Upload
others
View
0
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
A Phase 1 Heritage Impact Assessment for the Transnet Engineering’s proposed
Koedoespoort Landfill Site in Silverton, Pretoria East Gauteng Province.
MSEI
MBVISENI SUSTAINABLE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT INITIATIVE [MSEI]
May 25, 2015
Authored by: Foreman Bandama Ph.D. (UCT) Professional Archaeologist and Heritage
Management Specialist (ASAPA member)
1 | P a g e
1. Document Synopsis (Executive Summary)
Item Description
Proposed development
and location
The development of a landfill site on Portion 201 of the Farm
Hartebeestpoort 328 in the Koedoespoort area of Silverton, Pretoria
East.
Purpose of the study Phase 1 Archaeological Impact Assessment to determine the presence
of cultural heritage sites and the impact of the proposed project on
these resources within the area demarcated for the proposed landfill
site development.
1:50 000 Topographic
Map
2528 CA
Coordinates South 25 43 ꞌ 34.94; East 28 17 ꞌ 15.64ꞌ
Municipalities Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality.
Predominant land use
of surrounding area
Vacant, industrial, residential, road and transport
Developer Transnet Engineering (TE)
Heritage Consultant Mbviseni Sustainable Environmental Management Initiative (MSEI)
Date of Report Final report 25 May 2015
Contact person Foreman Bandama ([email protected])
This document serves to inform and guide the developer (Transnet Engineering) and its
contractors about the possible impacts that the development (the proposed Koedoespoort Landfill
Site) may have on heritage resources (if any) located in the study area. In the same light, the
document must also inform South African heritage authorities about the presence, absence and
significance of heritage resources located in the study area. As required by South African
heritage legislation, developments such as this require pre-development assessment by a
competent heritage practitioner in order to identify record and if necessary salvage the
irreplaceable heritage resources that may be impacted upon by the development. In compliance
with these laws Mawenje Consulting Africa (Pty) Ltd (MCA) contracted Mbviseni Sustainable
Environmental Initiative (MSEI) to carry out a Phase 1 Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) of the
2 | P a g e
proposed landfill area located on the highly industrialized zone in the Koedoespoort area of
Silverton, Pretoria East. Desktop studies, drive-throughs and limited fieldwalking were
conducted in order to identity heritage landmarks on and around the proposed development area.
The study area is not on pristine ground, having seen significant transformations owing to
industrial developments and illegal dumping. Although the area is known for historical and LIA
occurrences, no archaeological resources were identifiable on the surface, even though this may
be due to the tall grass that inhibits ground surface visibility. In terms of the built environment of
the area, isolated structures of unknown age (but possibly not older than 60 years) occur in the
surrounding areas. Should the development encroach into these areas, a trained heritage
practitioner should be appointed to study them before they are destroyed because if they are
older than 60 years, then they would be protected under the NHRA and a demolition permit will
be required for these structures. However, in terms of the archaeology of the area under study, no
mitigation will be required prior to construction. Nonetheless, sub-surface archaeological
material and unmarked graves may still exist and when encountered during construction, work
must be stopped forth-with and the finds must be reported to the South African Heritage
Resource Agency (SAHRA) or the heritage practitioner. This report must also be submitted to
the SAHRA or the relevant PHRA for review.
3 | P a g e
Table of contents
1. Document Synopsis (Executive Summary)…………………………………………………………………………2
2 Abbreviations………………………………………………………………………………………………………...5
3 Key concepts and terms……………………………………………………………………………………………...6
3.1 Periodisation…………..……………………………………………………………………………………………6
3.2 Definitions………………………………………………………………………………………………………….6
3.3 Assumptions and disclaimer. ……………………………………………………………………………………...8
4 Terms of Reference (ToR)………………. ………………………………………………………………………….8
5 Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………………………………..8
6 Project descriptions…………………………………………………………………………………………………10
7 Legislative context……………………….…………………………………………………………………………11
8 Methodology………………………………………………………………………………………………………..14
9 Results: The archaeology of the proposed development area………………………………………………………14
9.1 Stone Age Archaeology…………………………………………………………………………………………..21
9.2 Iron Age Archaeology ……………………………………………………………………………………………21
9.3 Historical (~ AD 1840 to 1950) Archaeology……………………………………………………………………22
9.4 Intangible Heritage……………………………………………………………………………………………….25
9.5 Summary of findings……………………………………………………………………………………………..25
10 Chance finds procedures………………………………………………………………………………………….26
11 Conclusions……………………………………………………………………………………………………….26
12 References………………………………………………………………………………………………………...26
List of figures
Figure 1 Showing the location of the study area……………………………………………………………………..10
Figure 2A&B Showing the study area and some of the industrial activities in the background……………………..15
Figure 2C&D Showing more of the industrial activities in the vicinity of the proposed development area…………16
Figure 2E&F Showing study area and one of the nearby dilapidated structures……………………………………..17
Figure 2G&H Showing some of the characteristic developments in the vicinity of the study area………………….18
Figure 2I&J Showing some of the industrial activities in the development footprint………………………………..19
Figure 2K&L Showing functional and non-functional railway lines in the vicinity of the study area……………….20
Figure 3 Showing a reconstruction of a wagon shelter type called Waenhause…………………………………...…23
Figure 4 Showing the distribution of silver mines in the Pretoria region between 1856 and 1999…………………..24
4 | P a g e
2. Abbreviations
AIA Archaeological Impact Assessment
ASAPA Association of South African Professional Archaeologists
EIA Environmental Impact Assessment
EIA Early Iron Age (EIA refers to both Environmental Impact Assessment and the
Early Iron Age but in both cases the acronym is internationally accepted. This
means that it must be read and interpreted within the context in which it is used.)
EIAR Environmental Impact Assessment Report
ESA Early Stone Age
GPS Global Positioning System
HIA Heritage Impact Assessment
ICOMOS International Council of Monuments and Sites
LIA Late Iron Age
LFC Late Farming Community
LSA Late Stone Age
MCA Mawenje Consulting Africa (Pty) Ltd
MIA Middle Iron Age
MSA Middle Stone Age
MSEI Mbviseni Sustainable Environmental Initiative
NEMA National Environmental Management Act 107 of 1998
NHRA National Heritage Resources Act 25 of 1999
PHRA Provincial Heritage Resource Agency
5 | P a g e
SAHRA South African Heritage Resources Agency
TE Transnet Engineering
ToR Terms of Reference
6 | P a g e
3. Key concepts and terms
3.1 Periodization Archaeologists divide the different cultural epochs according to the
dominant material finds for the different time periods. This periodization is usually region-
specific, such that the same label can have different dates for different areas. This makes it
important to clarify and declare the periodization of the area one is studying. These periods are
nothing a little more than convenient time brackets because their terminal and commencement
are not absolute and there are several instances of overlap. In the present study, relevant
archaeological periods are given below;
Early Stone Age (~ 2.6 million to 250 000 years ago)
Middle Stone Age (~ 250 000 to 40-25 000 years ago)
Later Stone Age (~ 40-25 000, to recently, 100 years ago)
Early Iron Age (~ AD 200 to 1000)
Late Iron Age (~ AD1100-1840)
Historic (~ AD 1840 to 1950, but a Historic building is classified as over 60 years old)
3.2 Definitions Just like periodization, it is also critical to define key terms employed in
this study. Most of these terms derive from South African heritage legislation and its ancillary
laws, as well as international regulations and norms of best-practice. The following aspects have
a direct bearing on the investigation and the resulting report:
Cultural (heritage) resources are all non-physical and physical human-made occurrences, and
natural features that are associated with human activity. These can be singular or in groups and
include significant sites, structures, features, ecofacts and artefacts of importance associated with
the history, architecture or archaeology of human development.
Cultural significance is determined by means of aesthetic, historic, scientific, social or spiritual
values for past, present or future generations.
7 | P a g e
Value is related to concepts such as worth, merit, attraction or appeal, concepts that are
associated with the (current) usefulness and condition of a place or an object. Although
significance and value are not mutually exclusive, in some cases the place may have a high level
of significance but a lower level of value. Often, the evaluation of any feature is based on a
combination or balance between the two.
Isolated finds are occurrences of artefacts or other remains that are not in-situ or are located
apart from archaeological sites. Although these are noted and recorded, but do not usually
constitute the core of an impact assessment, unless if they have intrinsic cultural significance and
value.
In-situ refers to material culture and surrounding deposits in their original location and context,
for example an archaeological site that has not been disturbed by farming.
Archaeological site/materials are remains or traces of human activity that 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. According to the National Heritage
Resources Act (NHRA) (Act No. 25 of 1999), no archaeological artefact, assemblage or
settlement (site) and no historical building or structure older than 60 years may be altered, moved
or destroyed without the necessary authorisation from the South African Heritage Resources
Agency (SAHRA) or a provincial heritage resources authority.
Historic material are remains resulting from human activities, which are younger than 100 years,
but no longer in use, including artefacts, human remains and artificial features and structures.
Chance finds means archaeological artefacts, features, structures or historical remains
accidentally found during development.
A grave is a place of interment (variably referred to as burial) and includes the contents,
headstone or other marker of such a place, and any other structure on or associated with such
place. A grave may occur in isolation or in association with others where upon it is referred to as
being situated in a cemetery (contemporary) or burial ground (historic).
A site is a distinct spatial cluster of artefacts, structures, organic and environmental remains, as
residues of past human activity.
8 | P a g e
Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) refers to the process of identifying, predicting and assessing
the potential positive and negative cultural, social, economic and biophysical impacts of any
proposed project which requires authorisation of permission by law and which may significantly
affect the cultural and natural heritage resources. Accordingly, an HIA must include
recommendations for appropriate mitigation measures for minimising or circumventing negative
impacts, measures enhancing the positive aspects of the proposal and heritage management and
monitoring measures.
Impact is the positive or negative effects on human well-being and / or on the environment.
Mitigation is the implementation of practical measures to reduce and circumvent adverse
impacts or enhance beneficial impacts of an action.
Mining heritage sites refer to old, abandoned mining activities, underground or on the surface,
which may date from the prehistorical, historical or the relatively recent past.
Study area or „project area' refers to the area where the developer wants to focus its
development activities (refer to plan).
Phase I studies refer to surveys using various sources of data and limited field walking in order
to establish the presence of all possible types of heritage resources in any given area.
3.3. Assumptions and disclaimer
The investigation has been influenced by the unpredictability of buried archaeological remains
(absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence) and the difficulty in establishing
intangible heritage values. It should be remembered that archaeological deposits (including
graves and traces of mining heritage) usually occur below the ground level. Should artefacts or
skeletal material be revealed at the site during construction, such activities should be halted
immediately, and a competent heritage practitioner, SAHRA or PHRA must be notified in order
for an investigation and evaluation of the find(s) to take place (see NHRA (Act No. 25 of 1999),
Section 36 (6). Recommendations contained in this document do not exempt the developer from
complying with any national, provincial and municipal legislation or other regulatory
9 | P a g e
requirements, including any protection or management or general provision in terms of the
NHRA. MSEI assumes no responsibility for compliance with conditions that may be required by
SAHRA in terms of this report.
4. Terms of Reference (ToR)
MCA, on behalf of Transnet Engineering, appointed MSEI to carry out a scoping and Phase 1
AIA/ HIA study of the proposed landfill site in Koedespoort, Silverton Pretoria.
5. Introduction
MSEI was appointed by MCA to carry out a scoping and Phase 1 AIA/ HIA of the proposed
landfill site in Koedespoort for Transnet Engineering. The study area is in Silverton, about 6.5
kilometres east of Pretoria‟s CBD and also immediately to the east of the N1 highway within
Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality in Gauteng Province. The Koedoespoort site is
approximately 13.7 hectares and situated on Portion 201 of the Farm Hartebeestpoort, which is a
highly industrialized area (Figure 1). The site is zoned as S.A.R (South African Railway
services), therefore the site can be developed in any way the Transnet Engineering intends to, as
long as it is in line with Transnet Engineering business. However, as prescribed by SAHRA and
stipulated by legislation, a HIA is a pre-requisite for this kind of development. The overall
purpose of this heritage report is to identify, assess any heritage resources that may be located in
the study area and evaluate the positive and negative impacts of the proposed development on
these resources in order to make recommendations for their appropriate management. To achieve
this, we conducted background research of published literature, maps and databases (desktop
studies) which was then followed by ground-truthing by means of drive-through surveys and
field walking. Desktop studies had intimated that Iron Age and historical sites were a possibility
in the study area but no such sites were recorded during ground-truthing. While heritage
resources may have been located in the study area, subsequent developments such as industrial
work and dumping have either obliterated these materials or reduced them to isolated finds that
can only be identifiable as chance finds during construction. If the recommendations of this
10 | P a g e
report are adopted, there is no archaeological reason why construction cannot proceed, taking
full cognizance of clear procedures to follow in the event of chance findings.
11 | P a g e
Figure 1: Location of the study area
12 | P a g e
6. Project descriptions
TE intends to develop a new landfill site at a site (named Site 5) approximately 13.7 hectares in
extent at its Koedoespoort Centre which consists of a hazardous waste disposal site and a
recycling facility for all other waste material that will service Koedoespoort operations,
Germiston and Bloemfontein regions. The hazardous waste generated include asbestos,
chemicals, oils, batteries, lead, medical waste, chemical sludge etc, Non-hazardous or general
waste include food waste, metal, plastic, rubber, paper, PPE, brake blocks and other material.
This waste needs to be treated and managed efficiently and this is the reason for the need to
develop the Koedoespoort landfill Site. The proposed landfill site will not be accessible to the
public. In summary, the works will focus mainly on construction of:
• Hazardous waste disposal site of approximately 28 800sq with following characteristics:
Total airspace of approximately 360 000 cubic meters to cater for estimated 1.26m
tons of waste
Class A barrier system
Estimated life: 15-20 years.
• Leachate dam for contaminated storm water and landfill leachate.
• Storm water management system for clean and contaminated storm water.
Since the proposed site is 13.7 hectares and entails the development and upgrading of a property
greater than 0.5 hectares, the National Heritage Resources Act, 1999 (Act No. 25 of 1999)
demands that an AIA/HIA of the development site be undertaken in terms of Section 38 (3) of
the Act. Various other legislations also mandate that development such as this should be
preceded by an AIA as shown below.
13 | P a g e
7. Legislative context
Two main pieces of legislations are relevant to the present study and there are presented here.
Under the National Heritage Resources Act (Act 25 of 1999) (NHRA) and the National
Environmental Management Act (NEMA), an AIA or HIA is required as a specialist sub-section
of the EIA.
Heritage management and conservation in South Africa is governed by the NHRA and falls
under the overall jurisdiction of the SAHRA and its PHRAs. There are different sections of the
NHRA that are relevant to this study. The present proposed development is a listed activity in
terms of Section 38 of the NHRA which stipulates that the following development categories
require a HIA to be conducted by an independent heritage management consultant:
• Construction of a road, wall, power line, pipeline, canal or other linear form of
development or barrier exceeding 300m in length
• Construction of bridge or similar structure exceeding 50m in length
• Development or other activity that will change the character of a site -
Exceeding 5000 sq m
Involving three or more existing erven or subdivisions
Involving three or more erven or divisions that have been consolidated
within past five years
Rezoning of site exceeding 10 000 sq m
The costs of which will exceed a sum set in terms of regulations by
SAHRA or a provincial heritage resources authority
• Any other development category, public open space, squares, parks, recreation grounds
14 | P a g e
Thus any person undertaking any development in the above categories, must at the very earliest
stages of initiating such a development, notify the responsible heritage resources authority and
furnish it with details regarding the location, nature and extent of the proposed development.
Section 38 (2) (a) of the same act also requires the submission of a heritage impact assessment
report for authorization purposes to the responsible heritage resources agencies
(SAHRA/PHRAs). Because, the proposed landfill site development will change the character of
a site exceeding 5000 sq m, then an HIA is required according to this section of act.
Related to Section 38 of the NHRA are Sections 34, 35, 36 and 37. Section 34 stipulates that no
person may alter damage, destroy, relocate etc any building or structure older than 60 years,
without a permit issued by SAHRA or a provincial heritage resources authority. This section
may not apply to present study since none were identified. Section 35 (4) of the NHRA stipulates
that no person may, without a permit issued by SAHRA, destroy, damage, excavate, alter or
remove from its original position, or collect, any archaeological material or object. This section
may apply to any significant archaeological sites that may be discovered before or during
construction. This means that any chance find must be reported to the heritage practitioner or
SAHRA, who will assist in investigating the extent and significance of the finds and inform
about further actions. Such actions may entail the removal of material after documenting the find
site or mapping of larger sections before destruction. Section 36 (3) of the NHRA also stipulates
that no person may, without a permit issued by the South African Heritage Resources Agency
(SAHRA), destroy, damage, alter, exhume or remove from its original position or otherwise
disturb any grave or burial ground older than 60 years, which is situated outside a formal
cemetery administered by a local authority. This section may apply in case of the discovery of
chance burials, which is unlikely. The procedure for reporting chance finds also applies to the
unlikely discovery of burials or graves by the developer or his contractors. Section 37 of the
NHRA deals with public monuments and memorials but this may not apply to this study because
closest example is the reconstructed „Waenhuise‟ at the Pioneer Museum (East of Pretoria) will
not be physically affected by the proposed landfill site (Naude 2010).
15 | P a g e
In addition, the new EIA Regulations (21 April 2006) promulgated in terms of NEMA (Act 107
of 1998) determine that any environmental reports will include cultural (heritage) issues. The
new regulations in terms of Chapter 5 of the NEMA provide for an assessment of development
impacts on the cultural (heritage) and social environment and for Specialist Studies in this
regard. The end purpose of such a report is to alert the developer (TE in this case), the
environmental consultant (MCA), SAHRA and interested and affected parties about existing
heritage resources that may be affected by the proposed development, and to recommend
mitigatory measures aimed at reducing the risks of any adverse impacts on these heritage
resources.
Evaluation of the proposed development as guided by the criteria in NHRA and NEMA
ACT Stipulation for developments Requirement details
NHRA Section 38 Construction of road, wall, power line, pipeline,
canal or other linear form of development or
barrier exceeding 300m in length
No
Construction of bridge or similar structure
exceeding 50m in length
No
Development exceeding 5000 sq m Yes
Development involving three or more existing
erven or subdivisions
No
Development involving three or more erven or
divisions that have been consolidated within past
five years
No
Rezoning of site exceeding 10 000 sq m Not available
Any other development category, public open
space, squares, parks, recreation grounds
No
NHRA Section 34 Impacts on buildings and structures older than 60
years
Subject to identification
during Phase 1
NHRA Section 35 Impacts on archaeological and palaeontological
heritage resources
Subject to identification
during Phase 1
16 | P a g e
NHRA Section 36 Impacts on graves Subject to identification
during Phase 1
NHRA Section 37 Impacts on public monuments Subject to identification
during Phase 1
Chapter 5
(21/04/2006)
NEMA
HIA is required as part of an EIA Yes
8. Methodology
This documents falls under the screening and basic assessment phase of the HIA and therefore
aims at providing an informed heritage-related opinion about the proposed development. This is
usually achieved through a combination of a review of any existing literature and a basic site
inspection. As part of the desktop study, published literature and cartographic data, as well as
archival data on heritage laws, the history and archaeology of the area were studied. The desktop
study was followed by field surveys. The field assessment was conducted according to generally
accepted HIA practices and aimed at locating all possible objects, sites and features of cultural
significance on the development footprint. Initially a drive-through was undertaken around the
proposed development as a way of acquiring the archaeological impression of the general area.
This was then followed by a walk down survey in the study area, with a hand held Global
Positioning System (GPS) for recording the location/position of each possible site. Detailed
photographic recording was also undertaken where relevant. The findings were then analysed in
view of the proposed development in order to suggest further action. The result of this
investigation is a report indicating the presence/absence of heritage resources and how to manage
them in the context of the proposed development.
17 | P a g e
9. Results: The archaeology of the proposed development area
The literature survey suggests that prior to the 20th
century modern residential and on-going
industrial developments; the general area where the proposed development is located would have
been a rewarding region to locate heritage resources related to Stone Age and particularly Iron
Age and historical sites (Bergh 1999: 4). However, the situation today is totally different. The
study area now lies on a clearly modified landscape that has previously been cleared of
vegetation but is now dominated by a continuous sweep of tall grass and shrubs that limit ground
visibility. Several industrial and illegal dumping are also on-going on and around the
development footprint (Figure 2A-L)
18 | P a g e
Figure 2A & B Showing the study area and some of the ongoing industrial activities in the background
A
B
19 | P a g e
Figure 2C &D Showing more of the industrial activities in the vicinity of the proposed development.
D
C
20 | P a g e
Figure 2E &F Showing the study area and one of the nearby dilapidated structures (outside the
development fooprint) that does not appear to be older than 60 years
F
E
21 | P a g e
Figure 2G & H Showing some of the characteristic developments in the vicinity of the study area
G
H
22 | P a g e
Figure 2I & J Showing some of the industrial activities within the development footprint. Clearly these
activities must have destroyed most of the surface archaeological material (if there was any).
I
J
23 | P a g e
Figure 2K &L showing functional and non-functional (but not necessarily older than 60 years) railway
lines in the vicinity of the study area.
K
L
24 | P a g e
9.1. Stone Age Archaeology
In the larger geographical area there is material manifestation of Stone Age people but generally,
Highveld area did not attract much of habitation in these early times due to lack of rock-shelters
and domination of exposed environments. Thus, it is mostly in the vicinity of large watercourses
and lower parts of mountains that some ESA (~ 2.6 million to 250 000 years ago) materials
(crude chopper and other unifacial tools of the Oldowan industry and the characteristic
Acheulian hand axes and cleavers) and MSA (~ 250 000 to 40-25 000 years ago) materials are
generally found. The MSA is a flake-technological stage characterized by faceted platforms,
produced from prepared cores, as distinct from the core tool-based ESA technology. More
technological and behavioural changes than those witnessed in the MSA, occurred during the
LSA (~ 40-25 000, to recently, 100 years ago), which is also associated with Homo Sapiens
(Barham and Mitchell 2008). For the first time we get evidence of people‟s activities derived
from material other than stone tools (ostrich eggshell beads, ground bone arrowheads, small
bored stones and wood fragments) (Deacon and Deacon 1999). The LSA people are also credited
with the production of rock art (engravings and paintings), which is an expression of their
complex social and spiritual beliefs (Parkington et al. 2008). However, it is important to note that
no Stone Age material was recorded during the limited field walking, perhaps due to the
presence of tall grass. Nonetheless, it is possible to encounter isolated finds of these objects in
the study area, even though these would most likely be out of context due to the modern
disturbances.
9.2. Iron Age Archaeology
Metal using communities entered southern Africa from West and East Africa around AD 200 and
brought with them settled agriculture, metal working, animal husbandry, pottery making and
social stratification (Huffman 2007). The movement and spread of these EIA (~ AD200-1000)
people within southern Africa seem to have been restricted to the summer rainfall (because of
sorghum and millet farming) and they did not occupy much of the central interior Highveld area
in South Africa. Ecologically, they preferred to settle on the alluvial soils near rivers for
agricultural purposes and access to water. Thus, it was not until the mid-second millennium AD
25 | P a g e
that serious Iron Age occupation began in the larger geographical area (including the study area)
of the South African Highveld. The study area falls within the known distribution of LIA (~
AD1100-1840) people who made Uitkomst facies (AD1650-1820 and associated with a mixture
of the Ntsuanatsatsi facies (ancestral Nguni speakers) and Olifantspoort facies (ancestral Sotho-
Tswana speakers) (Huffman 2007: 173). Olifantspoort facies (AD1500-1700) represents the
second phase of the Moloko sequence and settlements with people that made this type of
ceramics are known in the area between the Vaal River and Pretoria. The people, just like the
markers of Buispoort facies (third phase of the Moloko sequence AD1700-1840), settled in
aggregated clusters where space was also demarcated by extensive stone walling. The
distribution of Buispoort facies also covers the Pretoria area. The post 1600s coincided with dry
spells that saw an incursion of the Pretoria area by Nguni-speaking groups such as the Manala
and Ndzundza Ndebeles from KwaZulu Natal (Huffman 2007: 448). The early 19th
century also
saw another invasion of the Pretoria area by Nguni-speakers who were running away from the
widespread upheaval perpetuated by the reign of the Zulu king, Shaka. One of the escapees was
Mzilikazi, the Ndebele king briefly settled north west of Pretoria, extensively raided the plateau
between 1825 and 1837 and displaced various Sotho-Tswana groups (Bergh 1999: 109-119).
Most of the LIA sites also tend to cluster around the hills and ridges as well as on the more open
flatlands, especially in areas where outcrops (dolerite, etc.) occur. All the same, none of these
LIA sites were identified in the study area. If any of these sites were available, they have since
been destroyed by subsequent modern developments that took place since the mid-20th
century.
9.3. Historical (~ AD 1840 to 1950) Archaeology
Although southern Africa was networked with the literate world for several centuries, the period
of written history in the study area corresponds to the arrival of the Voortrekkers in the 1830s.
The period was preceded by isolated northwards migrations of white travellers, missionaries and
adventurers from the Cape who passed through Pretoria area, some as early as the 1720‟s.
Notable amongst them include the Scottish travellers Robert Scoon and William McLuckie,
Robert Moffat, James Archbell, Andrew Smith and Captain William Cornwallis Harris (Bergh
1999: 12-13). Some of them kept diaries that today form part of invaluable history about
indigenous communities which these travellers interacted with. But permanent and mass-
26 | P a g e
movement of white settlers only took root in the 1830s with the arrival of Dutch speaking
farmers who were protesting and escaping British rule in the Cape Colony (Ross 2002: 39).
Because, these first white colonists who settled on the Highveld were farmers, they were also
interested in water and grazing for cattle, water for crop-farming, trees, thatching grass, clay for
making bricks and pots, mild climate, wildlife and the presence of the mountains as shelter and
protection. The area claimed by the Voortrekkers after the conquest of Mzilikazi was declared at
a public meeting on 16 October 1840 held in Potchefstroom and initially included the
Suikerbosrant (Heidelberg), Schoonspruit (Klerksdorp), Mooirivier (Potchefstroom) and
Magaliesberg but by 1855 settlements had been established beyond the originally claimed area. It
is within this early expansion that Pretoria was founded in 1855 and became the capital of South
Africa, then known as the Zuid-Afrikaanse Republiek (ZAR), in 1860 (Theron 1984: 1-3). These
white farmers brought with them, several lifeways that were notably different from indigenous
farming communities. New types of transport and houses emerged in the Pretoria area and their
surviving examples form part of historical archaeology. For instance, the only part of the farm
Hartbeestpoort in Silverton that has remained is the farmstead currently used as a site museum
called “Pioneer Museum”, which is managed by Ditsong: Museums of South Africa. On this
farm, a reconstruction of the characteristic „waenhuise‟ (a type of wagon shelter) that were
common in historical times was attempted in 1994 (Figure 3).
27 | P a g e
Figure 3 showing a reconstructed wagon shelter type called waenhuise (Naude 2010: 188).
Significant urban development in Pretoria only began in the 1890s, when the first townships or
suburbs outside central Pretoria were established as residential extensions of the town. One of
the main reasons for this development relates to industrial developments as Eerste Fabrieken in
the east, PPC in the Moot valley, lime works in the south and prospects for silver mining at
Silverton. The latter is very relevant to the study area because it may have left heritage footprints
and landmarks that may occur buried in the proposed development area for the present study.
Silver mining in South African has an uneasy history that dates back to the 1860s and is
intimately associated with Pretoria East (Reeks 2012) within which the proposed development is
located (Figure 4).
28 | P a g e
Figure 4 showing the distribution of early silver mines around Pretoria region between 1856 and 1999
(Reeks 2012: XVI).
In Silverton area deposits of copper, lead and silver ores were ultimately discovered in the 1880s
and 1890s on a number of the farms that surrounded „The Willows‟, and the cluster of mines and
prospects in the area gave the town of Silverton its name. Surface workings or dumps and similar
remains of mines such as the Willows mine, no longer exist because most sites were cleared in
the late 1990s to construct the suburbs such as Nellmapius (Reeks 2012: 44) but sub-surface
mining heritage may still occur and these should be reported immediately when found.
Parallel to the mining history, urban development in Pretoria accelerated after the Anglo-Boer
War, in particular after 1910 when Pretoria became the executive and administrative capital of
the Union of South Africa. Ten years earlier, Pretoria had fallen into the hands of the British
forces following several encounters of Anglo-Boer wars and skirmishes (Bergh 1999: 54, 250;
Theron 1984: 273-279). Significantly, these wars may have left a trail of marked and unmarked
29 | P a g e
graves and battlegrounds that may fall within the development footprint of the proposed landfill
site in Koedespoort and the developer and his contractors should take cognizance of these
possibilities.
Related to mining and urban history is the transport history. The establishment of the NZASM
railway line in the 1880s, linking Pretoria with Lourenço Marques (now Maputo) and the world
at large, brought much infra-structural and administrative development to the area. This railway
development continued and in 1943 a new railway line that connected with the Pretoria-
Pietersburg (now Polokwane) railway (the Hercules-Koedoespoort line). Several other railway
lines have since been developed to service the industries around Silverton. The proposed project
area is also close to functional and non-functional railway lines (Figure 2K &L) and full
cognizance must be taken when considering the expansion of the development into these areas.
9.4. Intangible Heritage
As defined in terms of the UNESCO Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural
Heritage (2003) intangible heritage includes oral traditions, knowledge and practices concerning
nature, traditional craftsmanship and rituals and festive events, as well as the instruments,
objects, artefacts and cultural spaces associated with group(s) of people. Thus intangible heritage
is better defined and understood by the particular group of people that uphold it. In the present
study area, very little intangible heritage remains because no historically known groups occupied
the study area and most of the original settler descendants moved away from the area.
30 | P a g e
9.5. Summary of findings
Heritage resource Status/Findings
Buildings, structures, places and equipment
of cultural significance
None exists with the development
footprint
Areas to which oral traditions are attached or
which are associated with intangible heritage
None exists
Historical settlements and townscapes None survives in the proposed area
Landscapes and natural features of cultural
significance
None
Archaeological and palaeontological sites None
Graves and burial grounds None exists or are identifiable on
the basis of a surface survey
Movable objects None
Overall comment The surveyed area has no
identifiable heritage resources on
the surface but sub-surface chance
finds are still possible.
10. Chance finds procedures
It has already been highlighted that sub-surface materials may still be lying hidden from surface
surveys. Therefore, absence (during surface survey) is not evidence of absence all together. The
following monitoring and reporting procedures must be followed in the event of a chance find, in
order to ensure compliance with heritage laws and policies for best-practice. This procedure
applies to the developer‟s permanent employees, its subsidiaries, contractors and subcontractors,
and service providers. Accordingly, all construction crews must be properly inducted to ensure
they are fully aware of the procedures regarding chance finds.
If during the construction, operations or closure phases of this project, any person
employed by the developer, one of its subsidiaries, contractors and subcontractors, or
service provider, finds any artefact of cultural significance, work must cease at the site of
31 | P a g e
the find and this person must report this find to their immediate supervisor, and through
their supervisor to the senior on-site manager.
The senior site Manager must then make an initial assessment of the extent of the find,
and confirm the extent of the work stoppage in that area before informing MSEI.
MCA will then contact a professional archaeologist for an assessment of the finds who
will in turn inform SAHRA/PHRA.
11. Conclusion
MSEI was appointed by MCA to carry out a HIA of the proposed TE landfill site in Koedespoort
(Silverton, Pretoria East), as required by heritage legislation. The proposed development lies on
disturbed ground that is within a highly industrialized zone. Desktop research intimated that the
rich history and archaeology of the general area prior to several industrial and residential
developments after the mid-20th
century but field surveys on and around the proposed area did
not yield any heritage material. The potential for chance finds, still remains and the developer
and his contractors are requested to be diligent and observant during construction of the land site.
The procedure for reporting chance finds has clearly been laid out and if this report is adopted by
SAHRA, then there are no archaeological reason why construction cannot proceed.
32 | P a g e
12. References
Barham, L. and Mitchell, P.2008. The first Africans: African archaeology from the earliest
toolmakers to most recent foragers. Cambridge: Cambridge university press
Deacon, H. J. and Deacon, J.1999. Human beginnings in South Africa: Uncovering the secrets of
the Stone Age. Cape Town: David Philip
Bergh, J.S. (ed.) 1998. Geskiedenisatlas van Suid-Afrika. Die vier noordelike provinsies.
Pretoria: J.L. van Schaik.
Huffman, T.N. 2007 Handbook to the Iron Age: The archaeology of pre-colonial farming
societies in southern Africa. Scottville: University of KwaZulu Natal Press
Mawenje Consulting Africa. 2015. Draft Scoping Report: Development of new Landfill site at
Koedoespoort in Pretoria. Unpublished report
National Environmental Management Act 107 of 1998
National Heritage Resources Act NHRA of 1999 (Act 25 of 1999)
Parkington, J, Morris, D, & Rusch, N. 2008. Karoo Rock Engravings: Follow the San. Cape
Town: Creda Communications.
Pelser, A.J. 2012. A final report on a heritage impact assessment (HIA) for the city of Tshwane
Bus RAPID TRANSIT LINE 2A Tshwane, Gauteng. Unpublished report
Ross, R. 2002. A concise history of South Africa. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Reeks, G.W. 2012. A History of Silver Mining in the greater Pretoria region, 1885-1999.
Unpublished MA thesis, University of South Africa.
Theron, B. M. 1984. The social history of Pretoria during the first phase of the Anglo-Boer War:
October 1899 - June 1900. MA Thesis, Pretoria: University of South Africa
Van der Walt, J. 2014. Archaeological Impact Assessment For the proposed K97 Road in Bon
Accord, Pretoria North, Gauteng Province. Unpublished report
33 | P a g e
Van Schalkwyk, J.A. 2002. A Survey Of Cultural Resources For Ext. 34, 36 & 38 Of The Farm
Hartebeesfontein 324JR, Pretoria. Unpublished report.
Van Schalkwyk, J.A. 2002. Heritage impact survey report for The Proposed Housing
Development On Portions 212-215 Of The Farm Kameeldrift 298jr, Gauteng Province.
Unpublished report.