permanent traces in the form of

stone-built residential and farming structures (now in ruin) along with related features like threshing floors and

graves. This is again essentially an archaeological cultural landscape with the features having been discussed

above. These early farmers also fitted into the natural landscape but created small enclaves of “domesticated

space” where they chose to place their farm complexes. The earliest trekboers probably left very little trace at

all since they would have lived in their ox wagons before eventually settling down and building the stone

structures that characterise this aspect of the cultural landscape. Some farm complexes in the region are

marked by the presence of small forests of grey poplar (Populus x canescens). These fast-growing trees were

grown for their branches which were used for poles in construction.

The third aspect is the modern cultural landscape of livestock and game farming. This landscape is comprised

of widely spaced farm complexes, and a network of farm fences and tracks. The farm complexes are generally

marked by the presence of many trees (Figure 58). Wind pumps are still in use but some farmers are, for

convenience, replacing them with solar pumps. Small areas of arable land are usually associated with each farm

complex. These are situated along rivers where the alluvial sand is easier to till. These lands are visible in Figure

58 and also in Figure 59 which shows some of the fields associated with the now abandoned Modderfontein

farmstead just above the escarpment. There were even a number of very large and untended fruit trees present

in one area.

Figure 58: 1959 (Job 434, strip016, photograph 6256) and modern (Google Earth with Bing overlay) aerial photographs of the

Booiskraal farm complex. The complex is visually dominated by trees and has seen very little change over 60 years.

Figure 59: View of the old agricultural fields at the abandoned Modderfontein Farm. The farm structures are in the distance at far

right.


The fourth aspect is those parts of the landscape that have high visual sensitivity. These are both natural and

cultural landscapes and include the escarpment edge, KNP and mountain passes of the area. The escarpment is

a highly significant landscape feature in South Africa with part of it being protected within the KNP. The

Nuweveld Mountains have been rated as having provincial significance by Winter and Oberholzer (2013), a

rating that is well justified. The escarpment offers some spectacular views, although many are not publicly

accessible (e.g. Figure 60). Their scenic splendour is appreciated both from the N1 highway that passes them on

the plains to the south (Figure 61) as well as from the various mountain passes that lead to the Upper Karoo to

the north. Because of its National Park status, views within the KNP are also considered significant. It is noted

that the KNP extends virtually to the north-western edge of the urban area of Beaufort West. This area is

characterised by modern affordable housing, modern and historical quarrying, and the town golf course. The

Molteno and Roseberg Passes (R381) are too far away from the proposed corridor to be relevant but De Jager’s

Pass (DR02311) is of concern as it has direct line of sight to part of the power line corridor, including where it

crosses the escarpment. Winter and Oberholzer (2013) have rated the R381 as being a locally significant route

but this significance can certainly be extended to the De Jager’s Pass road as well, since it too is scenic and

shares a similar history, although it is a far less used road.

Part of all the above is the relatively undisturbed wilderness atmosphere that pervades the region in all

directions once one is away from Beaufort West. Driving its public roads, in this case the R381, DR02317 and

DR02311 and N1, leaves one marvelling at the tremendous sense of wide open space and, away from the hills

of the escarpment, the endless Karoo plains.

Figure 60: View towards the east into a canyon on the edge of the escarpment. This is an example of a view that is not publicly

accessible and was seen near the abandoned Modderfontein Farm complex.


Figure 61: View towards the north from the approximate point where the centre of the powerline corridor crosses the N1. The corridor

crosses the escarpment approximately between the two red arrows. De Jager’s Pass is approximately below the green arrow. Source:

Google Earth Street View.

5.6. Visual impact assessment

The visual impact assessment was prepared for this project by Lawson and Oberholzer (2020). It appears in Appendix 7 of

the present report. It lists a variety of resources that are sensitive to visual intrusion. These include topographic features,

water features, cultural landscapes, protected areas, game and nature reserves, human settlements, scenic routes and

arterial roads and specific visually sensitive heritage sites.

The viewshed prepared for the project (Figures 62-64) shows that the grid line could be quite widely visible in the

landscape up to about 5 km away but that in places topography severely restricts the sightlines (Lawson & Oberholzer

2020: maps 13-15). Note that separate viewsheds were prepared for the 400 kV and 132 k powerlines but that because

they are so similar only the 400 kV one has been presented here. It should also be noted that although a corridor is being

assessed for authorisation purposes, the visual consultants used the currently favoured alignment within the corridor in

the preparation of their maps and illustrations.

The generally high degree of intactness of the Karoo landscape is noted, but in the area around Beaufort West there has

been a significant intrusion of visual clutter originating from industrial activity, the railway line, Droërivier Substation and

the many existing powerlines. The VIA identifies the escarpment edge along the Oshoekberg as the main topographic

feature in the grid corridor. When all factors that contribute to visual impact intensity are considered, Lawson and

Oberholzer (2020: table 7) find that the powerlines would have a medium intensity impact in the case of the 132 kV pylons

and medium-high intensity impact in the case of the 400 kV pylons. The associated switching stations would have a

medium-low intensity impact.

A number of photomontages have been prepared showing the appearance of the proposed powerline in the landscape.

It will vary from quite prominently visible to very marginally visible on distant skylines. The southern area around Beaufort

West naturally has a higher degree of visibility because there are many roads in or close to the powerline corridor and

viewers would at times find themselves in close proximity to the powerlines. From a heritage point of view, the

escarpment is the key landscape element of concern. Two photomontages of the escarpment area are shown in Figures

65 and 66 but more images showing other parts of the landscape can be consulted in Lawson and Oberholzer (2020:

figures 3-9).

Lawson and Oberholzer (2020: fig. 2) also provide a comparative view of pylons at various distances. These views make it

clear that the pylons would be very small in the distance and would likely merge with surrounding landscape features.


Importantly, the escarpment crossing point is far enough from most public viewpoints that the pylons would probably not

be readily noticeable.

Figure 1: Viewshed of the northern section of the Nuweveld grid corridor using 132 kV pylons between the wind farm substations and

400 kV pylons for the rest of the line. The wind farm sites are shaded in light blue and do not form part of this study. Source: Lawson

and Oberholzer (2020: map 13).


Figure 2: Viewshed of the central section of the Nuweveld grid corridor using 400 kV pylons. The escarpment edge is visible in the

southern part of the map. Source: Lawson and Oberholzer (2020: map 14).


Figure 3: Viewshed of the southern section of the Nuweveld grid corridor using 400 kV pylons. The escarpment edge is visible in the

northern part of the map and the KNP to the northwest. Source: Lawson and Oberholzer (2020: map 15).

Figure 4: Viewpoint panorama from the mid-slopes of De Jager’s Pass to the northeast of the point where the powerline would cross

the escarpment edge. The powerline is located 7.8 km to 8.0 km away and the escarpment crossing is screened by a nearer section of

mountain. Source: Lawson & Oberholzer (2020: fig. 6).


Figure 5: Photomontage from the De Jager’s Pass road to the southeast of the point at which the powerline would cross the escarpment

edge. The powerline is located 2.4 km away to the left side in this view, while the escarpment crossing is 5.2 km away and openly

visible from this point. Source: Lawson & Oberholzer (2020: fig. 6).

Figure 6: Schematic image showing the appearance of powerlines and pylons at distance. Source: Lawson & Oberholzer (2020: fig. 2).

5.7. Statement of significance and provisional grading

Section 38(3)(b) of the NHRA requires an assessment of the significance of all heritage resources. In terms of

Section 2(vi), ‘‘cultural significance’’ means aesthetic, architectural, historical, scientific, social, spiritual,

linguistic or technological value or significance. The reasons that a place may have cultural significance are

outlined Section 3(3) of the NHRA (see Section 2 above).


The palaeontological resources are deemed to have high cultural significance for their scientific value, although

it is noted that this significance rating applies to certain parts of the corridor only with the rest being of low or

medium significance. Areas crossing the dolerite are of zero significance. The most important palaeontological

resources of the study area are considered to be Grade IIIA resources.

Archaeological resources are also highly variable in their cultural significance. The most important sites are

considered to have high local significance for their scientific and social values and are assigned Grade IIIA. The

vast majority of archaeological resources, however, are of low significance (IIIC or NCW).

Graves are deemed to have high cultural significance for their social value and are accorded Grade IIIA.

Outside of Beaufort West there are few structures of high significance. Certainly the most significant would be

no more than Grade IIIA but most are considered IIIC. Within the town of Beaufort West there are structures

up to Grade II, including some declared Provincial Heritage Sites (PHSs), but these would not be impacted by

the current application.

5.8. Summary of heritage indicators

Palaeontological resources are patchily distributed across the study area and will be impacted by the proposed

powerline. Due to their nature (i.e. buried in hard rock), it is accepted that not all fossils can be rescued but a

representative sample should be retained from the study area.

• Indicator: Uncontrolled damage to fossils should be minimised as far as possible.

LSA and particularly historical archaeological sites occur widely across the study area. Such sites, and graves

where they are associated, should be avoided, although it is acceptable that the powerline may need to span

above such sites in order to reduce other impacts. Buffers of at least 30 m from archaeological resources are

desirable for the pylon footings and service track. Historical sites are generally more difficult and/or time-

consuming to mitigate which makes it strongly desirable to avoid direct impacts.

• Indicator: Buffers of at least 30 m should be maintained around archaeological sites as far as possible.

• Indicator: Direct damage to archaeological sites should be avoided as far as possible and, where some

damage to significant sites is unavoidable, scientific/historical data should be rescued.

• Indicator: Direct impacts to graves must be avoided with a 30 m buffer.

Built heritage resources are rare in the study area and it is anticipated that all buildings will be buffered for non-

heritage reasons. Nevertheless, heritage buffers are proposed to assist with planning.

• Indicator: No structures should be directly impacted.

• Indicator: As far as possible, structures of Grade IIIA or IIIB heritage significance should be avoided with

a buffer of at least 200 m, while Grade IIIC structures should be avoided with a 100 m buffer.

The cultural landscape will be impacted and, because of the scale of the proposed development, reducing

impacts is generally difficult. The landscape views from the N1 and De Jager’s Pass as well as from within the

KNP are considered to be the most significant because of their accessibility. Determination of appropriate

buffers can be guided by the visual recommendations that stipulate wider visual buffers to protect the more

visually sensitive parts of the landscape. While the powerline will have to cross the escarpment edge itself, this

must occur in an area of reduced visual prominence.

• Indicator: The powerline, should not dominate significant views.

• Indicator: Avoid ridgelines and scenic valleys.

• Indicator: Service tracks to avoid steep slopes as far as possible.


• Indicator: The powerline should cross the escarpment away from the skylines as seen from significant

viewpoints and scenic routes.

Figures 68 to 71 map the high, medium and low sensitivity buffers in and around the powerline corridor. Note

that full mapping of archaeological heritage resources is presented in Appendix 5, while palaeontological

mapping is contained in the specialist study in Appendix 6. The entire area is regarded as a cultural landscape

of at least low-medium significance, although the Karoo National Park (mapped in green in Figure 64), the

escarpment and the mountain passes are the most important parts.

Figure 7: Aerial view of the powerline corridor (white outline) and substation locations (purple polygons) showing areas of high

(red), medium (orange) and low (yellow) heritage sensitivity. Source: Google earth with Bing overlay.


Figure 8: Aerial view of the powerline corridor (white outline) showing areas of high (red), medium (orange) and low (yellow)

heritage sensitivity. Source: Google earth with Bing overlay.



heritage sensitivity. Note that the KNP (high sensitivity) is mapped in green to distinguish it from the escarpment. Source: Google

earth with Bing overlay.



heritage sensitivity. Note that the KNP (high sensitivity) is mapped in green to distinguish it from the escarpment. Source: Google

earth with Bing overlay.

6. ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS

Based on the project description and baseline the specialist has determined the following key impacts may

arise and should undergo assessment:

• Construction phase

o Palaeontological resources may be damaged or destroyed during all construction-related

activities

o Archaeological resources may be damaged or destroyed during all construction-related

activities

o Graves may be damaged or destroyed during any construction-related activities.

o The rural/natural cultural landscape may be impacted through the addition to it of construction

vehicles and large, industrial-type structures.

• Operation phase

o The rural/natural cultural landscape may be impacted through the addition to it of large,

industrial-type structures.


• Decommissioning phase

o None – as the impacts would have occurred through the construction and operations phases

and decommissioning activities should result in no further impact of heritage resources.

The impact assessment below considers both the 132kV and 400kV powerlines. The impact to heritage would

not differ between the two powerline capacities and therefore, the same significance ratings and mitigation

measures would apply and are presented in consolidated tables in the section below. The main reasons for

this lack of difference are:

• Although the 400 kV pylons are larger, the increased size is offset by their lattice towers that are less

visible from a distance than the a 132 kV monopoles; and

• Although 400 kV pylons have more foundations, they are far smaller than the single foundation

required for a 132 kV monopole.

6.1. Impacts to palaeontological resources

The palaeontological sensitivity of the corridor is highly variable but some areas of high sensitivity have been

located. Almond (2020) notes that many of the known or unrecorded fossil sites will be protected within the

buffer zone along water courses. A full impact assessment is provided in his report but it is noted here that

the significance of impacts before mitigation is considered to be moderate negative while with mitigation they

would reduce to minor negative. Suggested mitigation includes a pre-construction survey of the development

footprint, avoidance of any areas found to be very rich in fossil heritage, monitoring and possibly professional

sampling of fossils from sensitive areas that cannot be avoided. A fossil chance finds procedure must be in

place throughout the construction period.

6.2. Impacts to archaeological resources

Archaeological resources occur widely on the ground surface in the study area and can be easily damaged or

destroyed during construction activities. Even driving over an archaeological site can cause significant damage.

Because of their unique and non-renewable nature, impacts to archaeological resources are permanent (Table

1). Extent and intensity of impacts are guided largely by heritage significance. Overall, the impact significance

before mitigation is likely to be minor (-). Most archaeological sites can be fairly easily mitigated if avoidance is

impossible but for the larger historical sites mitigation can be difficult and in situ protection is strongly advisable.

The final routing will be guided by specialist findings made during the impact assessment and pre-construction

surveys. A pre-construction archaeological survey will thus be required to identify any less obvious sites that

have not yet been found and that might still be impacted. Such sites are likely to be mostly LSA sites which,

generally, are very easily mitigated if required. With mitigation the overall impact significance will be reduced

to negligible (-).

Table 1: Assessment of archaeological impacts. Project phase Construction

Impact Impacts to archaeological resources

Description of impact Archaeological resources may be damaged or destroyed during all construction-related activities.

Mitigatability High Mitigation exists and will considerably reduce the significance of impacts

Potential mitigation • Pre-construction survey of the final powerline and service track alignments and electrical yards.

• Micrositing of pylons and service tracks where needed to minimize impacts to heritage resources.

• Recording and/or sampling of any archaeological sites in the final footprint and that that cannot be

avoided.

• Cordoning off of sensitive sites that can be protected but whose buffers will be intruded upon.

Assessment Without mitigation With mitigation

Nature Negative Negative


Duration Permanent Impact may be permanent, or in excess of

20 years Permanent Impact may be permanent, or in excess of 20

years

Extent Local Extending across the site and to nearby

settlements Limited Limited to the site and its immediate

surroundings

Intensity Low Natural and/ or social functions and/ or

processes are somewhat altered Very low Natural and/ or social functions and/ or processes

are slightly altered

Probability Probable The impact has occurred here or

elsewhere and could therefore occur Rare /

improbable

Conceivable, but only in extreme circumstances,

and/or might occur for this project although this

has rarely been known to result elsewhere

Confidence High Substantive supportive data exists to

verify the assessment High Substantive supportive data exists to verify the

assessment

Reversibility Low The affected environment will not be able

to recover from the impact - permanently

modified

Low The affected environment will not be able to

recover from the impact - permanently modified

Resource

irreplaceability High The resource is irreparably damaged and

is not represented elsewhere High The resource is irreparably damaged and is not

represented elsewhere

Significance Minor - negative Negligible - negative

Comment on

significance Impact significance is rated as minor largely because of the limited extent and low intensity of the impacts.

These were rated that way because the majority of archaeological resources were of low or medium

heritage significance and should be fairly easy to avoid sites through micrositing of pylons and service tracks

which is included in the project design through the application for a corridor.

Cumulative impacts Cumulative impact in the central part of the corridor is likely to be negligible because there is only a 22 kV

powerline present. However, in the far north three proposed wind farms would be constructed, while in the

far south numerous powerlines cross the landscape around Beaufort West. Because significant

archaeological remains are likely to be rare, the cumulative impact of transmission lines in this region is

likely to be Minor (-). Overall the cumulative impact associated with the construction of powerlines is rated

as Minor (-).

Impacts are not expected during the operation and decommissioning phases, since all disturbance would have

already occurred and the ensuing maintenance and decommissioning activities would occur in these same

disturbed areas.

6.3. Impacts to graves

Very few graves were found in the study area which means that the chances of impacts occurring are very

limited. Impacts would be permanent if they happened and, because human remains are involved, the intensity

is considered to be extremely high (Table 2). Because of the local extent and very low likelihood of impacts, the

impact significance is negligible (-). A pre-construction survey will serve to identify any graves that may still be

in the project footprint and with protection or exhumation the impact intensity would reduce but the

significance remains negligible(-).

Table 2: Assessment of impacts to graves. Project phase Construction

Impact Impacts to graves

Description of impact Graves may be damaged or destroyed during any construction-related activities.


Potential mitigation • Pre-construction survey of the final powerline and service track alignments.

• It is always best that graves are avoided and protected.

• In the event of accidental discovery or if a grave cannot be avoided then it is possible to exhume the

grave and remove it to safety. Reburial may or may not be required.



Duration Permanent Impact may be permanent, or in excess of 20

years Permanent Impact may be permanent, or in excess of 20

years

Extent Local Extending across the site and to nearby

settlements Local Extending across the site and to nearby

settlements


Intensity Extremely

high

Natural and/ or social functions and/ or

processes are severely altered Moderate Natural and/ or social functions and/ or

processes are moderately altered

Probability Rare /

improbable

Conceivable, but only in extreme

circumstances, and/or might occur for this

project although this has rarely been known

to result elsewhere

Rare /

improbable

Conceivable, but only in extreme

circumstances, and/or might occur for this

project although this has rarely been known

to result elsewhere

Confidence High Substantive supportive data exists to verify

the assessment High Substantive supportive data exists to verify

the assessment

Reversibility Low The affected environment will not be able to

recover from the impact - permanently

modified

Low The affected environment will not be able to

recover from the impact - permanently

modified

Resource irreplaceability High The resource is irreparably damaged and is

not represented elsewhere High The resource is irreparably damaged and is

not represented elsewhere

Significance Negligible - negative Negligible - negative

Comment on significance Although impacts to graves are of high heritage significance, the very low probability of such impacts

occurring (because of the very small number of graves likely to be present) results in an impact significance

of negligible before mitigation. Rescuing graves reduces the intensity of impacts after mitigation and the

pre-construction survey with the corridor reduces the chances of impacts occurring.

Cumulative impacts Because of the generally very low likelihood of intersecting graves during development, the cumulative

impacts are likely to be of Negligible (-) significance.

Impacts on graves are not expected during the operation and decommissioning phases, since all disturbance

would have already occurred and the ensuing maintenance and decommissioning activities would occur in these

same disturbed areas.

6.4. Impacts to the cultural landscapes

The cultural landscapes of the region are broad and encompass archaeological, contemporary rural and natural

landscapes. The archaeological aspects are included within the assessment of impacts to archaeology (Section

6.2) but the rural and natural landscapes are assessed here. In the broadest sense, the entire study area and all

surrounding land are part of the local cultural landscape. It is impossible to not impact the cultural landscape

when constructing structures such as powerlines, because it is largely the presence of the powerline that causes

the impacts. The impacts will occur during all phases of the development. The specific nature of the landscape,

whether it competes directly with the development and how much landscape scarring would be required (e.g.

from cut-and-fill work) are key in determining the expected intensity of the impacts. In this instance, where the

landscape is almost entirely undisturbed and lacks similar developments, the intensity is rated as moderate and,

because the probability of the impact occurring is definite, the expected impact significance in the construction

phase is moderate (-). There is little that can be done to mitigate the visual intrusion of a powerline and the

construction vehicles in the landscape. At ground level there are various measures that can be taken to reduce

landscape scarring. Altogether, with mitigation, it is expected that the impact significance will remain at the

moderate (-) level. The moderate (-) impact significance is in accord with the rating provided by the visual

specialists for the operation of both types of powerlines (Lawson & Oberholzer 2020: tables 11 & 12).

Table 3: Assessment of impacts to the cultural landscape (construction). Project phase Construction

Impact Impacts to the cultural landscape.

Description of impact The rural/natural cultural landscape may be impacted through the addition to it of construction vehicles and

large, industrial-type structures.

Mitigatability Low Mitigation does not exist; or mitigation will slightly reduce the significance of impacts

Potential mitigation • Avoid exposed ridgelines and scenic valleys, except where the visual consultants have allowed it.

• Minimise overall construction footprint.

• Minimise cut-and-fill, avoid steep slopes for roads and avoid landscape scarring.

• Final routing to be approved by the visual consultants.


• Minimise the duration of the construction period.



Duration Permanent Impact may be permanent, or in excess of

20 years Permanent Impact may be permanent, or in excess of

20 years

Extent Municipal

area

Impacts felt at a municipal level Municipal area Impacts felt at a municipal level

Intensity Moderate Natural and/ or social functions and/ or

processes are moderately altered Low Natural and/ or social functions and/ or

processes are somewhat altered

Probability Certain /

definite

There are sound scientific reasons to expect

that the impact will definitely occur Certain /

definite

There are sound scientific reasons to expect

that the impact will definitely occur

Confidence High Substantive supportive data exists to verify

the assessment High Substantive supportive data exists to verify

the assessment

Reversibility Medium The affected environment will only recover

from the impact with significant

intervention

High The affected environmental will be able to

recover from the impact

Resource irreplaceability Medium The resource is damaged irreparably but is

represented elsewhere Medium The resource is damaged irreparably but is

represented elsewhere

Significance Moderate - negative Moderate - negative

Comment on significance The significance is driven largely by the permanence of impacts and the certainty that they will occur if the

project goes ahead, regardless of whether mitigation measures are applied or not. Mitigation will slightly

reduce the extent and intensity but the significance will still be moderate (-). Impacts are rated as

permanent because of the difficulty of achieving adequate rehabilitation in dry areas and also that

transmission lines are likely to become part of the national estate as far as grid infrastructure is concerned,

decommissioning is therefore unlikely.

Cumulative impacts With multiple powerlines built in the same area (in the southern section of the corridor) the impacts would

be felt over a wider area but, as long as the lines are grouped and avoid the KNP and prominent locations

along the escarpment edge then the cumulative impacts will remain within acceptable limits. There are no

similar large developments in the central part of the corridor, but in the north, where three proposed wind

farms would be constructed, it is anticipated that the powerline would make a relatively minor contribution

to the overall impacts. Again, and because of the prominence of the wind farms, the cumulative impacts

from the proposed gridline would be within acceptable limits.

Operational phase impacts would essentially be the same as the post-mitigation construction phase impacts

and are considered likely to be of moderate (-) significance (Table 4). The only mitigation that can be applied

during operation is to ensure that no new impacts occur. Since new impacts are highly unlikely, the significance

of impacts will remain moderate (-).

Table 4: Assessment of impacts to the cultural landscape (operation).

Project phase Operation

Impact Impacts to the cultural landscape.

Description of impact The rural/natural cultural landscape may be impacted through the addition to it of large, industrial-

type structures.

Mitigatability Low Mitigation does not exist; or mitigation will slightly reduce the significance of

impacts

Potential mitigation • Avoid any new impacts by ensuring that all maintenance vehicle stay within designated areas.



Duration Permanent Impact may be permanent, or in

excess of 20 years Permanent Impact may be permanent, or in

excess of 20 years

Extent Municipal

area

Impacts felt at a municipal level Municipal area Impacts felt at a municipal level

Intensity Low Natural and/ or social functions and/

or processes are somewhat altered Low Natural and/ or social functions and/

or processes are somewhat altered


Probability Certain /

definite

There are sound scientific reasons to

expect that the impact will definitely

occur

Certain /

definite

There are sound scientific reasons to

expect that the impact will definitely

occur

Confidence High Substantive supportive data exists to

verify the assessment High Substantive supportive data exists to

verify the assessment

Reversibility High The affected environmental will be

able to recover from the impact High The affected environmental will be

able to recover from the impact

Resource irreplaceability Medium The resource is damaged irreparably

but is represented elsewhere Medium The resource is damaged irreparably

but is represented elsewhere

Significance Moderate - negative Moderate - negative

Comment on significance Once the powerline is operational there is nothing that can reduce impacts. Nevertheless, best

practice measures to ensure that no new impacts occur must be applied. Impacts are rated as

permanent because of the difficulty of achieving adequate rehabilitation in dry areas.

Cumulative impacts With multiple powerlines built in the same area the impacts would be felt over a wider area but so

long as the lines are grouped and avoid the KNP and prominent locations along the escarpment

edge then the cumulative impacts will remain within acceptable limits. There are no similar large

developments in the central part of the corridor, but in the north, where three proposed wind

farms would be constructed, it is anticipated that the powerline would make a relatively minor

contribution to the overall impacts. Again, and because of the prominence of the wind farms, the

cumulative impacts from the proposed gridline would be within acceptable limits.

With the reintroduction of large construction vehicles to the landscape for decommissioning, the impacts would

be the same as the construction phase. However, it is considered unlikely that decommissioning would occur

since long term maintenance of the powerlines would likely be more desirable.

6.5. Existing impacts to heritage resources

There are currently no obvious significant threats to heritage resources on the site aside from the natural

degradation, weathering and erosion that will affect rock art and archaeological materials and the trampling

from grazing animals and/or farm vehicles that affects artefact scatters.

6.6. Cumulative impacts

There are no existing substations, large power lines or renewable energy facilities in the part of the study area

located above the escarpment and the landscape has a rural/natural sense of place. However, three wind farms

have been proposed at the northern end of the gridline corridor and these will, if approved and constructed,

alter the sense of place considerably. A new electrical ‘layer’ would be added to the cultural landscape. The

Droërivier Substation southwest of Beaufort West is a major or backbone substation and has many HV

powerlines running into and around it (Figure 14). Two other smaller substations also occur to the east and

northeast of Beaufort West. Cumulative impacts are thus better considered in two parts: (1) the central part of

the corridor and (2) its northern and southern ends. Above the escarpment, in the central part of the corridor,

the lack of other electrical infrastructure (aside from small, local electricity distribution lines) means that

cumulative impacts will be minimal with the impacts essentially being no different to those for the present

project. Below the escarpment the many powerlines present means that further impacts from this type of

development will accrue. Likewise, with construction of the wind farms, further impacts would accrue in the

north.

Given the generally low density of archaeological and palaeontological materials in the broader area, it is

expected that the cumulative impacts for these aspects will be of relatively minor (-) significance. Cumulative

impacts to the cultural landscape are expected to be slightly more significant, though in the central part of the

corridor where no other large powerlines and electrical facilities exist, the cumulative impacts should be minor

(-). To the south of the escarpment most powerlines running to Droërivier are clustered to the south of the N1


and Beaufort West and fall within the proposed corridor. The proposed wind farms in the north would have a

greater impact than the gridline. Because of these other impacts and potential impacts, the cumulative impacts

in the north and south will also be of minor (-) significance. The cumulative impacts are deemed to be within an

acceptable range.

6.7. The No-Go option

If no development of neither the 132 kV or 400 kV powerlines occurred, then the only expected impacts would

be the continuation of natural processes such as erosion and weathering which affect archaeology and fossils,

and the possible addition of new farm tracks and infrastructure (dams or buildings) over time.

Table 5: Assessment of impacts to heritage resources.

Project phase All phases

Impact Impacts to heritage resources

Description of impact Destruction of or damage to heritage resources and visual intrusion into the cultural landscape


Potential mitigation • None


Nature Negative

NA

Duration Permanent Impact may be permanent, or in excess of 20 years

Extent Limited Limited to the site and its immediate surroundings

Intensity Very low Natural and/ or social functions and/ or processes are slightly altered

Probability Likely The impact may occur

Confidence High Substantive supportive data exists to verify the assessment

Reversibility Low The affected environment will not be able to recover from the impact -

permanently modified

Resource irreplaceability High The resource is irreparably damaged and is not represented elsewhere

Significance Minor - negative

Comment on significance Only minor impacts are likely to occur since the intensity of land use from farming activities is quite low.

Cumulative impacts No significant cumulative impacts are expected and all impacts would be within acceptable limits.

6.8. Levels of acceptable change

Any impact to an archaeological or palaeontological resource or a grave is deemed unacceptable until such time as

the resource has been inspected and studied further if necessary. Impacts to the landscape are difficult to quantify

but in general a powerline that visually dominates the landscape from important viewpoints is undesirable. Areas

that are important visual landscapes/viewpoints have been indicated by the visual specialists and will inform the

final routing of the line.

Although the DR02311 and N1 run through the southern part of the corridor, visual impacts would be of brief

duration because the line is unlikely to run parallel to either road. Views from De Jager’s Pass of the powerline

crossing the escarpment will likely be quite long and thus of minor or even negligible significance. These impacts

are thus all deemed to be within acceptable limits.

7. INPUT TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

The Environmental Control Officer (ECO) will need to be briefed by the project archaeologist as to which sites

require monitoring, management or protection. Sites located close to development activities may require


cordoning off and the ECO will need to ensure that these areas remain protected and undisturbed throughout

the construction phase. The EMPr must contain a chance finds procedure which must be communicated to all

earthworks equipment operators or other staff that may inadvertently unearth fossils, artefacts or graves and

know to stop work and report such finds to the ECO.

8. EVALUATION OF IMPACTS RELATIVE TO SUSTAINABLE SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC

BENEFITS

Section 38(3)(d) of the NHRA requires an evaluation of the impacts on heritage resources relative to the

sustainable social and economic benefits to be derived from the development. The project will mostly create

construction phase jobs but a small number of long terms jobs may also be provided to run and maintain the

substations and powerlines. The powerline and associated infrastructure will be ceded to Eskom after

construction and will be serviced by the local Eskom resources. The greater economic benefit, however, lies in

the provision of electricity which is needed to drive the national economy. The project would only be

constructed if the associated wind farms are approved and constructed and the powerline will thus be essential

in getting the electricity into the national grid. Aside from the unavoidable landscape impacts, other heritage

impacts are likely to be minimal. As such, the socio-economic benefits do very likely outweigh the overall

heritage impacts.

9. CONSULTATION WITH HERITAGE CONSERVATION BODIES

At the EIA stage the present report will be sent to the Beaufort West Municipality and the Simon van der Stel Foundation

Southern Cape for comment. Their comment will be recorded here and responded to as appropriate.

10. CONCLUSIONS

Although not well surveyed, enough information exists to know that many heritage resources will be present

within the powerline corridor. The vast majority are archaeological. Because micrositing of powerline pylons is

feasible and a pre-construction survey will be required, very few impacts – significant or otherwise – are

expected to occur. The main exception, of course, is the impact to the landscape. Table 6 lists the heritage

indicators and how these have been or will be responded to. Outstanding concerns are also listed and it is these

that guide the overall recommendations in Section 11. Archaeological issues are mapped and discussed in

Figures 59 to 63. Because the applicant is seeking authorisation for a corridor rather than a specific alignment,

many of the indicators (see below) will only be resolved during during the pre-construction detailed design

phase. However, given the knowledge of the landscape gained during the course of the project and the width

of the corridor, it is expected that all indicators will be reasonably resolved.

Table 6: Heritage indicators and design responses.

Indicator Project Response

Uncontrolled damage to fossils should

be minimised as far as possible.

A pre-construction survey when the final powerline route is planned

will guide any mitigation and/or monitoring requirements.

Buffers of at least 30 m should be

maintained around archaeological

sites as far as possible.


will locate any sites requiring buffers.


Direct damage to archaeological sites

should be avoided as far as possible

and, where some damage to

significant sites is unavoidable,

scientific/historical data should be

rescued.


will locate any sites requiring monitoring and/or mitigation. This

expected to be minimal since micrositing of pylons should result in

avoidance in most instances.

Direct impacts to graves must be

avoided with a 30 m buffer.


will locate any graves requiring buffers.

No structures should be directly

impacted.

This will be easily assessed from aerial photography during planning

of the final route.

As far as possible, structures of Grade

IIIA or IIIB heritage significance should

be avoided with a buffer of at least

200 m, while Grade IIIC structures

should be avoided with a 100 m buffer.

Houses outside of farm complexes are virtually absent and, because

the land owners have to consent to the location of the powerline

the farm complexes should be avoided by more than 200 m. Impacts

are thus considered unlikely. Any additional buffering required (e.g.

around abandoned but still standing structures) will need to be

investigated during the pre-construction survey.

The powerline, should not dominate

significant views.

The visual consultants have guided the developer towards the best

location for the powerline and significant views are not expected to

be dominated by the powerline.

Avoid ridgelines and scenic valleys. Within technical constraints, the visual consultants have guided the

developer towards the best routing from a visual point of view and

this will be confirmed when the final route is planned. Although it is

likely that a skyline view of the powerline will be observable from

below the escarpment this will only occur along a relatively short

stretch of the road leading north-eastwards towards the base of De

Jager’s Pass.

Service tracks to avoid steep slopes as

far as possible.

The project design is such that service tracks will not follow the

powerline in difficult terrain but will merely aim to access each

individual pylon. This will greatly reduce the need to ascend steep

slopes.

The powerline should cross the

escarpment away from the skylines as

seen from significant viewpoints and

scenic routes.

The visual consultants have guided the developer towards the best

location to cross the escarpment and this will be confirmed when

the final route is planned. As noted above, skyline views should be

very limited.

Although no final alignment is yet available (because this will be decided later), the findings of this assessment,

read together with those of the VIA, are that a powerline can feasibly be constructed within the proposed

corridor without creating impacts of major significance. The key area in this regard is the escarpment. The VIA

has found that locations close to De Jager’s Pass and on exposed ridges (especially those seen from De Jager’s

Pass) are sensitive and the preferred area for crossing the escarpment is in the far western part of the corridor.

For the same reason, the heritage specialist supports this finding.

As already noted, the impacts to be expected from the two different powerline capacities are expected to be of

equal significance for each impact type. The WCS therefore mirrors the ratings. Table 7 shows this in summary

form.

Table 7: Summary of impact significance for each powerline capacity and the WCS.


Impact 132 kV powerline 400 kV powerline WCS

Pre-mitigation

Post-mitigation

Pre-mitigation

Post-mitigation

Pre-mitigation

Post-mitigation

Palaeontological impacts

Moderate (-) Minor (-) Moderate (-) Minor (-) Moderate (-) Minor (-)

Archaeological impacts

Minor (-) Negligible (-) Minor (-) Negligible (-) Minor (-) Negligible (-)

Impacts to graves Negligible (-) Negligible (-) Negligible (-) Negligible (-) Negligible (-) Negligible (-)

Impacts to the cultural landscape

Moderate (-) Moderate (-) Moderate (-) Moderate (-) Moderate (-) Moderate (-)

No-Go Minor (-) Minor (-) Minor (-) Minor (-) Minor (-) Minor (-)

10.1. Reasoned opinion of the specialist

Based on the assessment and information available at this point in the process, there is no reason to believe

that the heritage indicators will not be met during pre-construction planning. Impacts to the landscape will be

reduced through careful siting of the final powerline alignment and physical heritage resources on the ground

should be easily avoidable through micrositing of pylons during the pre-construction phase.

The WCS considers the impact significance of the development of the 132 kV and 400 kV power line and

associated infrastructure, identifies which one of the options has the highest negative impact (both pre- and

post mitigation), and presents this as the combined option or WCS to be developed within the corridor.

Although it should be noted that the WCS will not be developed as only one of the scenarios can be developed

within the corridor, it is argued that if the residual overall impact of the WCS is deemed acceptable and

mitigatable, then the development of either a 132 kV or 400 kV powerline within this corridor would also be

acceptable.

Based on this scoping phase assessment and information available at this point in the process, it is likely that t

will be the opinion of the specialist that based on the acceptability of developing the WCS, either the 132 kV or

400 kV can be developed within the corridor, provided that all mitigation measures are implemented.

11. RECOMMENDATIONS

Because no significant impediments to development of a powerline of either 132 kV or 400 kV within the

proposed corridor have been identified to date, is likely that it will be recommended that the project be allowed

to proceed but subject to recommendations along the lines of following:

• The final alignment of the gridline must be subjected to a pre-construction archaeological survey. This

would be to determine whether any micrositing of infrastructure is required to ensure in situ

protection of heritage resources or, if this is not possible, whether any mitigation should be

implemented;

• In areas where palaeontological sensitivity is inferred to be high, the final alignment of the powerline

must be subjected to a pre-construction palaeontological survey. This must determine whether any

recording and/or collection of fossils might be required or if any areas should be avoided;

• A palaeontological chance finds procedure must be incorporated into the EMPr;

• The final alignment must be determined in consultation with a visual specialist to ensure that:


o the final escarpment crossing minimises visual impacts, especially as seen from De Jager’s Pass;

and

o visual impact to scenic valleys and ridgelines along the final route are minimised as far as

practical;

• Pre-construction planning must allow for buffers around archaeological and palaeontological sites and

graves of at least 30 m and of 200 m for Grade IIIB and up structures and 100 m for Grade IIIC structures.

Alternatively the implementation of mitigation measures may be required and these would be

determined as part of the pre-construction survey;

• If any archaeological material or human burials are uncovered during the course of development then

work in the immediate area should be halted. The find would need to be reported to the heritage

authorities and may require inspection by an archaeologist. Such heritage is the property of the state

and may require excavation and curation in an approved institution.

12. REFERENCES

Anonymous. 2016. Embark on a historic journey to the Karoo National Park. Website visited on 24 April 2019

at: https://lowvelder.co.za/352763/embark-on-a-historic-journey-to-the-karoo-national-park/.

Böeseken, A.J. 1975. The Company and its subjects. In: Muller, C.F.J. (ed) 500 Years: a history of South Africa:

63-79. Pretoria and Cape Town: Academica.

Botha, C.G. 1926. Place names in the Cape Province. Cape Town & Johannesburg: Juta & Co. Ltd.

Bulpin, T.V. 2001. Discovering Southern Africa. Muizenberg: Discovering Southern Africa Productions cc.

Deacon, H. 2007. Phase 1 archaeological and heritage impact assessment report: Proposed Road Upgrade and

Associated Borrow Pits and Quarries, N1, Section 9, Three Sisters. Unpublished report prepared for

Exigent Engineering Consultants.

Department of Environmental Affairs, 2016. Strategic Environmental Assessment for Electricity Grid

Infrastructure in South Africa. CSIR Report Number: CSIR/02100/EMS/ER/2016/0006/B. Stellenbosch.

Dreyer, C. 2005. Archaeological and historical investigation of the proposed residential developments at the

farms Grootfontein 180 & Bushmanskop 302, Beaufort West, south-western Cape. Unpublished report.

Brandhof.

Fagan, G. 2008. Brakdak: flatroofs in the Karoo. Cape Town: Breestraat Publikasies.

Frandsen, D. 2018. History. Accessed online at https://www.karoo-southafrica.com/koup/beaufort-

west/history-of-beaufort-west/ on 25 October 2019.

Fransen, H. 2004. The old buildings of the Cape. Johannnesburg & Cape Town: Jonathan Ball Publishers.

Goetze, T.M. 1993. Thomas Bain, Road Building and the Zwartberg Pass: with particular emphasis on socio-

economic and civil engineering aspects in the Southern Cape, c. 1843-1962. Unpublished Masters

Dissertation, University of Stellenbosch.


Halkett, D. 2009. An Archaeological assessment of uranium prospecting on portions 1,3 and 4 of the farm Eerste

Water 349, and remainder of the farm Ryst Kuil 351, Beaufort West. Unpublished report for Ferret

Mining and Environmental Services (Pty) Ltd.

Halkett, D. & Webley, L. 2011. Heritage Impact Assessment: proposed Victoria West Mini Renewable Energy

Facility on the farm Bultfontein 217, Northern Cape Province. St James: ACO Associates cc.

Hart, T. 2015. Heritage Impact Assessment for the proposed Komsberg East and West Wind Energy Facilities

and grid connections to be situated in the Western Cape Province, Escarpment Area, moordenaars

Karoo. Unpublished report prepared for Arcus Consulting (Pty) Ltd. Diep River: ACO Associates cc.

Hart, T. 2016. Heritage Impact Assessment for the proposed Umsinde Emoyeni Wind Energy Facility.

Unpublished report prepared for Arcus Consulting (Pty) Ltd. Diep River: ACO Associates cc.

Heritage Western Cape. 2016. Grading: purpose and management implications. Document produced by

Heritage Western Cape, 16 March 2016.

Kaplan, J. 2005. Archaeological and Heritage scoping proposed upgrading and construction of new roads Karoo

National Park. Unpublished report prepared for Ecobound Environmental. Riebeek West: Agency for

Cultural Resource Management.

Kaplan, J. 2006 Phase 1 Archaeological Impact Assessment proposed Klavervlei powerline Karoo National Park.

Unpublished report prepared for Enviroafrica. Riebeek West: Agency for Cultural Resource

Management.

Kaplan, J. 2008. Phase 1 archaeological impact assessment proposed development Remainder of Farm 185 (now

called Plot 8419) Beaufort West Western Cape Province Unpublished report prepared for Airpark

Beaufort West (Pty) Ltd. Riebeek West: Agency for Cultural Resource Management.

Kramer, P. 2012. The history, form and context of the 19th century corbelled buildings of the Karoo. MPhil

dissertation. Rondebosch: University of Cape Town.

Lawson, Q. & Oberholzer, B. 2020. Proposed Nuweveld Wind Energy Farms Western Cape Province for Red Cap

Energy (Pty) Ltd. Visual Impact Report: Proposed Grid Connection Scoping Phase. Unpublished report

prepared for Aurecon South Africa (Pty) Ltd.

Muller, C.F.J. 1975. The period of the Great Trek, 1834 – 1854. In: Muller, C.F.J. (ed) 500 Years: a history of South

Africa: 146-182. Pretoria and Cape Town: Academica.

Nilssen, P. 2011. Archaeological Impact Assessment Proposed Beaufort West Photovoltaic (Solar) Park: southern

portion of properties; 2/158 Lemoenkloof, RE 9/161 Kuilspoort, RE 162 Suid-lemoensfontein and RE

1/163 Bulskop, Beaufort West, Western Province. Unpublished report prepared for Cape EAPrac. Great

Brak River: CHARM.

Orton, J. 2011. Heritage Impact Assessment for a proposed Photo-Voltaic Facility on Steenrots Fontein 168/1,

Beaufort West Magisterial District, Western Cape. Unpublished report prepared for CSIR. Archaeology

Contracts Office: University of Cape Town.


Orton, J. 2013. Geometric rock art in western South Africa and its implications for the spread of early herding.

South African Archaeological Bulletin 68: 27-40.

Orton, J. 2016. Prehistoric cultural landscapes in South Africa: a typology and discussion. South African

Archaeological Bulletin 71: 119-129.

Orton, J. 2017. Heritage Impact Assessment: proposed construction of a substation and 132 kV distribution line

to support the proposed Sutherland WEF, Sutherland and Laingsburg Magisterial Districts, Northern and

Western Cape. Unpublished report prepared for CSIR. Lakeside: ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd.

Orton, J., Almond, J., Clarke, N., Fisher, R., Hall, S., Kramer, P., Malan, A., Maguire, J. and Jansen, L. 2016. Impacts

on Heritage. In Scholes, R., Lochner, P., Schreiner, G., Snyman- Van der Walt, L. and de Jager, M. (eds.).

2016. Shale Gas Development in the Central Karoo: A Scientific Assessment of the Opportunities and

Risks. CSIR/IU/021MH/EXP/2016/003/A, ISBN 978-0-7988-5631-7, Pretoria: CSIR.

Parkington, J., Morris, D and Rusch, N. 2008. Karoo Rock Engravings. Cape Town: Creda Communications.

Penn, N. 2005. The Forgotten Frontier: Colonist and Khoisan on the Cape’s Northern Frontier in the 18th Century.

Athens: Ohio University Press and Cape Town: Double Storey Books.

PGWC. 2006. Strategic Initiative to Introduce Commercial Land Based Wind Energy Development to the Western

Cape: towards a regional methodology for wind energy site selection. Cape Town: Provincial

Government of the Western Cape & CNdV africa planning & design.

Ross, G.L.D. 2013. Mountain passes, roads & transportation in the Cape: a guide to research. 5th Edition.

Accessed online on 25th April 2019 at:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258376061_Mountain_Passes_Roads_and_Transportation

_in_the_Cape_-_a_Guide_to_Research_Fifth_edition_June_2013_767_pages.

SA Mountain Passes. 2010. Website consulted on 15th April 2019 at:

samountainpasses.co.za/Home/WesternCape/Passes/KAROO/MoltenoPass/tabid/238/language/en-

US/Default.aspx.

Sampson, C.G. 2010. Chronology and dynamics of Later Stone Age herders in the upper Seacow River valley,

South Africa. Journal of Arid Environments 74:842-848.

SANParks. 2017. Karoo National Park: Park Management Plan for the period 2017-2027. Website visited on 24

April 2019 at: https://www.sanparks.org/assets/docs/conservation/park_man/karoo-draft-plan.pdf.

Sauer, C.O. 1925. The Morphology of Landscape. University of California Publications on Geography 2(2): 19-54.

Schoeman, C. 2013. The Historical Karoo: traces of the past in South Africa’s arid interior. Cape Town: Zebra

Press.

Smith, B.W. & Ouzman, S. 2004. Taking stock: identifying Khoekhoen herder rock art in southern Africa. Current

Anthropology 45: 499–526.

Storrar, P. & Komnick, G. 1984. A Colossus of Roads. Cape Tpown: Murray & Roberts/Concor.


Van der Walt, J. 2016. Archaeological Impact Assessment report for the proposed Gunstfontein Wind Energy

Facility, Northern Cape. Unpublished report prepared for Savannah Environmental (Pty) Ltd. Modimolle:

HCAC.

Van Zyl, M.C. 1975. Transition, 1795-1806. In: Muller, C.F.J. (ed) 500 Years: a history of South Africa: 101-116.

Pretoria and Cape Town: Academica.

Walker, E.A. 1928. A History of South Africa. London: Longmans, Green and Company Ltd.

Watt, S. 2013. Uitspanfontein, De Pannen 5 February 1902. Military History Journal 16(2). Accessed online at:

http://samilitaryhistory.org/vol162sw.html on 25th April 2019.

Webley, L. & Hart, T. 2010. Scoping Archaeological Impact Assessment: proposed prospecting on

Taaiboschfontein 137 (Site 49), Victoria West, Northern Cape. Unpublished report prepared for Tasman

Pacific Minerals Limited. University of Cape Town: Archaeology Contracts Office.

Webley, L. & Lanham, J. 2011. Heritage Assessment of the Proposed upgrade to the stormwater retention

facilities at Beaufort West, Western Cape. Unpublished report for Kayad Knight Piesold (Pty) Ltd.

Winter, S. & Oberholzer, B. 2013. Heritage and Scenic Resources: Inventory and Policy Framework for the

Western Cape. Report prepared for the Provincial Government of the Western Cape Department of

Environmental Affairs and Development Planning. Sarah Winter Heritage Planner, and Bernard

Oberholzer Landscape Architect / Environmental Planner, in association with Setplan.


APPENDIX 1 – Curriculum Vitae

Curriculum Vitae

Jayson David John Orton

ARCHAEOLOGIST AND HERITAGE CONSULTANT

Contact Details and personal information:

Address: 40 Brassie Street, Lakeside, 7945

Telephone: (021) 789 0327

Cell Phone: 083 272 3225


Birth date and place: 22 June 1976, Cape Town, South Africa

Citizenship: South African

ID no: 760622 522 4085

Driver’s License: Code 08

Marital Status: Married to Carol Orton

Languages spoken: English and Afrikaans

Education:

SA College High School Matric 1994

University of Cape Town B.A. (Archaeology, Environmental & Geographical Science) 1997

University of Cape Town B.A. (Honours) (Archaeology)* 1998

University of Cape Town M.A. (Archaeology) 2004

University of Oxford D.Phil. (Archaeology) 2013

*Frank Schweitzer memorial book prize for an outstanding student and the degree in the First Class.

Employment History:

Spatial Archaeology Research Unit, UCT Research assistant Jan 1996 – Dec 1998

Department of Archaeology, UCT Field archaeologist Jan 1998 – Dec 1998

UCT Archaeology Contracts Office Field archaeologist Jan 1999 – May 2004

UCT Archaeology Contracts Office Heritage & archaeological consultant Jun 2004 – May 2012

School of Archaeology, University of Oxford Undergraduate Tutor Oct 2008 – Dec 2008

ACO Associates cc Associate, Heritage & archaeological

consultant Jan 2011 – Dec 2013

ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd Director, Heritage & archaeological

consultant Jan 2014 –

Professional Accreditation:

Association of Southern African Professional Archaeologists (ASAPA) membership number: 233

CRM Section member with the following accreditation:

Principal Investigator: Coastal shell middens (awarded 2007)

Stone Age archaeology (awarded 2007)

Grave relocation (awarded 2014)

Field Director: Rock art (awarded 2007)

Colonial period archaeology (awarded 2007)

Association of Professional Heritage Practitioners (APHP) membership number: 43

Accredited Professional Heritage Practitioner

Memberships and affiliations:

South African Archaeological Society Council member 2004 – 2016

Assoc. Southern African Professional Archaeologists (ASAPA) member 2006 –

UCT Department of Archaeology Research Associate 2013 –

Heritage Western Cape APM Committee member 2013 –

UNISA Department of Archaeology and Anthropology Research Fellow 2014 –


Fish Hoek Valley Historical Association 2014 –

Kalk Bay Historical Association 2016 –

Association of Professional Heritage Practitioners member 2016 –

Fieldwork and project experience:

Extensive fieldwork and experience as both Field Director and Principle Investigator throughout the Western and Northern Cape, and also in the

western parts of the Free State and Eastern Cape as follows:

Feasibility studies:

Heritage feasibility studies examining all aspects of heritage from the desktop

Phase 1 surveys and impact assessments:

Project types

o Notification of Intent to Develop applications (for Heritage Western Cape)

o Desktop-based Letter of Exemption (for the South African Heritage Resources Agency)

o Heritage Impact Assessments (largely in the Environmental Impact Assessment or Basic Assessment context under NEMA and

Section 38(8) of the NHRA, but also self-standing assessments under Section 38(1) of the NHRA)

o Archaeological specialist studies

o Phase 1 archaeological test excavations in historical and prehistoric sites

o Archaeological research projects

Development types

o Mining and borrow pits

o Roads (new and upgrades)

o Residential, commercial and industrial development

o Dams and pipe lines

o Power lines and substations

o Renewable energy facilities (wind energy, solar energy and hydro-electric facilities)

Phase 2 mitigation and research excavations:

ESA open sites

o Duinefontein, Gouda, Namaqualand

MSA rock shelters

o Fish Hoek, Yzerfontein, Cederberg, Namaqualand

MSA open sites

o Swartland, Bushmanland, Namaqualand

LSA rock shelters

o Cederberg, Namaqualand, Bushmanland

LSA open sites (inland)

o Swartland, Franschhoek, Namaqualand, Bushmanland

LSA coastal shell middens

o Melkbosstrand, Yzerfontein, Saldanha Bay, Paternoster, Dwarskersbos, Infanta, Knysna, Namaqualand

LSA burials

o Melkbosstrand, Saldanha Bay, Namaqualand, Knysna

Historical sites

o Franschhoek (farmstead and well), Waterfront (fort, dump and well), Noordhoek (cottage), variety of small excavations in central

Cape Town and surrounding suburbs

Historic burial grounds

o Green Point (Prestwich Street), V&A Waterfront (Marina Residential), Paarl

Awards:

Western Cape Government Cultural Affairs Awards 2015/2016: Best Heritage Project.


APPENDIX 2 - Site verification report

Government Notice No. 320, dated 20 March 2020, includes the requirement that an Initial Site Sensitivity

Verification Report must be produced for a development footprint. As per Part 1, Section 2.3, the outcome

of the Initial Site Verification must be recorded in the form of a report that-

(a) Confirms or disputes the current use of the land and environmental sensitivity as identified by the

national web based environmental screening tool;

(b) Contains a motivation and evidence of either the verified or different use of the land and

environmental sensitivity;

(c) Is submitted together with the relevant reports prepared in accordance with the requirements of

the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations.

This report has been produced specifically to consider the archaeological and cultural heritage theme and

addresses the content requirements of (a) and (b) above. The report will be appended to the respective

specialist study included in the Scoping and EIA Reports produced for the projects.

Site sensitivity based on the archaeological and cultural heritage theme included in the Screening Tool and

specialist assessment

Based on the DEA Screening Tool, the site contains areas of high and medium sensitivity due to the presence

of important mountain passes, wetlands, heritage sites and protected areas (Figure 1).

Figure 1. DEA Screening Tool outcome for the archaeological and cultural heritage theme

Based on the above outcomes, the specialist disputes the environmental sensitivities identified on site. The

findings of the dispute have been informed by a literature survey and several site visits undertaken by Dr

Jayson Orton to the project site. Due to the extreme size of the study area, only targeted fieldwork was

carried out in parts of the corridor where aerial photography suggested potential sensitivity. The northern

section within the wind farm study area was more intensively examined though. The target areas were

determined through a combination of driving the public road that runs in and close to the corridor and

examining aerial photography to look for potentially sensitive areas. These areas were then subjected to foot

surveys. Fieldwork in the grid corridor occurred on 17th and 18th March 2019, 6th and 7th April 2019, 13th, 14th

and 17th May 2019 and 17th to 19th September 2019. The surveys were conducted in autumn, winter and

spring but in this relatively dry area seasonality makes no difference to the visibility of heritage resources on


the ground. During the survey the positions of finds and survey tracks were recorded on a hand-held Global

Positioning System (GPS) receiver set to the WGS84 datum. Photographs were taken at times in order to

capture representative samples of both the affected heritage and the landscape setting of the proposed

development. Various finds were made within the study area and these were allocated a sensitivity rating,

based on the heritage grading of the specific resource in question. The findings are presented in the figure

below.

Figure 2. Environmental sensitivity map produced by the heritage specialist

In conclusion, the DEA Screening Tool identified two sensitivity ratings within the development footprint,

namely, high and medium. Although there is some overlap with the findings on site and the Screening Tool’s

outcome, the development footprint contains various sensitivities (high, medium and low) that were

identified following the undertaking of several site visits and spatial input considerations.

The environmental sensitivity input received from the heritage specialist will be taken forward and

considered within the Scoping and EIA process and the impact to these areas assessed. Appropriate layout

and development restrictions will be implemented within the corridor to ensure that the impact to the

archaeological and cultural heritage environment is deemed acceptable by the heritage specialist.


APPENDIX 3 – Farm portions and erven forming part of the powerline corridor

3/120 RE/48 RE/18 9/162 32/170 425 46 1/21 15/162 54/168 2/408 1/112 RE/21 10/162 10/170 156 2/110 13 11/162 17/170 RE/161 RE/424 14 2/162 29/170 RE/45 443 1/16 19/162 30/170 395 RE/1/172 17 5/163 35/170 2/48 27/170 43 6/163 37/170 439 31/170 5/73 4/162 15/170 33/170 3/153 6/73 17/162 26/170 36/170 RE/154 5/54 12/162 25/170 413 RE/1/154 1/113 7/162 3/170 RE/10/170 RE/2/154 2/113 16/162 RE/3/170

4/169 RE/5/154 5/113 RE/3/162

5/169 2/75 RE/1/168 RE/1/163

RE/1/168 8/154 RE/185 4/161

RE/185 RE/76 3/169 RE/7/161

7581 24/154 5/161 27/161

1/75 3/49 6/162 RE/3/161

4/45 396 14/162 8/161

3/45 47 13/162 6/169


APPENDIX 4 – Inventory of finds

The following notes assist with the interpretation of the finds and an understanding of their grading:

• The list of heritage sites below includes all sites recorded for all three wind farms (NVN, NVW, NVE) and the

powerline (Grid) proposed as part of the broader Nuweveld wind energy project. Sites recorded for the original

and now abandoned powerline route have been left in the list for the record but are not coloured. Because no

other heritage studies have been carried out close to the wind farm study area, the table below essentially

includes all information required to assess and understand not only the current project but also the potential

cumulative impacts. For this reason, and because some shared infrastructure transgresses the actual project

boundaries, it was deemed appropriate to present all records here but only discuss examples relevant to the

present project in the body of the report. Section 10 of the report addresses the project-specific impacts. The

first two columns show which project areas the heritage sites fall into.

• Because of the large study area, recording of sites was generally performed quite quickly without very much

detail. Essentially, they were examined just long enough to determine significance and grade. However, rough

plans of most of the ruined structures were drawn but, for the sake of space, are not included here. They can be

requested from the author.

• Occasional stone-walled sites along the main roads were recorded from the road and their locations assigned

later from aerial photography.

• Farm complexes in the broader area were mostly recorded from aerial photography for the purposes of

sensitivity mapping.

• The original road alignment of the R381 has been changed in several places. Only the Molteno and Roseberg

Passes themselves were accorded Grade IIIA with the rest of the road (and hence the now abandoned original

sections) considered NCW. Similarly, the de Jager’s Pass and another highly scenic section above the escarpment

were graded IIIA and IIIB respectively with the rest of the road being NCW. Note, however, that the VIA

practitioners assessed these roads differently and dealt more strongly with the scenic aspects of the landscape.

• Grading of historical sites: historical complexes with graves or ash and rubbish dumps are given Grade IIIA,

complexes with no dumps but fairly well-preserved structures are given IIIB, complexes with no dump and

poorly preserved walling are given IIIC. Isolated walling/ruins in poor condition are IIIC or, if so deteriorated as

to be indeterminate clusters of stone, NCW.

• Grading of LSA sites: rock art sites are Grade IIIA, ephemeral stone-walled features and very dense artefact

scatters with organic materials preserved were allocated Grade IIIB, somewhat less dense artefact scatters are

Grade IIIC, while low density and/or ephemeral and/or background scatters are NCW.

NVN NVW NVE Grid Waypoint GPS co-ordinate Description Grade

X 001 S31 50 20.1 E22 22 05.3 Stone walling at entrance to small side kloof, possibly anti-

flooding measure.

NCW

X 003 S31 50 30.0 E22 22 32.2 Concentration of weathered MSA and possibly ESA artefacts. IIIC

X 005 S31 50 30.5 E22 22 40.9 Lower grindstone. NCW

X 029 S31 44 02.0 E22 23 12.0 Stone Alignment from the base of a now-removed fence. NCW

X 030 S31 43 48.6 E22 24 09.6 Quarry for hornfels building blocks. NCW

X 031 S31 43 46.9 E22 24 11.0 Small scatter of hornfels artefacts and a ceramic fragment on

rocky slope.

NCW

X 032 S31 43 46.6 E22 24 10.8 Scatter of glass and ceramic fragments, OES and flaked hornfels. NCW

X 033 S31 43 45.7 E22 24 10.5 Scatter of LSA material – hornfels artefacts, OES – eroded on the

alluvium.

IIIC

X 034 S31 43 44.8 E22 24 10.9 Small stone wall, approx. 1.5m long. NCW

X X 037 S31 45 46.6 E22 24 07.1 Stone kraal, roughly rectangular in shape, made of single large

dolerite boulders. Approx. 6x9m.

IIIC

X 038 S31 46 36.4 E22 23 55.6 Approximate centre of stone-lined dam associated with wind

pump.

IIIC

X 039 S31 47 01.0 E22 24 13.5 Packed stone alignment, probable anti-erosion wall. Age

unknown.

NCW

X 041 S31 46 52.0 E22 21 18.2 Small rectangular house with scatter of old bricks, slag and

historical cultural material. Probably older than 60 years.

IIIB

X X 053 S31 48 06.5 E22 28 35.7 Small scatter of hornfels artefacts, OES, bone fragments, piece of

glass, possibly flaked dolerite on pan floor.

IIIC

X 055 S31 46 21.3 E22 30 14.8 Scatter of artefacts within alluvial gravels – hornfels flakes, cores,

broken upper grindstone. Probably about 3-4m², approx. 8

artefacts per m².

NCW

X 057 S31 44 32.9 E22 28 10.4 Small scatter (1m²) of hornfels LSA and larger sandstone (MSA?)

artefacts on alluvium.

NCW

X 058 S31 44 38.3 E22 27 53.7 Low density background scatter of weathered artefacts. NCW

X 076 S31 45 57.4 E22 29 05.3 Dump area with concentration of glass and ceramic fragments

1621).

IIIA

X 077 S31 45 57.3 E22 29 05.0 Circle of stones surrounding heap of stone blocks, approx. 2x2m.



X 078 S31 45 57.6 E22 29 04.9 Small kraal, approx. 3x4m, entrance on NE side.

X 079 S31 45 57.4 E22 29 04.6 Rectangular building with rounded corners, approx. 3x5m. Door

on E side, facing SE, and window (or alcove) on W side, facing NW

(1631). Historical ceramic, glass and metal fragments (1630).

X 080 S31 45 59.2 E22 29 04.6 Crude kraal on a northeast-facing slope. Filling in between existing

boulders.

X 081 S31 45 58.9 E22 29 04.3 Rectangular kraal, approximately 5x10m and located on a

northeast-facing slope.

X 1288 S31 50 26.0 E22 21 20.4 Small stone ruin. IIIA

X 1289 S31 50 26.7 E22 21 20.5 Small stone feature of unknown function.

X 1290 S31 50 25.7 E22 21 21.0 Stone feature with historical artefacts in the area.

X 1291 S31 50 26.6 E22 21 22.1 Stone kraal of about 13 m by 20 m. Walls tumbled.

X 1292 S31 50 25.0 E22 21 23.0 Small stone ruin

X 1293 S31 50 25.0 E22 21 21.6 Ash and rubbish midden. Contains much glass and ceramics

typical of late 19th century.

X 1294 S31 50 24.4 E22 21 19.9 Small circular stone feature.

X 1295 S31 50 24.7 E22 21 19.4 Ash and rubbish midden. Includes glass and ceramics typical of

late 19th century. A small medicine bottle has “HEYNES

MATTHEW’ embossed on it.

X 1296 S31 50 25.4 E22 21 18.6 Large circular feature that looks like a trapvloer but is built of two

skins with a rubble fill. There is a square structure attached to it

on its east side.

X 1297 S31 50 26.7 E22 21 18.9 Large depression with stone around the outside. May have been a

dam or a borrow pit type feature.

X 1347 S31 50 25.8 E22 21 15.2 Stone-lined dam wall and nearby a large stone-walled enclosure

of 160 m by 120 m.

X 1867 S31 50 27.1 E22 21 24.0 Remains of a stone kraal from which most stones seem to have

been removed.

X 1298 S31 50 19.2 E22 22 02.8 Light scatter of MSA artefacts on the alluvial river terrace. NCW

X 1299 S31 50 23.7 E22 22 11.8 A river cut exposure of alluvium c. 2.5 m deep with artefacts

embedded at the base of the alluvium just above the weathered

dolerite. Density unknown but probably quite low.

NCW

X 1300 S31 50 24.0 E22 22 25.0 Large down-wasted area with exposed artefacts and dolerite

gravel. Most artefacts are LSA but a few are older, likely MSA.

Includes a hammer stone and two lower grindstones. Most

artefacts are on hornfels but a few were on dolerite. One

quartzite flake with cobble cortex was also seen and must have

been imported to the area. A few pieces of ostrich eggshell were

also present.

IIIC

X 1301 S31 50 26.0 E22 22 24.3 Light scatter of LSA artefacts in hornfels on the alluvial river

terrace.

IIIC

X 1302 S31 50 27.6 E22 22 23.0 LSA kraal. Circular enclosure of about 8 m diameter made from

dolerite cobbles and situated on the lower slope of the hill just

above the alluvial terrace.

IIIB

X 1303 S31 50 28.1 E22 22 25.0 Light scatter of LSA artefacts in hornfels on the alluvial river

terrace.

IIIC

X 1304 S31 50 30.7 E22 22 25.5 Pair of historical ruins. IIIA

X 1305 S31 50 31.3 E22 22 25.4 A two-roomed stone ruin with artefacts of metal, glass and

ceramic alongside it.

X 1306 S31 50 32.0 E22 22 24.8 Larger stone enclosure with glass and ceramics alongside it.

X 1308 S31 50 27.5 E22 22 27.8 Historical stone-packed grave with small head and foot stone and

also a second large cluster of stones that does not seem to be a

grave (maybe stones left over after the grave covering was built?).

X 002 S31 50 29.6 E22 22 24.2 Semi-circular stone structure against a large boulder.

Approximately 3x4m in size.

X 1307 S31 50 29.2 E22 22 29.5 LSA stone-built enclosure with a moderate density hornfels

artefact scatter inside it. It is located on the northwest end of a

rocky ridge overlooking the river.

IIIA

X 1309 S31 50 25.8 E22 22 26.9 An approximately 3 m high alluvial terrace cut through by the

river and revealing artefacts at the base of the alluvium and just

above the weathered dolerite. The density of artefacts cannot be

determined but it is likely very low.

NCW

X 1310 S31 50 24.1 E22 22 31.7 A collection of stones on an alluvial terrace/floodplain. The stones

may represent a grave but this cannot be ascertained with

certainty.

IIIA (?)

X 1311 S31 50 23.6 E22 22 33.0 A light scatter of LSA artefacts in hornfels with a single lower

grindstone (face up). The scatter is located on an alluvial

terrace/floodplain. A large, high flake with scraper retouch was

seen. This artefact may be a core (the so-called ‘high-backed’

core).

NCW

X 1312 S31 50 21.5 E22 22 37.3 An extensive downwasted area with a low density scatter of LSA

hornfels artefacts and four lower grindstones (all face up).

IIIC

X 1313 S31 50 20.7 E22 22 38.6 More of the above scatter with some ostrich eggshell fragments

present. One lower grindstone (face up).

X 1325 S31 50 22.4 E22 22 37.1 More of the above scatter with three lower grindstones (all face

up). One is right at the lip of an erosion gulley and will soon drop

over the edge into the gulley.



X 1314 S31 50 20.2 E22 22 38.0 Historical track created by clearing dolerite cobbles to the sides. NCW

X 1315 S31 50 18.1 E22 22 41.7 As above.

X 1316 S31 50 14.5 E22 22 46.4 As above. It peters out soon after this and becomes a footpath. It

may cross the river but this was not evident on site.

X 1317 S31 50 07.5 E22 22 52.7 S above but on the east side of the valley.

X 1318 S31 49 58.6 E22 22 54.7 Light scatter of LSA artefacts, mostly in hornfels but with some

dolerite. Two lower grindstones near this point (both face up).

IIIC

X 1319 S31 49 56.4 E22 22 55.1 As above. A lower grindstone at this point (both face up).

X 1320 S31 49 55.1 E22 22 54.5 As above. Two lower grindstones near this point (both face up)

and some ostrich eggshell fragments.

X 1321 S31 49 56.3 E22 22 53.4 As above with a large lower grindstone (face up).

X 1322 S31 50 28.0 E22 22 46.2 Light scatter of LSA hornfels artefacts on a ridge overlooking a

river.

NCW

X 1323 S31 50 25.8 E22 22 38.9 A small historical stone structure on a dolerite slope just above a

river.

IIIC

X 1324 S31 50 24.5 E22 22 38.4 A light scatter of LSA hornfels artefacts on a dolerite slope just

above a river.

NCW

X 1326 S31 50 41.5 E22 22 54.4 A large historical stone-walled structure. Does not seem like a

kraal because of its shape and lack of a large enclosure. There is a

smaller square enclosure of about 8 by 8 m.

IIIC

X 1328 S31 50 39.9 E22 22 56.5 Small stone feature of dolerite cobbles on alluvial terrace.

X 1329 S31 50 40.5 E22 22 57.1 A stone-walled structure, probably was a residential structure.

There is also some metal and ceramics (coarse porcelain seen).

X 006 S31 50 36.9 E22 22 56.7 006 to 009 are points on a kraal. 006 = NE end.

X 007 S31 50 38.2 E22 22 56.2 SE corner of kraal.

X 008 S31 50 38.4 E22 22 54.8 SW corner of kraal.

X 009 S31 50 38.1 E22 22 54.7 NW end of kraal.

X 010 S31 50 38.5 E22 22 56.4 010 and 011 = stone wall.

010 = N end.

X 011 S31 50 38.5 E22 22 56.5 011 = S end.

X 012 S31 50 38.4 E22 22 56.9 012 to 016 = irregular-shaped stone structure. 012 = NW corner.

X 013 S31 50 38.3 E22 22 57.0 013= NE corner.

X 014 S31 50 38.5 E22 22 57.1 014 = SE corner.

X 015 S31 50 38.6 E22 22 57.0 018 = SW corner.

X 016 S31 50 38.8 E22 22 57.0 Extension off southern end of structure.

X 017 S31 50 38.7 E22 22 57.6 Circular heap of stones.

X 018 S31 50 38.4 E22 22 57.7 Rectangular heap of stones.

X 1327 S31 50 40.8 E22 22 55.4 A light scatter of LSA hornfels artefacts on an alluvial terrace

alongside a river.

NCW

X 1330 S31 50 24.2 E22 23 39.5 Historical stone-built kraal of about 10 m by 17 m built up against

a cliff near the top of the dolerite plateau but overlooking a river

valley.

IIIC

X 1331 S31 50 30.3 E22 24 02.7 A gulley created by moving rocks to the side. Seems to be related

to the present road so maybe not old.

NCW

X X 1332 S31 49 46.3 E22 24 43.8 Very low density scatter of weathered hornfels and dolerite

artefacts on a sandy plain on top of the hills.

NCW

X 1333 S31 47 54.1 E22 23 02.3 Stone-packed ruin that was probably residential. There is a

relatively well-preserved central section with two heavily

collapsed outer ‘rooms’.

IIIA

X 1334 S31 47 53.6 E22 23 02.5 Small pile of stones that looks as though it has collapsed. This

suggests there was once a hole beneath them. Possibly a grave

but seems too close to the house ruin. Many glass, ceramic and

metal artefacts in this area including a metal four-holed button

and the lid of a tin that has ‘J. ROSFELL & SONS LTD POWDERED

CAUSTIC SODA’ embossed on it.

X 1335 S31 47 55.8 E22 23 03.6 Small stone enclosure.

X 1336 S31 47 54.8 E22 23 06.9 Pile of dolerite cobbles.

X 1337 S31 47 54.4 E22 23 06.2 A large accumulation of dolerite cobbles that must be

anthropogenic.

X 1338 S31 47 44.9 E22 23 00.8 A small stone-built enclosure/feature largely obscured by bushes.

X 1339 S31 47 45.3 E22 23 00.1 A small circular, stone-built enclosure of about 2 m diameter.

X 1340 S31 47 44.0 E22 23 02.8 A stone-packed grave with three simple dolerite headstones and a

space between two of them suggesting that the stone packing

was large enough for four burials. Two animal burrows have gone

in underneath the stone packing and two rib fragments are

present on the surface (from an image sent to Dr Teresa Steele,

neither bone is human).

X 1341 S31 47 43.8 E22 23 03.1 A cluster of dolerite stones on the alluvial terrace and a scatter of

ceramics and glass.

X 1342 S31 47 44.2 E22 23 04.2 A scatter of glass (rare) and ceramics (common) as well as a CCS

gun flint and a quartzite pebble upper grindstone.

X 1343 S31 47 44.4 E22 23 04.0 Small circular stone feature (possible grave).

X 019 S31 47 54.1 E22 23 04.5 Circular stone feature of dolerite slabs and boulders, approx. 5-

6m across. Probably collapsed structure.

X 020 S31 47 51.6 E22 23 00.5 Circular heap of stone slabs. No structure.

X 021 S31 47 51.3 E22 23 00.2 Larger rectangular heap of stone slabs. Clearly piled.



X 022 S31 47 54.3 E22 22 56.4 Circular stone structure with E-facing entrance. Double wall with

rubble filling.

X 1344 S31 47 48.5 E22 23 17.0 An ephemeral scatter of LSA artefacts and a lower grindstone

(face up). Also some ostrich eggshell fragments.

NCW

X X X 1345 S31 49 01.7 E22 21 47.9 A two-roomed structure built of sandstone slabs and located

along the edge of a sandstone outcrop. It is quite well-preserved.

Just outside its southeast corner there are chisel marks on the

sandstone bedrock where stone dressing took place. There are

fragments of Unio caffer (freshwater mussel) shell inside the

house.

IIIB

X X X 1346 S31 48 59.4 E22 21 48.2 A rectangular 2 m by 3 m stone structure that appears to have

had many rocks removed from it.

X X X 023 S31 48 54.8 E22 21 40.4 Stone pile/cairn, diameter approx. 1m. Mostly stone slabs.

X X X 024 S31 49 00.5 E22 21 38.0 Square stone structure with a north-facing entrance.

Approximately 3.5x3.5m.

NB: this complex has not been given an outline since there are

few features and only two, which are 260 m apart, have any value

(1345 & 024).

X 1287 S31 50 16.6 E22 20 49.2 Snydersfontein farmstead. Many historical structures including a

vernacular gabled ‘longhouse’ type structure with stoepkamers, a

donkey geyser and a very large pepper tree. The house has been

renovated (including a new corrugated iron roof) but retains its

heritage qualities. The main farmhouse is older than 60 years but

has been renovated (it was not well visible due to trees and was

not visited).

IIIA

X 1348 S31 50 20.9 E22 20 57.3 Two mid-20th century labourers’ cottages.

X 1349 S31 50 20.8 E22 20 43.8 Extensive stone walling on the alluvial terrace/floodplain and

surrounding terrain.

X 1350 S31 50 05.5 E22 20 38.7 A large kraal/stone walling on the slope on the north side of the

river.

X 1351 S31 50 27.9 E22 20 31.3 Stone-walled graveyard but with a fenced enclosure around it.

There are c. 13 graves inside the stone wall, including some small

stone-packed mounds, and about 17 graves outside the wall but

within the fenced area. Oldest grave is dated 1868. It is the Van

der Westhuizen family graveyard.

X 1352 S31 50 22.2 E22 20 23.6 A corner point on the above stone walling. [Not visited.]

X 1354 S31 50 18.1 E22 20 46.8 Small round stone feature built with dolerite boulders just off the

public road.

X 1355 S31 50 13.4 E22 20 50.4 Ash heap with glass and ceramic artefacts on it but fairly low

density artefacts. Likely associated with the longhouse noted in

1287.

1864 S31 50 05.2 E22 20 38.9 Stone kraal on the south-facing slope to the north of the river. Not

visited.

X 1353 S31 49 50.6 E22 18 48.8 Fence line that utilizes many stone fence posts. There are others

in the area but this is an especially well-preserved example.

IIIC

X 1356 S31 52 56.6 E22 23 24.9 Stone wall running up the hillside. Note that the walling is more

extensive in this valley than what is mapped in this report,

especially towards the west.

IIIA

X 1357 S31 53 09.5 E22 23 36.1 Stone walling running around and across a valley. There is walling

on top of the sandstone cliffs and sometimes the cliff itself serves

as the wall. In one place there were drains built at the base of the

wall where it crosses a stream.

X 1358 S31 53 15.5 E22 23 35.5 Stone walling running up the hill and over the sandstone cliff.

X 1359 S31 53 22.0 E22 23 39.2 Stone walling running up the slope to the south of the river.

X 1360 S31 53 26.4 E22 23 52.0 Stone walling on the hillside south of the river.

X 1361 S31 53 24.3 E22 23 55.1 Stone ruin and several other stone features including a

stone=packed dam wall.

X 1362 S31 53 29.2 E22 23 53.7 Large two-roomed kraal on the slope to the south of the river.

X 1363 S31 53 27.6 E22 24 02.6 Two-roomed stone structure, possibly a small kraal.

X 1364 S31 53 28.9 E22 24 04.7 Stone structure, possibly a kraal.

X 1365 S31 53 31.9 E22 24 02.8 Stone walling/structure

X 1744 S31 53 29.8 E22 23 53.9 A small house ruin located just east of a large kraal.

X 1745 S31 53 30.9 E22 23 53.6 Two quarry sites on the lip of the scarp where building stone was

obtained and dressed.

X 1746 S31 53 32.6 E22 23 54.9 A small (2 m by 2 m) square collapsed stone structure.

X 1747 S31 53 24.5 E22 23 56.7 Stone-walled terrace presumably built to prevent erosion of the

area on which structures occur.

X 1748 S31 53 21.0 E22 23 58.7 A Stone-built dam across a river valley. It is largely intact but has

minor damage to the front of the wall and spillway areas.

X 1749 S31 53 21.4 E22 23 57.0 A historical kraal built up against a low cliff and incorporating two

free-standing blocks on the slope.

X 1751 S31 53 22.2 E22 23 55.8 A poorly preserved, perhaps partial stone enclosure against the

cliff.

X 1752 S31 53 24.0 E22 23 55.9 An ash and rubbish dump at the end of the stone terrace (1747).

It has glass, ceramics, metal and bone.

X 1753 S31 53 24.8 E22 23 55.9 The remains of a ruin with stone paving slabs and many fired clay

bricks.



X X 1367 S31 43 33.2 E22 22 08.7 Stone kraal. IIIC

X X 1368 S31 43 32.9 E22 22 06.5 Stone kraal.

X X 1369 S31 43 33.8 E22 22 09.7 Low density historical artefact scatter.

X X 025 S31 43 34.2 E22 22 11.0 Part of a stone wall, possibly at the edge of a dump. Slight

concentration of historical cultural material next to it.

X X 026 S31 43 34.7 E22 22 10.3 Rectangular stone structure mostly made of large single boulders,

approx. 4-5x10m. Divided by wall into larger part (with two small

sections of wall on S wall) and smaller part.

X X 1370 S31 43 36.3 E22 22 09.6 Dense scatter of hornfels artefacts and ostrich eggshell fragments

on the slope of a dolerite hill.

IIIC

X X 1371 S31 43 25.9 E22 23 52.5 Two cleared strips of ground with the dolerite cobbles pushed to

the edges. Function unknown.

IIIA

X 1372 S31 43 29.6 E22 23 58.6 Stone walling, possibly a kraal, on a dolerite hill.

X 1373 S31 43 35.8 E22 23 58.3 Stone walling including a kraal.

X 1490 S31 43 28.7 E22 24 05.2 The Rocklands farmstead contains a variety of structures. There is

a vernacular labourers’ cottage at this waypoint and a stone ruin

very nearby. There are many stone walls in the farm complex as

well. The main house may be Victorian in age originally but has

been much modified and added to over the years, although an

adjoining structure retains more of its original features.

X 1396 S31 43 23.1 E22 23 59.5 A circular stone feature that looks like a threshing floor (truncated

by adjoining gravel track but with a smaller stone circular stone

feature inside it.

1397 S31 43 12.1 E22 24 05.6 Various stone walls occur in the area to the west and northwest of

this point.

X 1398 S31 43 28.3 E22 24 00.0 There is much stone walling within the farm complex around this

point. Note that the farmhouse has been heavily renovated and

lacks historical qualities. Other outbuildings in the complex were

not specifically recorded, though no significant historical

structures were noticed during our brief visit.

X X 1713 S31 43 23.0 E22 24 12.6 Set of labourers’ cottages to the northeast of the farm complex.

The two on the northeast end of the row are the youngest. Aerial

photography reveals that only the two on the southwest end

predate 1959.

X X 027 S31 43 25.1 E22 23 52.6 Possible old brick kiln with rejected bricks and slag.

X 1374 S31 43 45.3 E22 23 08.4 Stone alignment from the base of an old fence running north-

south that has been removed. This feature went for a long

distance and was only recorded here.

NCW

X 1375 S31 43 47.3 E22 23 05.5 C-shaped LSA stone-walled feature with hornfels artefacts and

ostrich eggshell fragments inside and alongside it.

IIIB

X 1376 S31 43 43.0 E22 22 55.0 An approximately 20 m diameter scatter of ostrich eggshell and

LSA hornfels artefacts in a flat, open area.

IIIC

X 1377 S31 43 50.5 E22 23 00.9 An approximately 20 m diameter scatter of LSA hornfels artefacts

and ostrich eggshell fragments in a flat area overlooking a river.

There was some burnt ostrich eggshell and a large thumbnail

scraper was seen. Many blades/bladelets were present and the

scatter is very dense.

IIIB

X 1378 S31 43 49.8 E22 23 02.2 An approximately 20 m diameter scatter of LSA hornfels artefacts

in an open area between the dolerite koppie with the stone-

walled enclosure (1375) and the river. There was also one flake of

possible volcanic chert or quartzite. The scatter is of moderate

density.

IIIC

X 1379 S31 43 52.8 E22 23 05.8 Widespread low density LSA hornfels artefacts scatter along the

river. No obvious concentrations.

NCW

X 1380 S31 43 54.5 E22 23 09.4 A dolerite outcrop with four rock gongs. The top of the outcrop is

fractured and four of the corner points on the pieces have been

heavily battered from ringing them. They make four different

notes. There was also low density hornfels artefacts and ostrich

eggshell scatter around about.

IIIB

X 1381 S31 43 50.8 E22 24 03.9 Two stone piles/cairns, one on either side of the track. NCW

X 1382 S31 43 50.4 E22 24 09.7 Large formally constructed stone-walled dam. It is heavily silted

up. Must have held a lot of water originally. The full supply level

extends at least 400 m upstream. A small cottage just south of the

dam wall is shown on historical aerial photographs to be older

than 60 years but was not recorded on site because recent

modification suggested t=it to be modern. The grade here applies

to the dam with the cottage being NCW.

IIIB

X 1383 S31 43 46.3 E22 24 09.9 Small stone feature. It is unlikely to be a grave. NCW

X 1384 S31 43 44.7 E22 24 09.0 Stone walling on a steep hill above a river. It is U-shaped with the

arms pointing down to the river.

NCW



X 1385 S31 43 45.0 E22 24 08.5 Rock outcrops with stone walling in front of them and an

extremely dense scatter of ostrich eggshell fragments with some

LSA hornfels artefacts. It is on the crest of a hill overlooking a

river.

IIIB

X X 1386 S31 45 37.7 E22 24 07.3 Dolerite outcrop with an overhanging wall facing towards the

south. There are many hornfels artefacts and ostrich eggshell

fragments in the shelter and also one mineral-tempered pottery

fragment. There is also some bone that almost certainly belongs

with the LSA material but some recent tortoise bones clearly

originate from birds of prey dropping young tortoises on the

outcrop. Below the shelter there is a rock step and below this

there is an outcrop kraal built up against the step.

IIIA

X X 1387 S31 45 33.3 E22 24 04.4 Small stone house ruin overlooking a watercourse. It has an east-

facing doorway and some collapsed walling forming two more

rooms on its east side. There are a few glass, ceramic and metal

artefacts scattered about the area that seem likely to be early 20th

century.

IIIB

X X 035 S31 45 35.4 E22 24 12.1 Semi-circular kraal of dolerite blocks, approx. 4x4m.

X X 036

S31 45 36.0 E22 24 14.1

Rectangular stone kraal made of dolerite boulders, approximately

7 x 9m.

X 1388 S31 45 38.9 E22 23 56.2 An isolated LSA lower grindstone. NCW

X X 1389 S31 45 46.1 E22 24 09.0 A historical stone-walled kraal built up against the south side of a

dolerite outcrop. Although it has the look of an LSA kraal, it seems

to be better built suggesting it is relatively recent.

IIIB

X 1390 S31 46 35.0 E22 23 55.2 Widespread, low density scatter of LSA hornfels artefacts in a flat.

Open area near a river.

NCW

X 1391 S31 46 34.1 E22 23 56.2 A small stone-built in-stream dam. NCW

X 1392 S31 46 33.0 E22 23 52.6 A southwest-facing stone enclosure built against a dolerite

outcrop. It was not possibly to determine whether it is LSA or

historical and there were no associated artefacts. Given the dams,

it is probably historical.

IIIC

X 1393 S31 46 34.5 E22 23 52.4 An in-stream earthen-walled dam. NCW

X 1394 S31 47 02.0 E22 24 13.2 Stone wall running towards a river and that looks like a low dam

wall but which is not visible on the other side of the river.

NCW

X X 1395 S31 43 22.9 E22 23 58.5 The grave of Johanna Hope who died in 1916. There is no

graveyard or actual grave covering (only a headstone) and the

grave is overgrown.

IIIA

X 1399 S31 43 11.0 E22 23 58.1 An isolated LSA lower grindstone.

X 1400 S31 43 40.2 E22 22 20.3 A small northeast-facing rock shelter in a dolerite cliff with many

ostrich eggshell fragments in front of it. There is also some

modern white painted graffiti on this outcrop (several crosses,

‘HUMO’ and ‘B.P.’).

NCW

X 1401 S31 43 45.8 E22 22 17.5 An LSA hornfels artefact scatter on the dolerite ridge between

two river valleys. There was also one flake of possible volcanic

chert or quartzite. The scatter is of low-moderate density.

IIIC

X 1402 S31 43 45.0 E22 22 16.9 More of the above scatter but it is of moderate density here. A

hornfels adze and a scraper/core on possible volcanic chert or

quartzite were also seen.

X 1403 S31 47 16.9 E22 21 11.8 A stone-built house ruin built on the edge of a sandstone scarp

overlooking a river.

IIIA

X 1404 S31 47 17.6 E22 21 12.0 A small stone-walled feature located just to the south of the

house ruin (1403) and closer to the edge of the scarp.

X 1405 S31 47 17.7 E22 21 12.4 An ash and rubbish dump located over the edge of the scarp

below the house ruin. It contains typical 19th century materials.

X 1406 S31 47 17.3 E22 21 13.4 A three-roomed stone-built house ruin built just below the edge

of a sandstone scarp overlooking a river and west of the 1403

house ruin.

X 1407 S31 47 15.6 E22 21 14.0 Stone-built kraal of 17 m by 23 m on the top of the sandstone

scarp.

X 1407b S31 47 25.3 E22 21 12.7 A rectangular stone enclosure of 60 m by 120 m lies on the alluvial

terrace below the sandstone scarp and a stone wall runs up the

hill to the scarp on the south side of the valley (not visited).

X 040 S31 47 17.9 E22 21 09.2 Bi-lobed stone structure, about 6m in length, with some historical

cultural material around it. There is a large rectangular feature in

the valley below (to the south) which has not been visited.

X 1408 S31 47 11.7 E22 21 19.3 Circular stone enclosure with an entrance facing towards the

southeast.

X 1409 S31 47 11.8 E22 21 20.7 A single probable grave. It has no grave covering but there is a

probable headstone that is securely buried. A rock lies

immediately west of the ‘headstone’.

X 1412 S31 47 14.4 E22 21 18.2 A large stone-built dam wall built across the valley between two

sandstone scarps. It is heavily silted up on the upstream side and

is buried by a poplar forest.

X 042 S31 47 09.3 E22 21 26.9 Two graves, one indicated by a heap of stones with a headstone,

the other by head and foot stones with stone slabs in between.



X 1410 S31 47 11.9 E22 21 20.2 A geometric rock art site with three painted geometric motifs.

There are on a vertical wall under a roof under a sandstone scarp.

The shelter is not inhabitable.

IIIA

X 1411 S31 47 12.4 E22 21 19.6 A small rock shelter under the same sandstone scarp as 1410 and

about 20 m to the southwest. It contains ostrich eggshell

fragments and some hornfels.

IIIC

X 1413 1492 m Round house ruin with a voorkamer type room that has collapsed. IIIA

X 1414 1493 m Rubbish midden with glass, ceramics, bone and a rubber shoe

sole.

X 1415 1492 m A small collapsed stone feature of indeterminate function.

X 1416 1489 m A small stone feature of indeterminate function. It has a large tin

inside it. Possibly an oven?

X 1417 1483 m A large cluster of rocks that must have been some sort of

structure but is now completely collapsed.

X 1418 1481 m Two graves marked by headstones, two gate posts and a bit of

fence wire.

X X 1420 S31 49 01.0 E22 27 34.8 A small ruined stone-walled structure of indeterminate function. IIIC


X 1422 S31 49 06.3 E22 27 04.9 Outline of stones suggesting the base of a fenced area, possibly a

sheep pen.

NCW


X X 1424 S31 47 41.8 E22 26 58.8 Well-built and well-preserved (only the north wall has collapsed)

stone house with a 3 m by 4 m rectangular main room and an

irregular shaped voorkamer-type room extending 3 m further

east. House faces east with voorkamer entrance facing northeast.

The main room has a door to the east, a window to the west and a

muurkas in the southern wall. There is a circular structure facing

east built 3 m away to the east-northeast. It has an opening to the

east and is probably a kookskerm.

IIIA

X X 1425 S31 47 41.1 E22 26 59.4 A badly collapsed stone kraal of about 9 m by 14 m built against

the rock outcrop below 1424.

X X 1426 S31 47 38.0 E22 26 56.1 A small (1 m diameter) collapsed stone structure of indeterminate

function.

X X 1427 S31 47 37.4 E22 26 56.7 A second east-facing house with the same plan as 1424 but with

no muurkas. The east side of the structure has totally collapsed.

X X 1428 S31 47 37.3 E22 26 57.1 A small, collapsed stone feature with a scatter of glass, ceramics,

metal, ostrich eggshell and bone next to it.

X X 1429 S31 47 34.7 E22 26 59.1 A single grave aligned east-west but with just one gravestone on

the east end) possibly this was a footstone). There may have been

two originally with the headstone having collapsed.

X X 1430 S31 47 31.5 E22 26 59.9 A fossil. See

App.5

X X 1431 S31 47 33.9 E22 27 12.3 A collapsed stone house with an ephemeral glass and ceramic

scatter alongside it.

IIIC

X X 1432 S31 47 34.7 E22 27 12.9 A small collapsed stone structure of indeterminate function. A

semi-circle of stones is visible amongst the collapsed stones.

X X 044 S31 47 39.8 E22 27 25.9 Stone structure – one rectangular room with large semi-circle to E

side (1307) and smaller structure attached to S side (1305). Small

window on the W side (1311). A few ceramic fragments (1310).

X X 045 S31 47 39.5 E22 27 26.1 Heap of stone blocks, flattened structure.

X X 047 S31 47 37.7 E22 27 17.3 Old dam wall built of earth and then lined with stone. Dam has

burst. Main section of wall is 2-5 m in height.

X X 049 S31 47 35.2 E22 27 13.6 Semi-circular kraal with lammerhok on E side and rock wall of

scarp to north.

X X 1433 S31 47 37.3 E22 27 15.3 A fossil. See

App.5

X X 1434 S31 47 37.6 E22 27 16.5 A fossil. See

App.5

X X 1435 S31 47 37.4 E22 27 16.3 A fossil. See

App.5

X X 1436 S31 47 38.1 E22 27 16.9 A fossil. See

App.5

X X 1437 S31 47 49.4 E22 27 54.0 An engraving of an eland on a dark dolerite slab at the lip of the

dolerite sill.

IIIA

X X 1438 S31 47 45.9 E22 27 57.6 A historical scratched engraving on a dark dolerite slab on the lip

of a dolerite sill (close to 1437). There are two images, one on

either side of a crack, but they are difficult to discern.

IIIB

X X 1439 S31 48 17.7 E22 28 34.1 A small, sub-circular historic ruin. IIIC

X X 1440 S31 48 17.2 E22 28 32.7 A low stone dam wall across a shallow drainage line.

X X 1442 S31 48 15.9 E22 28 34.2 A dolerite outcrop with a small stone-built enclosure facing north

and a very small one (i.e. like a chicken cage) facing east.

X X 1441 S31 48 05.6 E22 28 35.6 A scatter of ostrich eggshell fragments with a few bits of metal

and some bone and glass. The glass seems to be a single bottle

with “BROOKES LEMOS / OROS LTD” embossed on it. There are

also rare hornfels stone artefacts in this area – a total of eight

were seen. The site lies on the pan dune to the east-northeast of a

large pan contained wholly within the dolerite sill.

NCW



X X 1443 S31 48 54.4 E22 29 03.1 A small stone kraal built against a sandstone outcrop. IIIC

X X 1444 S31 48 53.0 E22 29 02.9 A 2-roomed stone ruin with a single piece of glass alongside it.

X 1445 S31 46 21.4 E22 29 48.0 A semi-circular, northwest-facing stone structure of 1.5 m

diameter built against a rock outcrop. Possibly a hunting blind.

There are a few bits of ostrich eggshell and one tortoise limb bone

but the structure may be historical.

IIIC

X 1446 S31 46 16.8 E22 30 15.8 A tiny southwest-facing rock shelter under a sandstone outcrop. It

has a geometric painting under a low overhang at the back. On

the floor are ostrich eggshell fragments (including some burnt),

bones and a few hornfels artefacts (just five seen). The painting is

under a 70-75 cm high roof and is located on an overhanging face

about 50-60 cm above the ground. There is stone walling at the

north-western end of the shelter.

IIIA

X 1447 S31 46 16.7 E22 30 16.7 A small, solid rectangular structure about 0.7 m wide, 1.2 m long

and 0.6 m high. It is at the foot of a sandstone outcrop. Its

function is unknown.

NCW

X 1448 S31 46 16.5 E22 30 18.6 A small south-facing shelter with stone walling around the front. NCW

X 1449 S31 46 16.3 E22 30 20.5 A small east-facing shelter with extremely informal walling in it. NCW

X 1450 S31 47 17.0 E22 30 17.0 A small stone ruin at the foot of a sandstone outcrop. Not visited. IIIC

X 1451 S31 47 05.8 E22 31 12.4 A large (30 m by 35 m stone kraal that has badly collapsed. IIIC

X 1452 S31 47 05.8 E22 31 09.9 A small scatter of glass, ceramics, metal and bone.

X 1453 S31 47 05.9 E22 31 09.4 A small collapsed stone structure of indeterminate function.

1454 S31 48 14.2 E22 31 33.1 A stone kraal that has partly collapsed (outside study area). IIIC

1455 S31 48 23.0 E22 31 33.5 A stone kraal (outside study area). IIIC

1456 S31 48 25.0 E22 31 27.8 A stone kraal (outside study area). IIIC

X 1457 S31 52 23.4 E22 27 11.2 A small west-facing rock shelter on the side of a prominent

sandstone outcrop with an extensive ostrich eggshell scatter and

some hornfels artefacts. There are also hornfels artefacts and

potsherds on top of the hill but most have been collected up into

one location for showing visitors.

IIIB

X 1458 S31 52 24.5 E22 27 12.3 A small south-facing rock shelter on the side of a prominent

sandstone outcrop with an ostrich eggshell scatter and some

hornfels artefacts.

1460 S31 43 00.3 E22 25 51.5 Stone-built dam (outside study area). IIIC

X 1461 S31 44 37.2 E22 28 20.6 An upright and embedded stone that very likely represents a

grave. Its surfaces face east-west. The site is far from

IIIA

X 1462 S31 44 41.8 E22 28 18.4 Historical walling against a rock outcrop above a stream. It is

southwest-facing.

X 1463 S31 44 41.1 E22 28 16.7 Walling around an animal burrow in a crevice. Presumably to trap

the animal and catch it when it got hungry.

X 1464 S31 44 46.2 E22 28 14.0 East-facing single-roomed structure. It has only minor collapse at

its entrance. Two green glass fragments and a brass item with

“EXHIBITION GRAMOPHONE & TYPEWRITER LTD LONDON-BERIN-

PARIS” on one side and “16469” on the other side.

X 1465 S31 44 48.9 E22 27 36.9 Isolated upper grindstone below a sandstone and shale cliff. NCW

X 1466 S31 44 25.6 E22 28 05.5 A small scatter of glass originating from a single bottle. Parts of

“PROPERTY OF” are visible and other text includes “……PE” and

“…ES, LTD”.

NCW

X 1467 S31 44 03.2 E22 28 02.6 Scatter of sandstone artefacts near a river. NCW

X 1468 S31 45 14.2 E22 28 40.4 A scatter of quite large grey flakes that may be from stone

dressing.

NCW

X 1469 S31 45 15.4 E22 28 36.1 A scatter of quite large grey flakes that may be from stone

dressing.

NCW

X 1470 S31 45 16.3 E22 28 36.4 LSA hornfels scatter on the scree slope below a sandstone scarp.

Some bladelets seen and one miscellaneous scraper.

IIIC

X 1471 S31 45 05.8 E22 28 32.7 East-facing house ruin with some glass and ceramics around it. A

long, thin blue bottle neck was inside the house. The central room

is oval in shape and a room has been added to the southwest

(now collapsed) and a voorkamer-type room is to the east in front

of the door of the central room. The central room and northeast

wall are still intact but the additions to the southeast have

collapsed.

IIIA

X 1472 S31 45 05.5 E22 28 32.6 Oval structure located just to the northeast of the main house.

X 1473 S31 45 05.6 E22 28 32.2 A small square stone feature of 1 x 1 m.

X 1474 S31 45 05.4 E22 28 32.1 A light ash and artefact dump that includes glass, ceramics, metal

(including some potjie fragments) and some bones (including a

sheep mandible). There is also a section of ‘paving’ within the

limits of the dump.

X 1475 S31 45 05.2 E22 28 32.6 A small square stone feature of about 1 m diameter.

X 1476 S31 45 05.4 E22 28 33.3 A stone-built (probable) kraal that has collapsed almost entirely.

There is a small rectangular room attached to the uphill side of

the structure.

X 1477 S31 45 03.9 E22 28 32.4 A semi-circular stone structure of indeterminate function.

X 1478 S31 45 07.3 E22 28 34.9 A collapsed circular structure of about 3 m diameter.

X 060 S31 45 19.7 E22 28 36.0 Filled-in semi-circle of stone blocks against scarp 4-5m x 2-3m



X 061 S31 45 19.9 E22 28 36.6 Semi-circular stone structure with entrance on N side, alcove on

straight back wall (E), curved platform on SW side. Circle approx.

3x3m.

X 062 S31 45 19.7 E22 28 36.9 Small circular stone structure with adjoining ‘wall’ of boulders on

SE side.

X 063 S31 45 18.5 E22 28 35.7 Circular stone structure with attached semi-circle filled with

rubble of sandstone blocks, approx. 3x7m.

X 064 S31 45 17.7 E22 28 36.0 Semi-circular stone structure

X 065 S31 45 17.4 E22 28 35.9 Rectangular stone structure with small attached square structure

to SE, with adjacent heap of stone blocks. Main structure has an

alcove in W wall.

X 066 S31 45 13.8 E22 28 34.9 Stone house with added-on section to N and semi-circular

structure to the E. 066 = S side – between house and semi-circle.

A few historical cultural remains.

X 067 S31 45 13.6 E22 28 35.1 Same house. S side – SE ‘corner’ of semi-circle.

X 068 S31 45 13.6 E22 28 35.1 Same house. N side – NE ‘corner’ of semi-circle.

X 069 S31 45 13.6 E22 28 34.7 Same house. N side – NW ‘corner’ of house add-on. A small part

of the dividing wall remains along the W wall

X 070 S31 45 13.8 E22 28 34.7 Same house. S side – SW ‘corner’ of house. Two alcoves along W

wall.

X 071 S31 45 14.3 E22 28 34.4 Centre of roughly rectangular kraal, approx. 7-8 x 11m.

X 072 S31 45 14.0 E22 28 34.3 Stone cairn/heap close to NW corner of kraal 071, approx. 1m

high.

X 073 S31 45 14.0 E22 28 34.0 Lower stone heap, approx. 1/2m high.

X 074 S31 45 13.8 E22 28 34.1 Lower stone heap, approx. 1/2m high.

X 075 S31 45 14.2 E22 28 35.2 Centre of oval kraal, approx. 8x17m, made mostly using natural

features such as grouped large boulders to the N and a rocky

ledge to the W. Wall built along edge of the scarp on E side.

X 1479 S31 45 12.5 E22 28 34.8 A fossil. See

App.5

X 1480 S31 45 51.7 E22 29 07.5 A stone beacon of unknown function. NCW

X 1481 S31 46 09.4 E22 29 11.2 A fossil. See

App.5

X 1482 S31 46 10.2 E22 29 10.9 A fossil. See

App.5

X 1483 S31 46 11.0 E22 29 07.6 A well-preserved east-facing stone house (door facing east). IIIB

X 1484 S31 46 14.7 E22 29 12.8 A tall sandstone slab that has been stood upright and is supported

by a smaller slab. It is not buried in the ground suggesting that it

might not have been standing up for all that long. It seems to

mark a source of good building slabs.

NCW

X 1485 S31 46 15.4 E22 29 04.2 A fossil. See

App.5

X 1486 S31 46 03.5 E22 29 15.1 A fossil. See

App.5

X 1487 S31 46 03.3 E22 29 16.2 A fossil. See

App.5

X 1488 S31 46 03.3 E22 29 17.0 A fossil. See

App.5

1489 S31 43 28.3 E22 27 51.3 A large cement dam (outside study area). IIIC

X 1491 S31 47 30.5 E22 21 29.2 A small indeterminate stone feature. IIIA

X 1492 S31 47 30.6 E22 21 28.5 A large indeterminate stone feature with occasional pieces of

glass, ceramic and metal lying around it.

X 1493 S31 47 30.6 E22 21 26.7 A rubbish dump with plenty of glass and ceramics and some

metal. There is no or minimal ash.

X 1494 S31 47 31.0 E22 21 26.1 An east-facing stone-built house made with lobed rooms. There is

a central room of about 3.0 m by 2.5 m and two further rounded

rooms added to the west and northern sides. All three doors are

about 0.4 m wide. A wall at the southeastern corner of the

structure is badly collapsed but the rest is still standing. A large

crack has developed next to the entrance of the central room with

a smaller one on the other side of the door. These will cause a

large collapse when the wall fails.

X 1495 S31 47 32.2 E22 21 27.9 A stone-built structure with two rooms. Both have straight sides

with the smaller being a 2.5 m by 1.5m rectangle and the larger

being an irregular shape of about 6.0 m by 4.5 m. Glass, ceramic

and metal items occur in and around it with some of them

seeming fairly modern (maybe early to mid-20th century. Seems

like an outbuilding.

X 1496 S31 47 32.7 E22 21 27.4 A large collapsed pile of stone of unknown function. They lie right

on the edge of the sandstone scarp.

X 1497 S31 47 34.0 E22 21 27.0 A large kraal that was made of wire fencing but using large

sandstone pillars as fence posts. The posts are still there, some of

them collapsed, but the wire has been removed except for the

pieces fastened around the posts. It is about 70 m by 72 m and

lies in the valley below the scarp that hosts the structures.



X 1498 S31 47 33.8 E22 21 26.5 A badly collapsed stone feature of indeterminate function. It lies

in the valley next to the kraal (waypoint 1497) and below the

sandstone scarp.

X 083 S31 47 32.4 E22 21 28.6 Small, South-facing overhang below edge of scarp with semi-

circular stone wall enclosing area of approx. 1.5x3m. Abundant

OES (some burnt), several hornfels artefacts, bone (incl. tooth)

fragments. Archaeological material cascades down slope to

waypoint 084. Also small shelter 3m to the east with minimal

scatter.

X 084 S31 47 33.4 E22 21 28.6 Southern extent of artefact scatter, approx. 28m away from

overhang 083. Besides OES and stone artefacts, also metal,

porcelain and glass fragments (1705), LSA pottery fragment with

red slip (1700), upper grindstone (1712).

1500 S32 09 41.0 E22 28 20.7 The Grootvlei farm complex with some stone buildings, one of

which has a dilapidated thatch roof. The latter looks like a larger

version of the traditional hartebeeshuis but is clearly of fairly

recent construction with stone wall sections filling gaps between

wooden poles. Some other structures are on stone plinths. The

main house seems no more than mid-20th century. Farm workers

were seen busy building stone walls at the farm entrance, again

filling spaces between poles, and seemingly using already dressed

stones perhaps removed from a ruin elsewhere. The farm is thus

considered as a place associated with living heritage.

IIIB

1501 S32 09 48.5 E22 28 36.5 Grootvlei farm graveyard located along the northeast side of the

road southeast of the farm complex (at waypoint 1500).

IIIA

1502 S32 10 22.9 E22 32 21.5 This point is at the top of the Molteno Pass which dates to 1888. IIIA

1503 S32 10 34.6 E22 32 53.5 Stone retaining walls holding up the Molteno Pass.

1504 S32 11 40.0 E22 33 14.2 A long stone wall running up the mountain. Aerial photography

shows that there are more similar walls on top of the mountain.

IIIB

X 1658 S31 50 43.5 E22 29 38.9 A small scatter of fragments of a single broken plate. NCW

X 1659 S31 50 40.9 E22 29 42.5 A stone foundation of indeterminate function. Given its proximity

to a modern wind pump and an older wind pump base it may not

be archaeological.

IIIB

X 1660 S31 50 40.4 E22 29 45.9 The remains of a small stone and earth dam wall.

X 1661 S31 50 39.2 E22 29 48.1 A square ruin of about 3 m x 3 m with two circular features

alongside it.

X 1662 S31 50 55.0 E22 29 59.4 An almost circular stone-built kraal of about 12-14 m diameter

and with entrances to the north and south-southeast.

IIIB

X 1663 S31 50 54.4 E22 29 59.8 A ruin with a square room and three outer enclosures totalling

about 5 m by 5 m. There is a lot of collapsed stonework in the

entranceway on the east side of the structure. There are also

three other sections of remnant walling to the east. There is a low

density scatter of glass, ceramics, metal and bone n the area but

mostly to the north of the ruins.

X 1664 S31 50 57.3 E22 29 57.6 Two small tumbled ruins at the north end of the very large stone

structure (1667). The ruins are rectangular and oval in shape.

X 1665 S31 51 00.1 E22 29 57.3 A circular house ruin of about 3 m diameter. It has a door opening

to the east and a muurkas in each of the north and south walls. A

short section of wall lies outside the circle on the north side of the

doorway.

X 1666 S31 51 04.2 E22 29 57.1 A 3 m by 5 m rectangular ruin with a door facing towards the east.

X 1667 S31 51 07.9 E22 29 59.2 A large stone-walled feature spanning the valley and stream. It

may be a garden enclosure (to keep animals out). It is an irregular

shape and has a maximum length (NNE-SSW) of 530 m and a

maximum width near it southern end of 220 m.

X 1668 S31 51 09.1 E22 29 57.6 A circular feature of about 13 m diameter that is very likely a

threshing floor. Unusually, it is made through formal wall

construction. It has an entrance facing towards the southwest and

it is demarcated by a section of very low stonework.

X 1669 S31 51 12.3 E22 29 54.0 This area seems like it may have been cultivated. It is level and

free of rocks and the sediment is backed up against the walling of

1667.

X 1670 S31 51 12.7 E22 29 52.0 A rectangular ruin of 2m by 3 m with entrance facing towards the

east. There is a small cluster of rocks about 8 m to the east with

one of the rocks being a broken lower grindstone (cannot tell if

this was an LSA grindstone collected and reused or if it was

historical. There are rare fragments of glass and ceramics around

the site.

X 1671 S31 51 14.5 E22 29 52.9 A poorly preserved circular kraal at the base of the slope. Part of it

is on the slope and part on the flatter, sandy ground. It is about

15 m diameter.

X X 1672 S31 50 56.3 E22 29 32.6 A shiny patch of dolerite bedrock with historical scratching on it. NCW

X 1673 S31 43 35.5 E22 22 12.2 A light scatter of LSA hornfels artefacts including a very thin adze. IIIC

X 1674 S31 44 55.8 E22 22 10.5 A very faded engraving of an eland located on a small rock at the

base of a 2 m high dolerite koppie. There are also some other

scratches that do not seem to be part of the image. The rock is

cracked and is about 40-50 cm across. It is portable.

IIIA



X 1675 S31 45 47.2 E22 22 16.0 A small black dolerite koppie just west of a stream bed with a

flake to its south, a hammerstone/upper grindstone to its east, a

flake to its north, two potsherds to its west, and a core to the east

of the stream. One of the potsherds is covered by fine-incised

decoration.

NCW

X 1676 S31 46 14.5 E22 22 07.7 A small cairn of unknown function. NCW

X 1677 S31 46 25.0 E22 22 27.9 An ephemeral scatter of LSA artefacts in hornfels. NCW

X 1678 S31 46 26.1 E22 22 29.5 A short section of informal walling next to a dolerite rock. NCW

X 1679 S31 46 26.2 E22 22 31.4 A large, dense LSA hornfels scatter. There is also some quartzite

and CCS and ostrich eggshell fragments. A miscellaneous backed

scraper in hornfels was seen.

IIIA

X 1680 S31 46 24.8 E22 22 32.2 More of the above. A lower grindstone fragment occurs at this

point. Hornfels and ostrich eggshell present.

X 1681 S31 46 24.4 E22 22 33.8 More of the above but with a lower grindstone on a dolerite

outcrop and also a rock gong with four notes. A loose lower

grindstone lies face up about 10 m to the east.

X 1682 S31 46 25.5 E22 22 35.3 Light scatter of LSA hornfels artefacts.

X 1683 S31 46 25.8 E22 22 34.4 Dense scatter of LSA hornfels artefacts. Also ostrich eggshell

fragments here.

X 1684 S31 46 26.0 E22 22 33.1 Dense scatter of LSA hornfels artefacts. Also CCS, a hornfels

truncated bladelet, a hornfels scraper/adze, and a CCS adze.

X 1685 S31 46 26.5 E22 22 35.0 More of the above.

X 1686 S31 46 23.2 E22 22 35.1 Small scatter of ostrich eggshell with rare hornfels artefacts.

X 1687 S31 46 24.2 E22 22 30.4 Light scatter of LSA hornfels artefacts with a face up lower

grindstone fragment.

X 1688 S31 46 27.4 E22 22 32.4 Dense scatter of LSA hornfels artefacts and ostrich eggshell.

Includes a hornfels double-backed bladelet and a

hammerstone/upper grindstone.

X 1691 S31 46 28.6 E22 22 34.7 A scatter of LSA hornfels artefacts with fragments of bone and

ostrich eggshell and also a shell fragment (likely the freshwater

mussel Unio caffer). There is a lower grindstone (face up). Also

historical items from the historical site including stoneware and

glass.

X 1692 S31 46 28.5 E22 22 34.2 A dense scatter of LSA hornfels artefacts and ostrich eggshell and

a lower grindstone on a dolerite outcrop.

X 1689 S31 46 27.5 E22 22 34.1 A large stone-built kraal of about 20 m by 34 m with a small 2.5 m

by 2.5 m enclosure inside the northeast corner.

IIIC

X 1690 S31 46 27.1 E22 22 34.5 A small rectangular ruin of about 2.5 m by 3 m. There are pieces

of metal and bone and there is a small pile of rocks just east of the

northeast corner of the structure.

X 1693 S31 46 43.7 E22 22 36.4 An ephemeral LSA hornfels artefacts scatter to the east of a small

dolerite koppie.

NCW

X 1694 S31 48 03.1 E22 24 27.8 A 30 m long stone alignment with a 10 m section running south

from its west end and a 3 m section running north from its east

end. There is a small circular ruin of 1.5 m diameter north of the

last-mentioned stone alignment. Waypoints 1694 and 1695 at

each end of the 30 m section.

IIIA

X 1695 S31 48 03.4 E22 24 29.1

X 1696 S31 48 02.6 E22 24 28.7 An east-west stone alignment about 8 m long.

X 1697 S31 48 05.7 E22 24 30.7 A rectangular stone ruin of about 5 m by 11 m. There are ceramic

fragments associated with it.

X 1698 S31 48 05.7 E22 24 31.4 Oval shaped ruin of about 5 m by 2.5 m and with a dividing wall.

There are metal items, including two cans (1 square, 1 round) and

a black plastic head of sorts.

X 1699 S31 48 06.8 E22 24 31.3 A large stone kraal of about 50 m by 40 m. At the northeast

corner there are various stone features (see illustration).

X 1700 S31 48 06.9 E22 24 32.3 A 2 m by 2 m stone feature inside the northeast corner of the

kraal but it is free-standing. Also a small enclosure built on the

outside of the kraal just west of this spot. To the north is an

enclosure built against the south side of a dolerite outcrop. It is

about 7m by 12 m and has much glass, ceramics, etc inside it. A

small 4 m by 2 m enclosure is built onto the western side of this

larger one.

X 1701 S31 48 06.3 E22 24 32.1 A stone-walled house with two rooms. Whole structure is 3 m by

5 m. There is a muurkas in the southwest wall of each room and a

shelf sits in the western corner. A piece of the same shelf rock lies

in the rubble in the eastern corner. The northeast-facing door

opens into the eastern room.

X 1702 S31 48 06.5 E22 24 31.8 Waypoint at east end of northern kraal wall.

X 1704 S31 48 04.2 E22 24 31.9 Small enclosure built against a dolerite outcrop.

X 1706 S31 47 57.4 E22 24 31.7 An east-west aligned stone feature that is certainly a grave. It lies

about 250 m north of the main complex of structures.

X 1707 S31 47 47.2 E22 24 27.6 A historical dam with a wall 5 m wide at the base and about 3 m

high. The wall is of earth but lined with stones. The wall has been

breached.

X 1708 S31 47 45.4 E22 24 27.5 A stone-built kraal with an oval-shaped enclosure built onto the

north side. A scatter of historical glass and ceramic fragments is

also present.



X 1709 S31 47 45.1 E22 24 28.0 A house ruin with an east-facing entrance and two circular

enclosures built onto the eastern side. The latter are less formally

built and have collapsed and no entrance is visible.

X 1710 S31 47 42.3 E22 24 26.0 A set of stone alignments of indeterminate function.

X 1703 S31 48 05.0 E22 24 31.9 Moderate density scatter of LSA hornfels artefacts and ostrich

eggshell. There were also two potsherds.

IIIC

X 1705 S31 48 03.9 E22 24 32.1 A light scatter of LSA hornfels artefacts and ostrich eggshell

fragments.

X 1711 S31 46 20.7 E22 22 48.8 A light LSA artefact scatter of hornfels with lots of ostrich eggshell

fragments at the waypoint. There is also a lower grindstone facing

up. The scatter is about 30 m diameter. There may well be more

LSA material on the plain between here and the large settlement

to the west.

NCW

X 1712 S31 46 20.9 E22 22 44.8 A tiny stone-walled enclosure built at the western foot of a

dolerite koppie.

NCW

X X 1714 S31 44 57.3 E22 26 12.2 A small historical weir across a stream. It is silted up and a small

part has broken off the top of the wall.

NCW

X X 1715 S31 44 54.4 E22 26 14.3 A small historical weir that has been breached by the stream. NCW

X 1716 S31 45 33.0 E22 27 03.0 A well-preserved circular threshing floor with its entrance to the

south. It is 8.5 m in diameter. There is a second smaller circular

feature to its southeast, also with an entrance to the south. It is

4 m in diameter.

IIIA

X 1717 S31 45 34.1 E22 27 04.1 An ash and rubbish dump located to the west of a house ruin.

There are relatively few ceramics on it but there is a wide variety

of glass colours, including white glass. Some glass looks quite

modern. There are lots of metal items on the dump and in general

there are many metal items all over this whole complex.

X 1718 S31 45 34.6 E22 27 04.8 A house ruin with four rooms. It was built in phases as seen by the

abutting walls in places. Some stones are dressed. It has

muurkaste on each side of the southern end of the central wall. A

round shale slab looks as though it was a table and a small stone

bench sits in the SE corner of the house. Various metal poles

including fence posts and an axle were used as ceiling beams and

chicken wire has been built into the wall. In one area a section of

mud leaning against a wall looks as though it might be a remnant

of a brakdak. One internal wall has been removed to ground level

and the end of one wall has been thickened (perhaps as

buttressing). Flower beds occur around the east and south sides

X 1719 S31 45 35.2 E22 27 05.3 A cooking shelter located to the southeast of the house. It

originally had entrances to the east and the west but the western

one was later filled in with stones. Near this structure were three

bottle bases with two embossed with “TALANA 1943” AND

“TALANA 1944”. There was also a dolerite pestle/upper

grindstone. A very small indeterminate stone feature lay just

southwest of the cooking shelter.

X X 1720 S31 45 36.5 E22 27 05.3 A stone built dam with gravity walls. It has a wind pump right next

to it and an older disused wind pump placement occurs on the

other side. The dam must have been filled by pumping as it is not

on a stream channel.

X X 1721 S31 45 35.8 E22 27 02.5 A very well-preserved large stone kraal measuring 28 m by 20 m.

It has some fencing inside. A short 3 m long section of wall

extends northwards from the northern wall of the kraal. There is

an entrance in the east wall at the northeast corner and a drain at

the base of the west wall. Sections at the northern ends of the

west and east walls have been built later. There are various

historical items around about including several sardine tins from

Norway and three Pfizer medicine bottles, one of which had a red

rubber stopper next to it.

X X 1722 S31 45 37.2 E22 27 02.1 A square ruin of about 3 m by 3 m.

X 1723 S31 45 39.4 E22 27 03.0 An L-shaped remnant of a kraal with each arm being about 10 m

long.

X 1724 S31 45 39.4 E22 27 09.2 The remains of a small, breached weir in a stream bed. NCW

X 1725 S31 46 01.5 E22 27 13.2 Two badly collapsed and interlinking stone features, one of them

circular and the other D-shaped.

IIIA

X 1726 S31 46 02.7 E22 27 13.3 An unidentifiable partially collapsed stone feature of about 2.5 by

0.5 m.

X 1727 S31 46 02.7 E22 27 12.0 A stone kraal built against a scarp. It is about 13 m by 8 m.

X 1728 S31 46 02.6 E22 27 10.7 A small stone ruin of about 3 m by 2 m with a badly collapsed

voorkamer-type enclosure to the northeast. A small circular

feature about 1 m in diameter lies to the south of the main

structure. There are rare glass and ceramic fragments scattered

about.

X 1729 S31 46 00.8 E22 27 10.2 A small breached weir in a stream bed.

X 1730 S31 46 00.5 E22 27 11.1 Three graves. Two of them have small headstones, while the third

is badly damaged by animal digging. An animal phalange

(identified as that of a young suid) was present on the spoils of

the digging raising the possibility that an animal (pig) was buried



there. Despite the damage, this third also seems less formal than

the other two.

X 1731 S31 45 55.4 E22 27 08.0 A house ruin with an ash and rubbish dump immediately to the

southeast and a small stone feature of unknown function to the

northwest. The house is two rooms with a voorkamer-type

enclosure to the north. A corner shelf occurs in the northeast

corner of the western room. The dump has glass, ceramics, metal,

bone and a small blue plastic bead.

X 1732 S31 45 54.4 E22 27 07.9 Two adjoining stone enclosures built against a scarp. They face

southwest.

X 1733 S31 45 54.0 E22 27 07.5 A small collapsed stone feature of indeterminate function.

X 1734 S31 45 53.3 E22 27 06.5 A circular stone feature of about 4 m diameter.

X X 1735 S31 46 04.1 E22 27 10.7 A stone kraal built against a low scarp facing northwest. It has two

enclosures, one is an incomplete rectangle and the other a closed

semi-circle.

X 1736 S31 46 05.9 E22 27 09.5 A stone kraal against a low scarp facing west. A large rectangle of

about 29 m by 26 m has a smaller enclosure (13 m by 5 m) against

its southern wall and a rectangular one (12 m by 7 m) on the

north side. A small 4 m by 2 m enclosure lies inside the northern

wall of the main kraal.

X X 1737 S31 43 18.7 E22 23 10.2 A line of stone fence poles runs along the north side of the farm

access road. To the east they are not used but to the west they

are still in use.

IIIC

X 1740 S31 53 04.7 E22 23 29.7 A 4 m deep southwest-facing rock shelter with three hornfels

flakes and four ostrich eggshell fragments in it.

NCW

X 1741 S31 53 06.7 E22 23 35.3 A rock shelter with a small section of walling in it. NCW

X 1742 S31 53 20.5 E22 23 42.9 A rock shelter with minimal, poorly preserved stone walling in it. NCW

X 1743 S31 53 24.3 E22 23 46.6 A rock shelter with two hornfels flakes and one core in it. NCW

X 1750 S31 53 22.0 E22 23 56.0 A dense scatter of LSA hornfels artefacts and ostrich eggshell on

the slope between a cliff and a river. A dolerite

hammerstone/upper grindstone was seen. There are also

historical ceramics in the area as the site is in the middle of an old

farm complex. The scatter is most dense on the lower part of the

slope.

IIIB

X 1754 S31 53 00.5 E22 27 33.9 A moderate density scatter of LSA hornfels artefacts on a river

terrace. A dolerite hammerstone was seen.

IIIC

X X 1755 S31 52 49.9 E22 27 51.4 A historical stone and cement dam that is no doubt part of the

Leeuwkloof farm complex but has been recorded separately due

its distance (c. 500 m) from the rest of the complex). Probably

mid-20th century in age.

IIIC

1756 S32 04 30.6 E22 27 08.7 Part of an older road, presumably from before the R381 was

realigned. There is stone walling along the road here.

NCW

1757 S32 05 28.2 E22 27 06.7 Part of an older road, presumably from before the R381 was

realigned. There are many similar sections along the road that

have not been specifically mapped.

NCW

1757b S32 06 11.8 E22 26 52.4 Part of an older road, presumably from before the R381 was

realigned.

NCW

1758 S32 11 02.1 E22 32 57.9 A stone structure on the hill just above the R381 road. IIIC

X X

1806 S31 52 32.7 E22 29 40.4

Two small stone ruins. One is circular and the other is oval with an

entrance facing towards the east.

IIIC

X X

1807 S31 52 32.7 E22 29 42.6

Stone barn ruin and a few other associated features of varying

age.

X X

1808 S31 52 33.9 E22 29 43.8

A small two-roomed stone ruin with glass, ceramics and metal

alongside it. A smaller stone feature and a small stone quarry

occur just to the south.

X 1809 S31 53 47.6 E22 29 14.9 Four hornfels artefacts in a silty area next to some bushes. IIIC

X 1810 S31 53 46.5 E22 29 14.4 Scratched rock.

X 1811 S31 53 46.7 E22 29 13.8 Scratched rock. Thin line grid and some wider scratches too.


X 1813 S31 53 47.4 E22 29 13.7 Scratched rock with three patches scratched in varying directions.

X 1814 S31 53 47.8 E22 29 13.3 Scratched rock and a ground rock 2 m to the west.

X 1815 S31 53 47.9 E22 29 13.3 Two scratched rocks.




X

1819 S31 53 39.8 E22 29 01.0

A rock with two ground patches on it and a scratched rock with a

train track-type design.

IIIA

X 1820 S31 53 40.2 E22 29 00.3 A very lightly scratched rock.


X 1822 S31 53 39.7 E22 28 59.8 Several scratched rocks.

X

1823 S31 53 39.7 E22 28 59.5

Older, patinated zeppelin engraving with 6 lines and with hatching

between the lines. The one point is not present as the design

extends off the rock.


X

1825 S31 53 40.3 E22 28 59.6

Two rocks, one with scratches on it and another with a scratched

antelope.






X 1829 S31 53 38.9 E22 29 03.4 Two scratched rocks.

X 1830 S31 53 39.5 E22 29 02.6 Eight scratched rocks.

X 1831 S31 53 35.3 E22 28 58.3 Scratched rock on its own on the north side of the river. NCW

X 1832 S31 53 35.9 E22 28 56.6 Very light scatter of hornfels artefacts. IIIA

X

1833 S31 53 36.1 E22 28 56.0

A scatter of hornfels artefacts and ostrich eggshell fragments. Also

a lower grindstone found face-up.

X

1834 S31 53 36.5 E22 28 55.6


a lower grindstone found face-up.

X

1835 S31 53 36.7 E22 28 56.1


an anvil. Two lower grindstones found face-up nearby.

X

1836 S31 53 36.5 E22 28 56.2

A dense scatter of ostrich eggshell with some hornfels artefacts.

One possible pale grey CCS bladelet also seen. There are several

burrows in this site and there are new and older-looking bones

lying about.

X

1837 S31 53 37.8 E22 28 54.3

A large cairn of rounded dolerite cobbles about 2.5 m in diameter

on the south side of the river. Almost certainly a grave.

X

1838 S31 53 37.5 E22 28 53.6

A large cairn of rounded dolerite cobbles about 2.5 m in diameter

on the north side of the river. Almost certainly a grave.

X

1839 S31 53 40.0 E22 28 47.9

An ephemeral hornfels and dolerite artefact scatter including a

hornfels adze and a lower grindstone found face-up.

IIIA

X

1840 S31 53 40.5 E22 28 47.1

A scatter of hornfels artefacts and ostrich eggshell and a lower

grindstone found face-up.

X

1841 S31 53 40.9 E22 28 46.7

A huge cairn of rounded dolerite cobbles about 4 m in diameter.

Almost certainly a grave. There is a lower grindstone built into the

east side of the cairn.

X 1842 S31 53 41.2 E22 28 46.2 A light scatter of hornfels artefacts and ostrich eggshell.

X

1843 S31 53 39.3 E22 28 46.2

A light scatter of hornfels artefacts and a lower grindstone found

face-up.

X X

1845 S31 53 10.6 E22 28 56.6

A lower grindstone found face-up in a silty area and a single

hornfels core.

NCW

X X

1846 S31 53 10.3 E22 28 57.2

A lower grindstone found face-up with a flake nearby. A few

meters away were an upper grindstone and a small chopper

(which would likely have just been a cobble that was hammered

so much that the ends have become flaked).

X X 1847 S31 53 09.7 E22 29 02.1 An ephemeral LSA hornfels artefact scatter. NCW

X X

1848 S31 52 35.5 E22 28 39.8

Collapsed walling along the river to the south and also along the

north side of the road. Road may have bene built through an

enclosure.

NCW

X X 1849 S31 52 36.3 E22 28 36.4 A partial enclosure of large blocks built against a low scarp. NCW

X X

1850 S31 52 36.6 E22 28 01.1

The Leeuwkloof farm complex with various buildings and stone

walls.

IIIA

X X 1852 S31 47 56.9 E22 26 37.0 L-shaped walling that is badly collapsed. The long end runs

towards the north wall of the adjoining ruin but does not meet it.

IIIC

X X 1853 S31 47 57.1 E22 26 38.1 A rectangular structure that has badly collapsed. It is about 4 m by

7 m. There are rare glass, ceramic and metal artefacts around it.

X X 1854 S31 47 55.9 E22 26 39.8 A very low density rubbish dump with surprisingly few artefacts

on it. There is no ash evident but the usual finely fragmented

shale gravel is present. Although a dump is present, the site has

been graded IIIC due to the very limited information contained in

the dump.

X X 1855 S31 47 55.6 E22 26 39.2 A house ruin with two rooms and measuring 8 m by 3 m. It is

badly collapsed and no windows or doors are evident but a

standing section of the north wall contains two muurkaste. There

is a sandstone chopping block on the north side of the house and

there are glass, ceramic and metal artefacts scattered about and

also some bones.

X 1856 S31 43 39.4 E22 26 16.9 A small, collapsed structure with an entrance facing towards the

east. It is about 2 m by 2 m.

IIIC

X 1857 S31 43 39.6 E22 26 15.6 A circular structure of about 8 m diameter with a squarish

addition to its south-eastern edge measuring about 4 m by 4 m.

No openings were visible. A dark wine bottle base was found

alongside the structure.

X 1858 S31 43 39.7 E22 26 14.8 A small circular feature of 2.5 m diameter with some glass

scattered about. Glass includes blue glass and a piece of a dark

wine bottle.

X 1859 S31 43 41.1 E22 26 14.2 Several badly collapsed stone features and one badly collapsed

structure. Several glass and ceramic fragments lying around and a

piece of an iron potjie.

X 1860 S31 43 43.5 E22 26 13.6 A stone kraal that is collapsed in places. It measures 30 m by

30 m.

X 1861 S31 43 45.8 E22 26 05.3 Two small collapsed stone structures. One is round and 2 by 2 m,

while the other is oval and 3 m by 2 m.

X 1858 S31 43 39.7 E22 26 14.8 There is also a scatter of LSA material in the same location as the

historical site at this waypoint and which must have been here

IIIB



before the historical occupation. There are a good number of

artefacts present among dolerite cobbles.

X X 1862 S31 43 59.4 E22 25 41.0 Waypoint between two low stone ‘walls’/alignments that may

represent low terraces to facilitate cultivation.

NCW

1863 S32 10 09.5 E22 32 28.5 Renosterfontein farm complex with a stone wall running up the

hill towards the north. Complex has few structures. Not visited.

IIIB

1865 S32 01 57.3 E22 26 21.5 Rosedene farm complex. Not visited, but close to road and no

structures worthy of IIIA were obviously evident. Extensive

cultural landscape northeast and southeast of the complex.

IIIB

X 1868 S31 50 32.3 E22 22 58.4 A permanent spring welling up from beneath a rock layer in the

riverbed. Not a heritage site but an important point in the

historical (pre-wind pump) landscape.

NCW

X 1869 S31 50 30.5 E22 23 00.0 Widespread LSA scatter of hornfels artefacts, ostrich eggshell

fragments and several lower grindstones (all face up). This area is

very dense.

IIIB

X 1870 S31 50 28.3 E22 23 01.4 More of the above scatter, but less dense.

X 1873 S31 50 29.9 E22 22 57.6 Another dense patch of LSA scatter with hornfels, ostrich eggshell

fragments and lower grindstones.

X 1874 S31 50 31.2 E22 22 57.1 A patch with lower density artefact scatter with hornfels and

dolerite flakes.

X 1875 S31 50 33.0 E22 22 55.8 A patch of hornfels artefacts.

X 1876 S31 50 34.0 E22 22 55.5 A patch of hornfels artefacts.

X 1871 S31 50 26.3 E22 23 00.1 A small ruined structure of about 3 m x 2 m with its entrance

facing west. There is also a section of indeterminate walling some

10 m to the east.

IIIC

X 1872 S31 50 28.3 E22 22 56.7 A stone kraal with no wall on the southeast side but there are

some rocks there suggesting that a wall may once have been

present. There is a small circular addition to the eastern corner

and within the kraal is a small oven-like structure. A nearby

fragment of pearlware looks as though it may have been flaked

into shape for a purpose (like a scraper).

X X X 1878 S31 49 26.9 E22 27 50.0 A scratched geometric engraving that looks quite recent. It is a

rectangle with eleven lines crossing its interior parallel to the

short sides and an X meeting the corners of the rectangle. It is on

a flat rock overlooking a pan on top of a mountain.

IIIC

X 1879 S31 49 40.0 E22 27 04.7 An ephemeral scatter of dolerite artefacts along a water course.

Also one hornfels artefact seen.

NCW

X 1891 S31 49 09.2 E22 26 27.4 Stone kraal. Not visited. IIIC

X X 1892 S31 52 27.5 E22 27 57.6 Stone kraal. Not visited. IIIC

X X 1893 S31 52 28.0 E22 27 59.9 Stone kraal. Not visited.

1881 S32 07 28.5 E22 27 53.2 Farm complex and associated agricultural landscape. Not visited. IIIB

1882 S32 05 02.8 E22 28 13.6 Farm complex and associated agricultural landscape. This seems

to be the farm referred to as ‘Waterval’ and which hosted a

British overnight camp during the Second Anglo-Boer War. Not

visited.

IIIB

1883 S31 52 45.7 E22 22 38.5 Stone-built ruined complex. At least three structures visible. Not

visited.

IIIB

1884 S32 07 08.5 E22 24 41.5 Farm complex and associated agricultural landscape. Complex is

large and has an interesting spatial arrangement of structures.

Not visited.

IIIB

1885 S32 25 03.4 E22 33 50.7 Farm complex and associated agricultural landscape. Just outside

corridor. Not visited.

IIIB


X 1887 S31 59 22.0 E22 42 40.7 Farm complex and associated agricultural landscape. Not visited. IIIB



X 1890 S31 54 09.6 E22 39 55.1 Farm complex and associated agricultural landscape. Not visited. IIIB

1791

S32 01 42.9 E22 44 25.5

Ruined historic farm complex to the northeast of the road. Not

visited.

IIIB

X 1792

S31 52 53.4 E22 37 43.1

Stone walling on top of small elongated koppie forming a partial

kraal. The eastern half of the structure has been removed.

IIIC

1793 S31 52 33.0 E22 37 10.8 Stone structure, possibly reservoir. Not visited. IIIC

X 1794 S31 52 01.5 E22 35 53.6 Farm complex with some structures older than 60 years. IIIA

X 1795

S31 52 23.6 E22 33 52.2

Long, low rock shelter with ostrich eggshell fragments, bones,

hornfels artefacts and a hammerstone.

IIIC

X 1796 S31 52 21.2 E22 32 59.5 A stone dam built alongside a river. IIIC

X 1797 S31 52 26.4 E22 32 50.1 Small square stone ruin. NCW

X 1798

S31 52 28.1 E22 32 49.7

Long stone wall parallel to the river. One end turns towards the

river. May have enclosed a vegetable garden. Rare glass, ceramics

and metal items. Also a kraal 200 m to the southeast and a ruin

between there and the road (these two not visited).

NCW

X 101 S32 09 06.0 E22 43 27.8 Farm complex (not visited) IIIA

1926 S32 04 30.3 E22 43 39.4 Ephemeral remnants of stone walling of a small structure. NCW

X 1927 S32 05 31.0 E22 42 25.0 The northeast (1927) and southwest (1928) ends of a stone wall. IIIB

X 1928 S32 05 31.6 E22 42 11.6

X 1929 S32 06 12.6 E22 42 07.6 A round stone ruin of 3 m diameter with entrance facing towards

the east.

IIIC



X 1930 S32 06 25.2 E22 42 07.6 A valley enclosed by stone walling. The enclosed area is sandy and

would have been cultivated. This perhaps triggered the later

erosion of the upper silts leaving a stonier substrate today.

IIIB

X 1931 S32 06 25.9 E22 42 01.5 An asymmetrical threshing floor of 9 m by 11m located along the

inside edge of the valley ring wall. It has thin slabs standing on

edge on the inner edge of the circular walling and the opening

faces towards the northwest.

X 1932 S32 06 25.4 E22 42 00.3 A stone-walled kraal built on the outside of the valley ring wall. It

has two enclosures with the smaller one having an opening facing

towards the northwest.

X 1933 S32 06 27.1 E22 42 00.1 Section of an old track about 2 m wide. One fragment of dark

green bottle glass seen in the track at this point and a light green

fragment seen nearby.

X 1934 S32 06 24.7 E22 41 59.4 A very small stone feature of indeterminate function.

X 1935 S32 06 24.4 E22 41 58.6 A small stone-walled house ruin of about 3 m by 2 m with an east-

facing door. The remains of a similar-sized enclosure extend off

the north wall.

X 1936 S32 06 24.7 E22 41 56.9 A square stone-walled kraal of about 18 m by 18 m with its

entrance in the centre of the downhill side which faces east.

X 1937 S32 06 17.7 E22 41 49.8 A stone-walled kraal on a steep slope with its entrance in the

centre of the lower side which faces east. It is 12 m north-south

but the walls seem to just fade out towards the west.

IIIC

X 1938 S32 06 09.4 E22 41 53.0 Another section of the old track (1933). In this area it has turned

into an erosion gulley but one can still see the stones pushed to

the edges showing that the route was cleared.

NCW

X 1939 S32 06 04.9 E22 41 49.3

X 1940 S32 06 06.7 E22 41 44.2

X 1941 S32 06 06.8 E22 41 40.3

X 1942 S32 06 07.2 E22 41 33.6 An irregularly-shaped, rounded stone ruin of about 7 m by 8 m

with an entrance facing towards the north.

IIIC

X 1943 S32 06 07.5 E22 41 33.0 A scatter of fragments of dark green bottle glass, one of which has

been retouched to form a small scraper. Quite likely by the

farmers and not indigenous people.

IIIC

X 1944 S32 06 07.6 E22 41 32.5 A rectangular, one-roomed stone-walled ruin with a northeast-

facing door and probably a collapsed hearth on the south-eastern

end. Some 19th century ceramics and one glass fragment in the

vicinity.

IIIC

X 1945 S32 06 02.8 E22 41 36.0 An isolated upper grindstone on a river cobble. NCW

X 1946 S32 06 05.7 E22 41 30.5 A stone circle fireplace with ash inside and some sawed wood

around it. Looks fairly recent, though the wood is very weathered.

---

X 1947 S32 06 06.7 E22 41 28.2 More of the old track. NCW

X 1948 S32 06 05.7 E22 41 23.7

X 1949 S32 06 18.5 E22 41 10.4 A stone wall. This is a mid-point and it extends 330 m north-

northeast and 330 m south-southwest.

IIIB

X 1951 S32 06 01.1 E22 40 29.7 A kraal complex with a sheep dip. There are two enclosures, two

partial enclosures (one of which contains the sheep dip) and a low

terrace on the southern end.

IIIC

X 1952 S32 05 52.4 E22 40 33.0 A small stone and cement ruin with bricks, asbestos sheets, many

cans and some glass lying about. Not heritage.

---

X 1953 S32 05 51.3 E22 40 33.0 A small triangular brick and cement feature with many loose

bricks lying about. Not heritage.

---

X 1954 S32 05 49.0 E22 40 33.0 A brick and cement sheep dip. ---

X 1955 S32 05 48.9 E22 40 34.8 Possible toilet building. It was originally made of stone and mud

but has been repaired with bricks and soft cement. It is located to

the south of the house.

IIIC

X 1956 S32 05 48.3 E22 40 34.7 A house made of stone, mud, brick and cement. It has steel

windows and a tin roof. It has had several repairs over time.

X 1957 S32 05 47.9 E22 40 35.4 A stone foundation with bricks and other building debris piled on

top. Some may be collapsed from whatever was originally on the

foundation but hard to tell this.

NCW

X 1958 S32 05 47.0 E22 40 36.1 A dump of glass and tins that look all 20th century. ---

X 1959 S32 05 45.2 E22 40 38.2 A modern building built over and incorporating an older stone-

walled structure. There are also collapsed stone walls on the

northwest end.

NCW

X 1960 S32 05 43.7 E22 40 37.5 Point on the corner of the large stone ring wall. There is an old

orchard in this corner.

IIIB

X 1961 S32 05 45.5 E22 40 41.3 A 19 m diameter circular kraal with a 9 m by 5 m rectangular

enclosure (partly collapsed) on the northeast side. From the

associated wire fencing it seems like this feature was in use until

fairly recently.

X 1962 S32 05 41.4 E22 40 38.6 A square kraal of 18 m by 18 m with a wall extending off its

northwestern corner and linking to the enclosures at waypoint

1963.

X 1963 S32 05 41.3 E22 40 36.0 Various interlinked enclosures built between large boulders and

the stream.

X 1964 S32 05 39.4 E22 40 35.7 The valley ring wall continues on the northern side of the stream

X 1965 S32 05 35.1 E22 40 37.1 This is a point where the wall bends.

X 1966 S32 05 30.1 E22 40 43.5 The end of the valley ring wall above a kloof with a water hole in

it.



X 1967 S32 05 02.6 E22 42 27.4 A massive hyrax midden under a cliff. These can be very useful in

palaeoenvironmental studies.

---

1968 S32 04 35.2 E22 43 07.0 An isolated lower grindstone found upside down on a river

terrace.

NCW

1969 S32 04 30.1 E22 43 24.4 An isolated lower grindstone found face up on a river terrace. NCW

1970 S32 04 30.7 E22 43 27.1 An isolated upper grindstone/hammer stone and 5 m away there

was a lower grindstone/anvil found upside down.

NCW

X 1971 S31 52 54.6 E22 37 44.2 A small, circular stone feature located to the southeast of the

kraal at waypoint 1792.

IIIC

X 1974 S31 52 16.0 E22 32 07.6 An isolated lower grindstone found upside down on a river

terrace above a water hole.

NCW

X 1975 S31 52 10.8 E22 32 13.8 A small, triangular-shaped stone-walled ruin. IIIC

X 1972 S31 52 15.0 E22 32 12.1 A set of 8 east-facing graves lying side by side immediately above

a river.

IIIA

X 1973 S31 52 14.6 E22 32 12.6 The remains of a stone feature of indeterminate function.

X 1976 S31 52 11.7 E22 32 23.9 A large, well-preserved kraal located up against a cliff.

X 1977 S31 52 11.6 E22 32 26.1 A stone wall protruding from the cliff line and also a low terrace

lying between this wall and the kraal (waypoint 1977).

X 1978 S31 52 12.8 E22 32 26.1 A house ruin which has largely collapsed. There are both 19th and

20th century glass and ceramic fragments scattered about.

X 1979 S31 52 13.7 E22 32 28.0 Western and southern corners of a large, assymmetrical kraal

built up against the cliff line. X 1980 S31 52 14.6 E22 32 29.3

X 1981 S31 52 14.9 E22 32 30.2 A buried stone that could represent a grave (seems unlikely

though).

X 1983 S31 52 13.0 E22 32 21.6 A large stone-walled kraal on the edge of the river terrace. Part of

it has collapsed into the river due to bank erosion. There is more

low walling on the north-east side of this kraal.

X 1984 S31 52 13.8 E22 32 20.1 A small rock shelter with some black markings reminiscent of

those at Kangnas (Orton 2013). They are made with a thick, black

paint/substance and are variably preserved. There is also what

looks like a single red finger-painted line. There is low stone

walling in the shelter.

X 1985 S31 52 15.6 E22 32 23.0 A large square stone-walled kraal up against a cliff. Part is well-

preserved while part is badly collapsed. An earlier opening at the

northeast corner has been closed up with stone walling, while the

main opening is now to the west. There is a second badly

collapsed enclosure to the east of the main one. There is also

some walling on the cliff to the southeast which forms part of a

wide ‘berm’ of walling, rocks and sediment.

X 1986 S31 52 14.8 E22 32 22.3 A stone-built sheep dip and associated enclosures. There is a

small, round packed stone feature to the west. The smaller

enclosure of the main feature is paved, while there is some paving

and a standing rock slab within the larger one.

X 1987 S31 52 15.0 E22 32 19.1 A stone-walled graveyard with an east-facing entrance in the

northeast corner. The south-western corner of the wall has

collapsed. There are eight east-facing graves in the west side of

the graveyard and one west-facing grave just inside the entrance.

One of the former looks like a double grave. There are only

headstones and stone-packed mounds with no formal grave

markings. A millstone fragment was lying in the southern part of

the graveyard. Outside the western side of the graveyard are a

further 12 graves. One has neither a head- nor a footstone, two

have headstones only and face east, while the remaining nine all

have head- and footstones.

X 1988 S31 52 15.7 E22 32 14.9 A stone and cement dam in the river with willow trees growing

around it.

X 1990 S31 52 17.2 E22 32 19.8 A set of three stone-walled structures built against a cliff line. Two

are semi-circular, while the third is rectangular.

X 1991 S31 52 16.9 E22 32 20.9 Another small rectangular stone feature located further along the

cliff face from waypoint 1990 but away from it.

X 1992 S31 52 16.0 E22 32 26.4 A 19th century dump with much bone and some glass, ceramics

and metal.

X 1993 S31 52 16.1 E22 32 26.9 A house ruin built of mixed materials including stone, sun-dried

mud bricks and fired clay bricks. It has had alterations over time.

There is a widespread scatter of glass and ceramics all around this

ruin.

X 1994 S31 52 16.1 E22 32 29.0 A long, low terrace wall runs along the river with another one

further up the slope from the river. At this point a wall links them

and from this wall running towards the southeast is a double line

of stones likely representing a water furrow. There are cavities

(like muurkaste) in the west-facing side of the cross wall.

X 1995 S31 52 15.6 E22 32 28.9 An ash dump with lots of glass and ceramics.

X 1996 S31 52 16.3 E22 32 29.6 A point further along the parallel stones (possible water furrow)

noted in waypoint 1994.

X 1997 S31 52 17.2 E22 32 30.1 A corner point on the larger, upper terrace wall.

X 1998 S31 52 18.6 E22 32 30.0 A T-junction on the larger, upper terrace wall.



X 1999 S31 52 19.2 E22 32 29.9 Various low stone features scattered in the bushes here. There is

also a widespread but very low density ceramic scatter over this

area of the river terrace.

X 2000 S31 52 17.3 E22 32 29.0 A house ruin built with mixed materials including stone, sun-dried

mud bricks and fired clay bricks. Entrances in the northern and

southern ends were built larger than a normal door (perhaps a

barn) but that in the south end was later reduced to the width of

a normal door. Some collapsed stone walling to the southeast

made another enclosure while a crude wall of piled clay bricks

surrounds part of this feature.

X 1001 S31 52 14.8 E22 32 25.0 The western end of the higher (upslope) terrace wall mentioned

in waypoint 1994. It turns towards the river here but ends after

about 10 m.

X 1002 S31 52 18.7 E22 32 25.2 There are various stone-walled features to the south of the road

(not visited).

X 1799 S31 52 28.7 E22 32 27.8 Stone walling along the southwest side of the road.

X 1800 S31 52 25.8 E22 32 26.1 Long stone wall running along further upslope from 1799

X 1801

S31 52 21.3 E22 32 27.0

Point at which the long wall meets what looks to be a kraal. Not

visited.

X 1802

S31 52 21.2 E22 32 28.2

Stone walling running along the edge of the road, part of a feature

lying below the road.

X 1982 S31 52 13.0 E22 32 23.4 Two lower grindstones found face-up (but may have been turned

over more recently) on the river terrace.

NCW

X 1989 S31 52 16.2 E22 32 15.7 Two lower grindstones, both found face-up. NCW

X 1003 S31 52 25.9 E22 31 41.2 A small, isolated stone-walled house ruin with a south-facing

doorway. A collapsed circular enclosure (presumably a

kookskerm) lies to the south of the main structure.

IIIC

X X X 1004 S32 19 53.3 E22 34 33.3 A large area of historical stone quarrying. Likely was used for

some of the early stone buildings in Beaufort West.

IIIC

1005 S31 50 57.4 E22 15 49.1 A large number of rock engravings occurs on small dolerite

boulders overlooking a spring in a river valley. This site is outside

of the wind farm study area but was pointed out by a landowner

and is included here for the record. It includes patinated older LSA

engravings, patinated older scratched lines, partially patinated

LSA engravings and lines, fresh LSA and/or historical engravings

and lines as well as some written text which is generally too

poorly preserved to read.

IIIA


APPENDIX 5 – Mapping

Please note that due to the very large number of finds present their waypoint numbers have not been

included in the mapping in order to make the maps clearer.

Figure A3.1: Aerial view of the northern half of the Nuweveld grid corridor (white polygon) showing

all survey tracks (pink lines).


Figure A3.2: Aerial view of the southern half of the Nuweveld grid corridor (white polygon) showing

all survey tracks (pink lines).



all heritage finds (diamond symbols).



all heritage finds by significance (dark red diamond symbols and lines = very high (IIIA), red = high

(IIIB), yellow = low (IIIC), white = very low (NCW)).



only very high (IIIA) (dark red diamond symbols) and high (IIIB) significance heritage finds.



very high (dark red), high (red), medium (orange) and low (yellow) sensitivity buffers around features

and sites.


APPENDIX 6 – Palaeontological specialist study


APPENDIX 7 – Visual impact assessment

Please note that the VIA was not reproduced here in the submission to DEA but for HWC it was included in

full.

heritage impact assessment: proposed 400 kv power …

Documents