Archaeological Impact Assessment for the Proposed Widening of The
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
1 Archaeological Impact Assessment For the proposed widening of the N4 National Road, Section 6E, Near Waterval-Onder, Mpumalanga Province Prepared For Prism EMS By TEL: +27 82 373 8491. E –MAIL [email protected] VERSION 1.0 22 July 2015 2 CLIENT: Prism EMS CONTACT PERSON: Mr De Wet Botha [email protected] SIGNATURE: ____________________________ LEADING CONSULTANT: Heritage Contracts and Archaeological Consulting CC (HCAC) CONTACT PERSON: Jaco van der Walt Heritage Contracts and Archaeological Consulting Professional Member of the Association of Southern African Professional Archaeologist (#159) I, Jaco van der Walt as duly authorised representative of Heritage Contracts and Archaeological Consulting CC, hereby confirm my independence as a specialist and declare that neither I nor the Heritage Contracts and Archaeological Consulting CC have any interest, be it business, financial, personal or other, in any proposed activity, application or appeal in respect of which the client was appointed as Environmental Assessment practitioner, other than fair remuneration for work performed on this project. SIGNATURE: ______________________________ 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Site name and location: The TRAC N4 Section 6E located on Sections N4-6X and N4-7X between Waterval-Onder and Montrose through Elandspoort on MDC Section 6E of the Maputo Development Corridor and is generally referred to as MDC Section 6E or MDC-6E. The start point is at km 23,0 of N4-6X on the Farm Kindergoed 332-JT approximately 7,5km east of Waterval-Onder and the project ends at km 22,7 of N4-7X on the farm Montrose 290-JT. Total length of the project is approximately 43km. Purpose of the study: Phase 1 Archaeological Impact Assessment to determine the presence of cultural heritage sites and the impact of the proposed project. 1:50 000 Topographic Map: 2530 CB, 2530 DA. Environmental Consultant: Prism EMS Developer: SANRAL Heritage Consultant: Heritage Contracts and Archaeological Consulting CC (HCAC). Contact person: Jaco van der Walt Tel: +27 82 373 8491 E –mail [email protected]. Date of Report: 22 July 2015 Findings of the Assessment: The proposed road upgrades are located within the existing N4 servitude and as such the chances of recovering surface archaeological materials in situ, are limited. However 5 sites were recorded consisting of Late Iron Age Stone walled settlements, sites of possible ritual significance, a possible historical culvert/bridge and rectangular stone walled foundations probably dating from the historical period. Most of these sites are located outside of the road reserve and area of impact but some sites are located within the area of impact and mitigation measures must be implemented at the following sites and passing lanes: A stone cairn and Marula tree of possible ritual significance were recorded at WB3 and a bridge/culvert of unknown age at WB4. Two stone walled sites were recorded in the vicinity of WB 7 where the existing N4 national road impacted on the archaeological site and it is possible that subsurface archaeological material might be exposed during construction within the road reserve. It is recommended that this section is monitored during the construction phase to mitigate any accidental finds and a chance find procedure must be implemented for the project. If during construction, any archaeological finds are made (e.g. stone tools, skeletal material), the operations must be stopped, and the archaeologist must be contacted for an assessment of the finds. Based on the results of the phase 1 AIA there is from an archaeological point of view no reason why the development cannot proceed provided that the recommendations made in the AIA are adhered by and based on approval from SAHRA. 4 General Due to the subsurface nature of archaeological material and unmarked graves the possibility of the occurrence of unmarked or informal graves and subsurface finds cannot be excluded. If during construction any possible finds such as stone tool scatters, artefacts or bone and fossil remains are made, the operations must be stopped and a qualified archaeologist must be contacted for an assessment of the find. Disclaimer: Although all possible care is taken to identify sites of cultural importance during the investigation of study areas, it is always possible that hidden or sub-surface sites could be overlooked during the study. Heritage Contracts and Archaeological Consulting CC and its personnel will not be held liable for such oversights or for costs incurred as a result of such oversights. Copyright: Copyright of all documents, drawings and records – whether manually or electronically produced – that form part of the submission, and any subsequent reports or project documents, vests in Heritage Contracts and Archaeological Consulting CC. None of the documents, drawings or records may be used or applied in any manner, nor may they be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means whatsoever for or to any other person, without the prior written consent of Heritage Contracts and Archaeological Consulting CC. The Client, on acceptance of any submission by Heritage Contracts and Archaeological Consulting CC and on condition that the Client pays to Heritage Contracts and Archaeological Consulting CC the full price for the work as agreed, shall be entitled to use for its own benefit and for the specified project only: . The results of the project; . The technology described in any report; . Recommendations delivered to the Client. 5 CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................... 3 GLOSSARY .......................................................................................................................................................... 7 1 BACKGROUND INFORMATION .................................................................................................................... 8 1.1 Terms of Reference .................................................................................................................... 9 1.2. Archaeological Legislation and Best Practice ........................................................................... 9 1.3 Description of Study Area ......................................................................................................... 10 1.3.1 Location Data......................................................................................................................... 10 1.3.2. Location Map ........................................................................................................................ 11 2. APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY .......................................................................................................... 12 2.1 Phase 1 - Desktop Study .......................................................................................................... 12 2.1.1 Literature Search ................................................................................................................... 12 2.1.2 Information Collection ............................................................................................................ 12 2.1.3 Consultation ........................................................................................................................... 12 2.1.4 Google Earth and Mapping Survey ....................................................................................... 12 2.1.5 Genealogical Society of South Africa .................................................................................... 12 2.2 Phase 2 - Physical Surveying ................................................................................................... 12 2.3. Limitations and Assumptions ................................................................................................... 12 3. NATURE OF THE DEVELOPMENT............................................................................................................ 12 4. HISTORICAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY AREA ............................ 13 4.1 Databases Consulted ............................................................................................................... 13 4.2 Archaeological and Historical Information Available on the Study Area .................................. 14 4.2.2 Stone Age .............................................................................................................................. 14 4.2.2. Iron Age ................................................................................................................................ 15 4.2.4. Historical Information ............................................................................................................ 18 4.2.5. Waterval Boven and the construction of the eastern railway line ......................................... 19 5. HERITAGE SITE SIGNIFICANCE AND MITIGATION MEASURES ....................................................... 30 5.1. Field Rating of Sites ................................................................................................................ 31 6. BASELINE STUDY-DESCRIPTION OF SITES .......................................................................................... 32 7. RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS .......................................................................................... 41 8. PROJECT TEAM ..........................................................................................................................................