Locating the Battle of Blaauwberg (1806) Field Hospital, Blaauwbergsvalley, Cape Town, South Africa: the Archaeological Evidence

LOCATING THE BATTLE OF BLAAUWBERG (1806) FIELD HOSPITAL, BLAAUWBERGSVALLEY, CAPE TOWN, SOUTH AFRICA: THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE

A view from the farmyard at Blaauwbergsvalley overlooking the Blaauwberg mountain. Photo. M.E. Breytenbach.

HONOURS DEGREE DISSERTATION

UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH AFRICA

JANUARY 2016

Marius Breytenbach

TABLE OF CONTENT

1. INTRODUCTION ...... 1

2. THE HISTORICAL SETTING AT THE CAPE ...... 5

3. LITERATURE REVIEW ...... 6

3.1. Theoretical considerations ...... 7

3.2. Examples of battlefield archaeology ...... 9

3.2.1. The Battle of Little Bighorn ...... 9

3.2.2. The Battle of Towton ...... 11

3.3. Conclusion ...... 12

4. DOCUMENTARY SOURCES ...... 13

4.1. Documentary sources up to the battle (1794-1806) ...... 14

4.2. Documentary sources after the battle (1806-1836) ...... 19

4.3. Documentary sources from 1836 to the 21st century ...... 32

4.4. Discussing documentary sources ...... 38

5. RESEARCH AT BLAAUBERGSVALLEY ...... 39

5.1. Pat Matejek ...... 39

5.2. Gary Thomson ...... 40

5.3. Willem Hutten ...... 50

6. METHODOLOGY ...... 51

6.1. Site description ...... 51

6.2. Archaeological survey ...... 56

6.2.1. Geophysical archaeological survey (see Addendum A for the full report)...... 57

6.2.2. Intensive archaeological survey ...... 58

7. RESULTS ...... 62

7.1. Intensive archaeological survey (also see Addendum B) ...... 62

7.2. Geophysical analysis ...... 64

7.3. Reconstructing the historical landscape of Blaauwbergsvalley ...... 67

8. CONCLUSION ...... 71

9. REFERENCE LIST...... 73

10. ARCHIVAL SOURCES...... 76

11. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS...... 7678

ADDENDUM A: Report of Geophysical Survey ...... 79

ADDENDUM B: Tables summarizing artefact finds from midden areas ...... 93

ADDENDUM C: The research team ...... 99

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE 1. A MAP FROM THE IRMP INDICATING THE AREA ENCOMPASSED BY THE BLAAUWBERG NATURE RESERVE (KÜYLER 2011)...... 1

FIGURE 2. A MAP FROM THE IRMP INDICATING THE LOCATION OF VARIOUS ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES WITHIN THE NATURE RESERVE

(KÜYLER 2011)...... 2

FIGURE 3. A DIAGRAM FROM THE FIRST TITLE DEED OF BLAAUWBERGSVALLEY IN WHICH THE LOCATION OF A ‘WAGENPAD’, ‘UITSPAN’

AND SPRING ARE INDICATED. THE PROPERTY’S NAME IS INDICATED AS BEING ‘BLAAUWEBERGSVALLEIJ’ (DIAGRAM S.G. DGM

NO 30/1794)...... 14

FIGURE 4. THE VIEW FROM WHERE HENRY MARTYN LOOKED OVER THE BATTLE PLAIN. THE RED ARROW INDICATE THE LOCATION OF

BLAAUWBERGSVALLEY WHERE MARTYN SAW SOME FARMHOUSES IN THE DISTANCE. PHOTO: M.E. BREYTENBACH...... 18

FIGURE 5. MAP OF THE BATTLE SITE DATING TO MARCH/APRIL 1806, DRAWN BY CAPTAINS READ & LONG. TWO LONGHOUSES ARE

INDICATED PARALLEL TO EACH OTHER WITH A ROAD PASSING NEARBY. ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE ROAD, THE SPRING

/DAM AREA IS INDICATED (M1/2064-2071)...... 21

FIGURE 6. A SECOND MAP OF THE BATTLE SITE, DRAWN BY READ & LONG DATING TO THE 24TH OF SEPTEMBER 1806. ON THIS

MAP, TWO HOUSES ARE DRAWN PERPENDICULAR TO EACH OTHER WITH A SPRING/DAM LAYING ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE

ROAD (M3/21/1806)...... 22

FIGURE 7. AN ENLARGEMENT OF FIGURE 6 (M3/21/1806)...... 22

FIGURE 8. A GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION OF JUSTINUS KEER’S INVENTORY MERGED ONTO A FLOORPLAN. (A) THE ‘VOORHUIS’, (B)

ROOM TO THE RIGHT, (C) ROOM TO THE LEFT, (D1D2) THE KITCHEN OR ‘BAKHUIS’. D2 CAN ALSO POSSIBLY REFER TO THE

“BUITENVERTREK” REFERRED TO IN THE INVENTORY. DRAWN BY M.E. BREYTENBACH...... 30

FIGURE 9. A GROUND PLAN OF A TYPICAL T-SHAPED HOUSE CAN BE SEEN: (1) FRONT-ROOM 'VOORHUIS', (2) ROOMS 'KAMERS', (3)

KITCHEN 'KOMBUIS', (6) FIREPLACE 'HAARD' (CORNELL & MALAN 2005:63). THIS FLOORPLAN VERY CLOSELY RESEMBLES

THAT OF KEER'S INVENTORY...... 31

FIGURE 10. DIAGRAM OF LOT LA. H IN WHICH THE THREE HUNDRED MORGEN OUTSPAN AREA CAN ALSO BE SEEN (DIAGRAM 291/1872)...... 33

FIGURE 11. ABOVE A DIAGRAM OF LOT LA.F IN WHICH THE OUTSPAN AREA RELATED TO THE FARM BLAAUWBERGSVALLEY CAN BE

SEEN (DIAGRAM 289/1872)...... 34

FIGURE 12. DIAGRAM OF FARM 431 ENCOMPASSING VARIOUS SMALLER PROPERTIES (S.G. 8234/65)...... 35

FIGURE 13. DIAGRAM OF FARM 1141 (DIAGRAM 9944/71)...... 36

FIGURE 14. A MAP INDICATING THE LOCATIONS OF COINS RETRIEVED BY GARY THOMSON AND JOE RIBAUDO AT

BLAAUWBERGSVALLEY FROM 1996-1997. MAP DRAWN BY GARY THOMSON...... 41

FIGURE 15. MAP SHOWING THE LOCATIONS OF MILITARY BUTTONS RETRIEVED BY GARY THOMSON AND JOE RIBAUDO AT

BLAAUWBERGSVALLEY FROM 1996-1997. MAP DRAWN BY GARY THOMSON...... 42

FIGURE 16. A MAP INDICATING THE LOCATION OF MUSKET PARTS FOUND AT BLAAUWBERGSVALLEY. THE MAP WAS DRAWN BY

GARY THOMSON...... 43

FIGURE 17. A SKETCH BY GARY THOMSON OF MUSKET PARTS THAT WERE COLLECTED FROM BLAAUWBERGSVALLEY...... 43

iii

FIGURE 18. MAP INDICATING WHERE GARY THOMSON AND JOE RIBAUDO RETRIEVED MUSKET BALLS FROM 1996-1997. MAP

DRAWN BY GARY THOMSON...... 44

FIGURE 19. A MILITARY BUTTON FROM THE KING'S ROYAL IRISH LIGHT DRAGOONS. PHOTO: M.E. BREYTENBACH...... 49

FIGURE 20. A BUTTON WITH AN INLAID PATTERN. PHOTO: M.E. BREYTENBACH...... 49

FIGURE 21. BUTTON WITH INLAID PATTERN. PHOTO: M.E. BREYTENBACH...... 49

FIGURE 22. COIN FROM ST. HELENA DATED 1821. PHOTO: M.E. BREYTENBACH...... 49

FIGURE 23. HALFPENNY OF KING GEORGE III DATING TO 1806-1807. PHOTO: M.E. BREYTENBACH...... 49

FIGURE 24. A MUSKET BALL FIRED BY A CHARLEVILLE MUSKET. PHOTO: M.E. BREYTENBACH...... 49

FIGURE 25. MILITARY BUCKLES RETRIEVED FROM THE DUMPSITE. PHOTO: M.E. BREYTENBACH...... 50

FIGURE 26. A BRASS FRONT END OF A MUSKET. PHOTO: M.E. BREYTENBACH...... 50

FIGURE 27. A SIDE VIEW OF FIGURE 27. PHOTO: M.E. BREYTENBACH...... 50

FIGURE 28. A VISUAL PRESENTATION OF THE LANDSCAPE WHERE THE BATTLE OF BLAAUWBERG TOOK PLACE. VARIOUS ECOLOGICAL

ZONES ARE COLOUR CODED. RED: A REPATRIATED CONSERVATION AREA; GREEN: THICK PORT JACKSON VEGETATION;

YELLOW: SAND DUNES; PURPLE: OPEN GRASS AND SAND AREA; ORANGE: CULTIVATED FARMLAND AREA; BLUE: SPRING

AREA; MAROON: MOUNTAIN/HILL AREA. TAKEN FROM GOOGLE EARTH 27 JULY 2015. IMAGE C 2015 DIGITALGLOBE

DATA SIO, NOAA, U.S. NAVY, NGA, GEBCO, IMAGE LANDSAT. 33̊ 46’10.52” S, 18̊ 29’08.52”E ALTITUDE 4.78 KM...... 52

FIGURE 29. A TOPOGRAPHICAL MAP OF THE AREA ENCOMPASSING THE BATTLE OF BLAAUWBERG. THE POINTS MARKED 3-7

INDICATE THE LOCATION OF THE BLAAUWBERGSVALLEY FARM. THE BATTLE MAINLY TOOK PART ON THE PLAIN TOWARD THE

EAST OF KLEIN AND GROOTBERG (GARMIN SA TOPO 2012.3 NT)...... 53

FIGURE 30. AN AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH OF BLAAUWBERGSVALLEY FROM 1938. 26_73_11392...... 53

FIGURE 31. A SCALE REPRESENTATION OF GRIDS O23, O24, P23 AND P24 CAN BE SEEN. THE DARK BROWN SHADE INDICATES THE

UPPER TERRACE, THE LIGHTER BROWN SHADE THE MIDDLE TERRACE AND THE GREEN SHADE A MARSHLAND AREA RUNNING

INTO THE DAM OF THE NATURAL SPRING. DRAWN BY MARIUS BREYTENBACH...... 54

FIGURE 32. A PHOTO TAKEN IN 1996 OF THE STABLES AT THE BACK OF THE 20TH CENTURY FARM HOUSE. PHOTO: PAT MATAJEK. .55

FIGURE 33. A PHOTO TAKEN IN 1952 OF THE 20TH CENTURY FARM HOUSE WITH TABLE MOUNTAIN IN THE BACKGROUND

(KRYNAUW 1999)...... 55

FIGURE 34. A PHOTO TAKEN IN 2015 WHERE THE RUINS OF THE FARMHOUSE IN FIGURE 30 CAN BE SEEN. PHOTO: M.E.

BREYTENBACH ...... 55

FIGURE 35. A MAP OF GRID AREA O23 AND O24. EACH SQUARE REPRESENTS AN AREA OF 10X10 METERS. TAKEN FROM GOOGLE

EARTH, 1 APRIL 2015. IMAGE C 2015 DIGITALGLOBE DATA SIO, NOAA, U.S. NAVY, NGA, GEBCO, IMAGE LANDSAT.

33̊ 46’10.52” S, 18̊ 29’08.52”E ALTITUDE 4.78 KM...... 56

FIGURE 36. A MAP OF THE GRID LAYOUT OF A PART OF THE BATTLEFIELD AREA COVERING ABOUT 4.42 SQUARE KILOMETRES. THE

SOLID GREEN RECTANGLE ON THE BOTTOM RIGHT INDICATES THE LOCATION OF BLOCK O23 AND O24. TAKEN FROM GOOGLE

EARTH, 1 APRIL 2015. IMAGE C 2015 DIGITALGLOBE DATA SIO, NOAA, U.S. NAVY, NGA, GEBCO, IMAGE LANDSAT.

33̊ 46’10.52” S, 18̊ 29’08.52”E ALTITUDE 4.78 KM...... 56

FIGURE 37. A GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION OF THE AREAS IN WHICH THE GPR SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED (NIENABER 2015)...... 57

FIGURE 38. THE SURVEY TEAM BUSY CALIBRATING THE GPR. FROM THE LEFT: LOUISA HUTTEN, CAPTAIN JOUBERT, COEN NIENABER

AND WARRANT OFFICER MASTERS. PHOTO: M.E. BREYTENBACH...... 58

FIGURE 39. THE SURVEYOR TEAM BUSY SURVEYING SET 12 WITHIN GRID O24. PHOTO: M.E. BREYTENBACH...... 58

FIGURE 40. A MAP OF GRID O23 AND O24. THE ORANGE AREAS INDICATE WHERE THE GPR SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED. TAKEN

FROM GOOGLE EARTH, 1 APRIL 2015. IMAGE C 2015 DIGITALGLOBE DATA SIO, NOAA, U.S. NAVY, NGA, GEBCO,

IMAGE LANDSAT. 33̊ 46’10.52” S, 18̊ 29’08.52”E ALTITUDE 4.78 KM...... 59

FIGURE 41. A PHOTO OF A CERAMIC ARTEFACT LAYING ON THE SURFACE. PHOTO: M.E. BREYTENBACH...... 60

FIGURE 42. A PHOTO OF THE SURVEY TEAM WORKING IN ONE OF THE 10X10 METER SURVEY SQUARES. PHOTO: M.E.

BREYTENBACH...... 60

FIGURE 43. A GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION OF ARTEFACTS FOUND IN GRID O24 (BLOCK 28) IN WHICH EACH OF THE ARTEFACTS THAT

WERE RECOVERED WAS MARKED AND MAPPED. DRAWN BY MARIUS BREYTENBACH...... 60

FIGURE 44. A PHOTO OF ARTEFACTS BEING MARKED BY RED FLAGS. EACH FIND WAS RECORDED AND GIVEN A UNIQUE ACCESSION

NUMBER. PHOTO: M.E. BREYTENBACH...... 61

FIGURE 45. AN EXAMPLE OF A LABEL USED TO TAG EACH ARTEFACT...... 61

FIGURE 46. AN EXAMPLE OF THE FIND LIST WHERE THE DETAILS OF EACH ARTEFACT WAS RECORDED...... 61

FIGURE 47. A MAP INDICATING TWO MIDDEN RELATED AREAS WITHIN GRID O23 AND O24. TAKEN FROM GOOGLE EARTH, 1 APRIL

2015. IMAGE C 2015 DIGITALGLOBE. DATA SIO, NOAA, U.S. NAVY, NGA, GEBCO, IMAGE LANDSAT. 33̊ 46’10.52” S,

18̊ 29’08.52”E ALTITUDE 4.78 KM...... 63

FIGURE 48. THE GPR SURVEY GRIDS IN O23 AND O24 (NIENABER 2015)...... 64

FIGURE 49. A SIDE VIEW OF SET13. LINE 15 SHOWS SUB-SURFACE ANOMALIES (NIENABER 2015)...... 65

FIGURE 50. A SIDE VIEW OF THE AREA IN SET 12. AROUND LINE FIVE SUB-SURFACE ANOMALIES CAN BE SEEN (NIENABER 2015). 65

FIGURE 51. A 3D RECONSTRUCTION OF SET 12-15 IN GRID O24. THE FOUNDATION WALLS OF A THREE ROOMED STRUCTURE CAN

BE SEEN (NIENABER 2015)...... 66

FIGURE 52. A 3D RECONSTRUCTION OF THE GPR DATA FROM SET 19 IN WHICH ANOMALIES CAN BE SEEN (NIENABER 2015). ....65

FIGURE 53. THE BLAAUWBERGSVALLEY FARMYARD. A GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION OF THE MERGING OF THE HISTORIC AND

CONTEMPORARY LANDSCAPE WITH RESULTS OBTAINED FROM THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY. DRAWN BY M.E.

BREYTENBACH...... 66

FIGURE 54. A GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION OF AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL HOTSPOT AT BLAAUWBERGSVALLEY WHICH CAN BE RELATED TO

JUSTINUS KEER’S FARMHOUSE AND THE FIELD HOSPITAL DURING THE BATTLE OF BLAAUWBERG. DRAWN BY MARIUS

BREYTENBACH...... 70

FIGURE 55. IN THIS GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION BLOCKS 07 (TOP) AND 17 (BOTTOM) WITHIN GRID O24 ARE BROUGHT TOGETHER.

THE FOUNDATIONS OF THE STRUCTURE FOUND BY GPR IN O24 WAS DRAWN BY HAND. THERE IS A CLEAR ARCHAEOLOGICAL

SIGNATURE OF CERAMICS AND MUSKET BALLS AT THE EDGES OF THE STRUCTURE ...... 70

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE 1. A SUMMARY OF THE 'OPGAAFROLLE' AT BLAAUWBERGSVALLEY FROM 1800-1824...... 24

TABLE 2. THIS TABLE BELOW PROVIDES A SUMMARY OF THE VARIOUS CLASSES OF ARTEFACTS THAT WERE RECOVERED FROM GRID

O23 AND O24 ...... 62

TABLE 3. THE TABLE ABOVE INDICATES THE NUMBER OF ARTEFACTS RECOVERED IN EACH SURVEY BLOCK OF THE MIDDEN AREA IN

GRID O23...... 93

TABLE 4. THE TABLE ABOVE INDICATES THE NUMBER OF ARTEFACTS RECOVERED IN EACH SURVEY BLOCK OF THE MIDDEN AREA IN

GRID O24...... 93

TABLE 5. THE ABOVE GRAPH SHOW THE DISTRIBUTION OF ARTEFACTS RETRIEVED FROM THE MIDDEN AREA IN GRID O23...... 94

TABLE 6. THE ABOVE GRAPH SHOW THE DISTRIBUTION OF ARTEFACTS RETRIEVED FROM THE MIDDEN AREA IN GRID O24...... 94

NOTE ON ORTHOGRAPHY

The property of Jan Hendrik Muller and Justinus Keer, which is the focus of this study, is spelled in various ways. According to the first title deed, dating to 1794, “Blaauwe bergsvalleij” was granted to Jan Hendrik Muller (CTD 14:37). In 1806, Justinus Nicolaas Keer himself referred to the property as “Blaauwe Bergs Valleij” (CO 3850/407). Shortly after the Battle of Blaauwberg in 1806, Captains Read and Long of the Royal Staff Corps drew two different maps in which the houses on the property are referred to as the “Blau Berg Valley House” (M1/2064-2071) and the “Blue Berg Valley House” (M3/21/1806; M1/3297). In a secondary source, Krynauw (1999) refers to the same property as “Blaauwbergsvlei”. The farm name “Blaauwbergsvlei” was, however, only registered in 1963, and refers to a completely different property three km away from where Muller and Keer lived (T5745). For the purposes of my research, I will be referring to the property inhabited by Muller and Keer as being “Blaauwbergsvalley”, unless quoting directly from a source. This is the English translation of the original “Blaauwe bergsvalleij”.

vii

1. INTRODUCTION

On the 8th of January 1806, the British defeated Batavian forces on the outskirts of Cape Town in the Battle of Blaauwberg, resulting in the handover of the Cape to the British (Erasmus 1972; Krynauw 1999; Steenkamp 2012). British rule impacted not only the lives of people living in the Cape at the start of the 19th century, but also those of future South Africans.

Historical writings have documented the unfolding of the Battle of Blaauwberg and identified locations where battle-related events took place. According to documentary sources, a farmhouse at Blaauwbergsvalley belonging to a man by the name Justinus Keer was transformed into a field hospital where, for ten days, soldiers of both the British and Batavian forces were treated (Krynauw 1999:159-160; Steenkamp 2012:264). As Keer’s farmhouse/field hospital was the only structure on the battlefield, its location has often been used by historians as a reference point to orient and reconstruct the battle. Over the years, secondary sources have identified a farmyard adjacent to a natural spring south-east of the Blaauwberg Mountain as being the Blaauwbergsvalley farm that belonged to Keer. This claim is based on assumptions made from historical documents, and is not based on any archaeological evidence. Blaauwbergsvalley has, therefore, never been properly researched and identified.

The aim of this project was to assess the archaeological evidence supporting the hypothesis that this property is the Blaauwbergsvalley farmyard where Justinus Keer lived and where, at the Battle of Blaauwberg, a field hospital was erected. In determining the location of Keer’s house/field hospital, research was conducted in three phases. Firstly, the general location of the farmhouse/field hospital was determined by reviewing primary and secondary sources. The relation between these sources, namely how accurately secondary sources portray the events described in primary sources, was also assessed. Secondly, the historical terrain at the time of the battle and thereafter was reconstructed by utilising data obtained from documentary sources. Lastly, the hypothesis of secondary sources, that the aforementioned property is Blaauwbergsvalley, was tested by conducting an

archaeological survey. I will assess in what way archaeological evidence from the survey correlate, corroborate or contrast evidence obtained from written documents.

The site of the Battle of Blaauwberg as well as Justinus Keer’s assumed farmyard is situated within the Blaauwberg Nature Reserve (BNR) in the Western Cape of South Africa (Figure 1) and is currently managed by the City of Cape Town. The BNR is situated about 25 km north of Cape Town and four km south-east of Figure 1. A map from the IRMP indicating the area encompassed by the Blaauwberg Nature Reserve (Küyler 2011). Melkbosstrand, and comprises 1 445 hectares of protected land managed by an integrated reserve management plan (IRMP), compiled in June 2011 by Etienne Jacques Küyler of the Biodiversity Management Branch of the Environmental Resource Management Department, City of Cape Town (Küyler 2011). Besides the Battle of Blaauwberg, the reserve also houses various other archaeologically sensitive areas, as indicated in Figure 2, such as shell middens, stone artefacts and a historical building relating to the Second World War (Küyler 2011). In 2014, I applied for an archaeological permit to conduct research in the area of the outspan, the location of which is indicated in Figure 2 (point 7).

Heritage Western Cape (HWC) granted the permit to Louisa Hutton, an archaeologist at the University of Cape Town (UCT) and field director of the project (case number 14111302GT1120E). By drawing on documentary sources, the perimeter of assumed farmyard was determined, a total station set up, datum points were identified and the area divided into survey quadrants. An intensive archaeological survey was conducted and surface artefacts were mapped, marked and collected. The survey indicated the

Figure 2. A map from the IRMP indicating the location of various location of two possible archaeological sites within the nature reserve (Küyler 2011). middens, one of which was surveyed by means of ground penetrating radar (GPR). The GPR survey indicated subsurface structures, but because of permit conditions, no excavations could be done to uncover and examine them.

According to Orser (1995:43) “historical archaeology truly came of age in the late 1960’s and 1970’s, when both archaeologists and historians realized the potential of the humblest of artefacts for studying people whose daily lives are not well- documented in historical sources”. “The combined use of archaeological and

documentary material should permit us to say something about the past that could not have been said using only one set of data” (Deetz 1996:32). The Battle of Blaauwberg falls within a very interesting time period known to historians as the transitional years, “when British, Batavian and again British governments took nominal control of the colony” (Klose & Malan 1993:37). After the Battle of Blaauwberg, British rule inaugurated a series of new political, social, economical and cultural realities, which significantly changed the material culture of the Cape (Klose & Malan 1993). Besides identifying the location of the Blaauwbergsvalley farmhouse/field hospital, this project offers a unique opportunity to expound the past events of the battle by merging documentary sources such as censes records, inventories, auctions, orphan chamber records, resolutions of the Council of Policy, maps, and ordinance surveys with archaeological material.

The site of the Battle of Blaauwberg is one of a select few archaeological sites adjacent to Cape Town that have not been impacted by extensive farming and development, thereby retaining much of its natural and cultural heritage. Because of encroaching industrial and residential development, illegal access by motorcyclists, treasure seekers armed with metal detectors, and squatters, the site’s cultural and natural heritage has lately come under pressure. The focus of the IRMP has largely been on presenting and protecting the Nature Reserve’s natural heritage. Until recently, therefore, very little has been done in terms of researching and presenting the reserve’s rich cultural heritage. Currently, only three archaeological areas within Figure 2 are being researched. Lately, scatters of stone artefacts and evidence of possible herder sites have also come to the Blaauwbergsvalley research team’s attention. The IRMP, drawn up in 2011, makes provision for building a visitor’s centre in the Nature Reserve. Once located, Justinus Keer’s house/field hospital site could serve as location for such a facility from where the BNR’s cultural and natural heritage can be presented.

2. THE HISTORICAL SETTING AT THE CAPE

International politics and economics significantly impacted life at the Cape of Good Hope. On the 9th of April 1652, Johan Anthoniszoon (Jan) van Riebeeck, on behalf of the Dutch East India Corporation (DEIC), took formal possession of the Cape of Good Hope (Steenkamp 2012:16). The goal was the establishment of a refreshment outpost where DEIC ships trading with the East could be supplied with fresh fruits, vegetables and meat, and where sailors could recuperate en route. The Dutch ruled the Cape for the next 143 years (Steenkamp 2012).

In 1794, the French Revolutionary wars in Europe resulted in the French capturing the Dutch Republic, which subsequently became the Batavian Republic (Erasmus 1972:3-4). Being a Dutch outpost, the Cape of Good Hope soon found itself caught up in the maelstrom of European economics and politics. Fearing that the French would take possession of important Dutch facilities, England launched a series of operations against the Dutch (Erasmus 1972:4). Because of the strategic importance of the Cape in trading with the East Indies, the English, under command of Admiral Elphinstone, took possession of the Cape of Good Hope in 1795 (Erasmus 1972; Steenkamp 2012). The English ruled the Cape until 1802. After the signing of the Treaty of Amiens on the 25th of March 1802, it was returned to the Batavian Republic (Erasmus 1972:5). This peace was short-lived, however, and Napoleon Bonaparte soon started plundering Europe again, setting his sights on the invasion of Great Britain. Having a far superior naval fleet, the English blockaded the French coast, making it impossible for Napoleon to cross the English Channel to launch his ground forces (Erasmus 1972:9; Steenkamp 2012:213). Rumours started circulating that, in an attempt to cut off English trade with the East, Napoleon planned to invade India (Erasmus 1972:33). The English once again realised the strategic importance of the Cape and, despite the imminent danger of Napoleon breaking through the defence lines set in the English channel, British Prime Minister William Pitt took the brave decision to send a large English fleet with soldiers to invade the Cape (Steenkamp 2012:218).

On the 4th of January 1806, 63 English ships under command of Captain Sir Home Popham arrived in the Cape, carrying an army of approximately 7600 soldiers under command of General Sir David Baird (Erasmus 1972:101; Steenkamp 2012:219). Fearing the arrival of a French fleet, General Baird was in a hurry to commence with his attack. On the 6th of January 1806, Baird landed his troops about 25 km outside Cape Town at Losperds (Lospers) Bay, which is known today as Melkbosstrand (Erasmus 1972:109). At the same time, General Janssens, of the opposing Batavian army, prepared his defence of the Cape, advancing about two thousand troops from Cape Town to Rietvley. At 15:00 on the 7th of January 1806, Janssens advanced his troops from “Rietvlei” to Blaauwbergsvalley, where they set up camp for the night before going into battle the next morning (Erasmus 1972:122-123).

The morning of the 8th of January, Janssens made an early start (3:00 a.m.), probably with the intention of engaging the British from higher ground. General Baird’s forces unexpectedly made an even earlier start, forcing Janssens’ troops at Blaauwbergsvalley to spread their lines in defence. Janssens set his troops up in battle lines stretching from Justinus Keer’s house toward the coastline in the west (Erasmus 1972:126; Krynauw 1999:90; Steenkamp 2012:248). According to Erasmus (1972:132), the battle commenced at 5:00 a.m. on the 8th of January, with a series of heavy bombardments from both sides. Baird’s regiments succeeded in breaking though Janssens’ defence, forcing the Batavian troops to flee to Rietvley, after which they took refuge in the area of the Hottentots Holland Mountains (Erasmus 1972:138). The British won the battle, and on the 10th of January 1806 a capitulation agreement was signed at Papendorp (known today as Woodstock) (Erasmus 1972:164).

3. LITERATURE REVIEW

Since the second British occupation of the Cape in 1806, many other battles have been fought on South African soil. The majority of these were fought during the Zulu- Voortrekker wars (1838), the Anglo-Zulu Wars (1879) and Anglo-Boer Wars (1880- 1881 and 1898-1902). These battles have captured the imagination of many South Africans, and resulted in the publication of many battle-related publications. Most of

these battles have also been commemorated in some way or another by on-site monuments, visitor centres and museums. At the least signs were erected to indicate where battles have been fought. Although regarded as being one of South Africa’s most significant battles, the site and events surrounding the Battle of Blaauwberg seems to have been forgotten in time. No monument commemorating the battle and lives of fallen soldiers has ever been erected.

Archaeology has the responsibility and means to ensure that the Battle of Blaauwberg is properly researched and presented as part of South Africa’s cultural heritage. The following literature review will highlight ways in which historical archaeology can contribute towards this goal. Over the past three decades, there has been a significant development in the researching of battle sites within historical archaeology. In some of the highlighted studies, material remains have augmented documentary sources (Foard & Morris 2012; Pollard & Banks 2006). This literature review provides an overview of theoretical and methodological developments within battlefield archaeology. After considering theoretical developments within the discipline, two battle-related archaeological projects on two different continents that have meaningfully influenced the discipline will be reviewed: The Battle of Little Bighorn (The United States of America) and the Battle of Towton (England).

3.1. Theoretical considerations

The holistic approach of antiquaries, in which both documentary and physical evidence are considered when studying battles, was abandoned during the 19th century when archaeology developed as a separate discipline (Foard & Morris 2012:17). With archaeologists abandoning the study of battlefields, it became “the sole preserve of military historians”, who consulted mostly written records, rarely utilising the potential of battle archaeology. According to Foard & Morris (2012:7), this state of affairs has resulted in many well-known battle sites not being identified, as is currently the case with the Battle of Blaauwberg. Despite being historically

presented, the location of the battle site was unknown until recently1. Being the only Napoleonic war fought south of the Sahara and having such a big influence on South Africa’s history, the battle site could be, one would expect, better presented. Being so close to Cape Town, it is an ideal tourist attraction.

Bringing history and archaeology together in studying battlefield sites has, in recent years, significantly contributed to the successes of historical archaeology (Foard & Morris 2012:17). One of the earliest examples of archaeology’s interest in battle sites dates back to 1842, when Edward Fitzgerald investigated the English Civil War site of Naseby (Carman 2005; Scott & McFeaters 2011:106). The primary objective of these early studies was merely to locate where historic battles took place or to find battle-related relics (Carman 2005:216; Scott & McFeaters 2011:116). In recent years, archaeological research of battle sites has progressed past these confines. Battlefields became much more than historic places; they became “research objects in their own right”, having archaeological and cultural significance (Carman 2005:215-216). Writing in the inaugural issue of the Journal of Conflict Archaeology, Pollard & Banks (2006:vi) stress the importance of researching “conflict in its broadest possible sense”, which provides “a vehicle for a wide variety of approaches promoting diversity and a holistic outlook”. This focus helped archaeological research to venture beyond the confines of researching only battle sites, and to include military support facilities, camps, bases, logistical support facilities, prisoners of war, concentration camps, hospitals and field hospitals (Geier et al 2011:iii; Scott & McFeaters 2011:104). Expanding the field of research beyond battle sites alone has significantly augmented our understanding of past battles. Researchers have also

1 The most recent, and first thorough study trying to locate the site of the Battle of Blaauwberg was conducted by Willem Hutten as part of his honours project in 2013. Hutten sought to identify the British artillery positions and is currently busy with his Masters degree. The title of his Masters dissertation is: The 1806 Battle of Blaauwberg – an Archaeological Perspective. The Blaauwberg Archaeological Project is a non profit organization aiming to promote the archaeological heritage within the Blaauwberg Nature Reserve. Currently Willem Hutten, Marius Breytenbach and Francois van Lill are busy conducting archaeological research at the site. They are all post graduate students at the University of South Africa.

moved away from traditional approaches that have presented battles from the perspective of the accomplishments of great military leaders toward “efforts to document, understand and interpret the lives of common soldiers” of which “their sacrifices remain neglected and often unprotected” (Geier et al 2011:viii).

3.2. Examples of battlefield archaeology

The battles of Little Bighorn and Towton are good examples of how research at battle sites has redefined and refined the discipline of battlefield archaeology. Both these battles are significant to the research at the Battle of Blaauwberg. Firstly, they present new theoretical perspectives from scholars of two different continents (Europe and the United States of America), both of which have influenced theoretical perspectives of historical archaeology in Southern Africa. Secondly, they employed innovative methods, setting a new benchmark of how to approach battle sites.

3.2.1. The Battle of Little Bighorn

The Battle of Little Bighorn was an armed engagement between the native Lakota tribes and the 7th Calvary Regiment of the United States Army, led by George Armstrong Custer. The battle, which was fought on the 25-26th of June 1876 near the Little Bighorn River in Montana in the United States of America, resulted in an overwhelming victory for the local Lakota tribe (Scott & McFeaters 2011). Throughout the years, the battle has been extensively studied by historians speculating on the fate of Custer’s men (Johnson et al 1990). The work of Scott & Fox in the early 1980’s at this site has been regarded as a classic example of the start of battlefield archaeology. Scott & Fox’s work at Little Bighorn brought important methodological advances that have since characterised archaeological work at battle sites throughout the world (Scott & McFeaters 2011:108).

Their research of six years culminated in the publication of “Archaeological Perspectives on the Battle of Little Bighorn”2 in 1989.

In 1983, a fire at the Custer Battlefield Monument exposed a large part of the battlefield which had previously been inaccessible due to thick vegetation (Johnson et al 1990: 109). Scott & Fox started their survey with systematic field walking, during which a number of surface artefacts were recovered and after which a metal detector survey was conducted. At this point in time, metal detectors were not considered an archaeological tool and their use was frowned upon (Scott & McFeaters 2011:108). This was mainly due to the reputation of amateur and hobby metal detectorists of the 1970’s who started prospecting battle sites. Since they were not being governed by the systematic methods of archaeological field surveys, a lot of valuable information was lost (Foard & Morris 2012:17). Scott & Fox are credited as the first to develop a “disciplined, systematic approach for surveying battlefields with metal detectors and meticulously recording spatial data of recovered artefacts” (Scott & McFeaters 2011:109). Making use of metal detectors, they mapped firearm parts, cartridge cases and bullets found on the battle site, which they used to reconstruct a spatial map of the historical terrain. With this systematic approach, they succeeded in assessing soldiers’ combat behaviour and constructed hypotheses about the movements of the troops (Johnson et al 1990:110). This spatial map of the historical landscape was merged with data from written documents on the battle, showing that Custer’s men were outmanned and outgunned by the Lakota tribe (Johnson et al 1990:110).

A few important impressions regarding the project can be highlighted. The researchers realised the importance of written documents when reconstructing the past, but also highlighted their limitations. Battlefield behaviour can be archaeologically traced, and can enhance information from written documentation. Material culture is therefore certainly not mute and can significantly contribute to our

2 Archaeological Perspectives on the Battle of Little Bighorn by Douglas D. Scott, Richard A. Fox, Jr., Melissa A. Connor, and Dick Harmon. Norman and London: University of Oklahoma Press, 1989.

understanding of the past (Johnson et al 1990:110). The project at Little Bighorn was innovative, in the sense that it brought the fields of history and archaeology together in order to formulate new research questions. Drawing on the work of the Snake Hill excavation in Ontario, Canada, Whitehorne (2011:3-9) highlights the importance of developing a “dynamic interplay” between the historian and archaeologists at battle sites. Whitehorne (2011:3) therefore urges archaeologists to include historians when working at battle sites. Historical documents play a very important role in establishing the context of archaeological material, and can help in narrowing down interpretations and explanations. According to Whitehorne (2012:3), decent archival research is crucial in any archaeological project. Historians and archaeologists working together also have a “multiplier effect” on one another, where interpretations can be tested and further expounded (Whitehorne 2011:3). Besides taking a historian on board, Scott & Fox also succeeded in involving various volunteers and professionals from specialised areas (Johnson et al 1990:113). The archaeological work done at the site of the Battle of Little Bighorn resulted in the rewriting of history and brought the issue of historical revision to the fore (Mehls & Mehls 1990:113).

3.2.2. The Battle of Towton

On the 29th of March 1461, the Battle of Towton was fought near the small village of Towton in Northern England, and Edward Earl of March defeated King Henry VI. 100 000 combatants took part in the largest battle in Britain, during which approximately 28 000 people were killed. Locating the battle was very difficult because of the lack of information from primary sources and the lack of physical evidence from the site. The site was discovered when construction workers building the Towton Hall came across a mass grave that yielded the remains of fifty persons. This find resulted in an extensive landscape survey project. Various site assessment techniques, such as the use of maps, aerial photography, geographical surveys, field walking and metal detecting, were implemented (Sutherland & Schmidt 2003:15). The aim of the project was to find graves related to the battlefield, in the hope that skeletal material could shed light on the number of dead and the nature of their injuries (Sutherland & Schmidt 2003:16). According to historical sources, Richard III

built a chapel over some of the graves, which researchers also hoped to locate (Sutherland & Schmidt 2003:19).

While surveying the battle site of Towton, two survey techniques proved to be of significant value. Geophysical surveys utilising resistance meters and gradiometers indicated the presence of subsurface archaeological features (Sutherland & Schmidt 2003:18). The most valuable contribution came from a collaboration with Simon Richardson, a local metal detectorist, who had been detecting in the area for many years. A detailed survey methodology using metal detectors was initiated. Each artefact was given a GPS coordinate and incorporated and “analysed in a Geographical Information System to create artefact density maps” (Sutherland & Schmidt 2003:18). Archaeological surveying at the Battle site of Towton illustrates the importance of choosing surveying methods that fit the requirements of the landscape and the archaeological problems encountered.

3.3. Conclusion

Battlefield sites are synonymous with military ordnance of metal such as lead shot, musket balls, cannonballs and artillery pieces. Metal horse gear and personal metal dress fittings are also commonly found (Pollard 2009). Since most metal relating to battle sites exist as decontextualised artefacts in the top soil and ploughed soil, their value in artefact assemblages has been under-appreciated (Pollard 2009). Without metal detectors, it is nearly impossible to find them. It is clear that, when working at a battle site, conventional archaeological methods are not adequate, and that new innovative ways of doing archaeology, such as utilising the technology of geophysics, have significantly changed the face of battlefield archaeology. The biggest asset of geophysical methods, such as metal detectors, magnetometers and ground penetrating radar, is that it is a non-intrusive way of collecting data from which spatial maps of the distribution of artefacts can be drawn (Lowe 2012:71). According to Hanna (2011:11), there are about a hundred different geophysical tools and techniques that archaeologists can choose from. Merging traditional excavation techniques and data obtained from written documents with geophysical surveys

certainly brings new dimensions to our understanding of past events (Hanna 2011:11).

In the late 1960’s, Noel Hume doubted the significance of battlefield sites in serious archaeological investigation (Scott & McFeaters 2011:117). What can archaeology possibly add to what we already know from historical documents? Archaeological research at sites such as Towton and Little Big Horn has proved this assumption false. Scholars researching battlefield sites have formulated their own unique research questions, which, according to Geier et al. (2011:vii), have resulted in the discipline achieving “a methodological and topical maturity”. Battlefield archaeology had grown “at an exponential rate” over the past three decades, and has a promising future (Carman 2005:216; Scott & McFears 2011:106). According to Scott & McFeaters (2011:121), the importance of the archaeological record of battlefield sites is not its richness, but rather its being “an independent line of evidence that tells a different story or enhances the documentary record and oral tradition”. Therefore, by merging documentary sources with archaeological material, we are able to say much more about the past than relying on only one data source (Deetz 1996:32).

4. DOCUMENTARY SOURCES

This chapter will outline and assess the information from primary and secondary sources relating to Justinus Keer’s property and farmhouse at Blaauwbergsvalley. Sources from three time periods will be assessed: documents prior to the battle (1794-1806), documents after the battle (1806-1835) and documents from 1836 to the early 21st century. The primary sources that will be assessed include “opgaafrolle”, inventories, vendurollen, Resolutions of the Council of Policy, maps, ordinance surveys, and letters to and from the Colonial Office. Secondary sources include publications commenting on the battle and historical circumstances at the Cape in the 19th century, as well as research conducted at the site during the last three decades. By merging information from primary and secondary sources with information of the current topography, I will attempt to reconstruct the historical landscape of Justinus Keer’s farmyard at the time of the battle and the years thereafter.

4.1. Documentary sources up to the battle (1794-1806)

On the 23rd of October 1794, the Dutch East India Company (DEIC) granted the stonebreaker Jan Hendrik Muller two morgen of farmland in the “Blaauwe bergsvalleij” of the “Kaapse Vlakte”, for which Muller paid one hundred Rixdollars (CTD 14:37). According to Krynauw (1999:158), Muller was a German immigrant who made a living by making and selling saddles and shoes. A diagram (SG Dgm No. 30/1794) attached to the first title deed (Figure 3) shows there being a “wagenpad”, “uitspanplaatz” and spring on the property. According to documents of the Colonial Office (CO), the “wagenpad” and spring were part of an important outspan for travellers to and from Cape Town (CO 3879). The grant of Blaauwebergsvalley was

subject to conditions and servi tudes set out by the College of Commissioners of the Council of Justice on the 28th of March 1794, and included in their decisions of the 22nd of April 1794 (CTD 14:37; C 223:30-115; CO 8433/5). According to the conditions of the outspan, the owner was “obliged and bounded to allow all those inclined to unyoke, to remain free and uncontested and not to disturb the pastures of their cattle” and also “to properly clean and keep clean a certain Dam, situated on

Figure 3. A diagram from the first title deed of Blaauwbergsvalley, in which the location of a “wagenpad”, “uitspanplaats” and spring are indicated. The property’s name is indicated as being ‘Blaauwebergsvalleij’ (Diagram S.G. Dgm No. 30/1794).

nearly sixty morgen of his land, in order to be likewise used undisturbed by the passing country inhabitants” (CO 8433/5).

The second transfer deed of the property states that Muller sold Blaauwebergsvalley to Jan Casper Harsyn (Haarhym) in December of 1805 (CTD T.13). The conditions and servitudes of the title deed of 1794 were restated in the purchase. Harsyn bought the property from Muller for the sum of 53 Rixdollars and the transfer took place on the 2nd of February 1806 (CTD T.13). According to Krynauw (1999:159), however, Muller sold his farm on a public auction in 1802 and it was purchased by Justinus Keer. Krynauw unfortunately omitted the reference to the source of the auction and no documentation in the Cape Town archives pertaining to the transaction could be found. There is also no deed linking Justinus Keer to the farm. How Keer obtained the property is unclear, and needs to be researched further.

Prior to 1900, the Batavian and English government at the Cape drew up tax and census accounts (“opgaafrolle”) in order to keep track of who lived where and what they owned. When various “opgaafrolle” of the time are merged, a graphic picture of the living conditions at Blaauwbergavalley emerges (refer to table 1). The earliest “opgaafrol”, dating to 1800, shows Jan Hendrik Muller living at Blaauwbergsvalley along with his wife, Maria Hendricka Reyneke, two sons and five daughters. According to this “opgaaf”, Muller employed two servants and owned five male and one female slave, twenty horses, 49 oxen and five pigs (J 38/22/259). In the same year an “opgaafrol” attests to Justinus Nicolaas Keer’s living on the farm Bosheuwel (the farm once belonging to Jan van Riebeeck) along with his wife, Johanna Eykenstorm (J 37/31/402). Keer also employed one servant and owned twenty male slaves, one female slave, 11 horses, two thousand vines and six “leggers” of wine. The property is indicated as being his “eigendom” (J 37/31/402). At some point between 1800 and 1804, Keer divorced his wife and was declared insolvent (MOIC 2/3/220). His whereabouts from 1804 until January 1806, when the Battle of Blaauwberg occurred, are uncertain and need to be researched further.

The most graphic account of the battle and structures at Blaauwbergvalley comes from the journals of Reverend Henry Martyn, a fellow of St. John’s College at

Cambridge and chaplain of the Dutch East India Company. Martyn accompanied the 59th regiment of the British army, arriving at the Cape on Saturday evening the 4th of January 1806 (Smith 1892:121). According to Martyn, his account of the battle bears “witness to the glory of God and the wretched nature of man” (Smith 1892:124). Despite his spiritual focus, Martyn’s eyewitness account provides important information on the battle, Keer’s residence and the topography of the battlefield. Throughout the years, various versions of Martyn’s journal have been published. The first, “A Memoir of the Rev. Henry Martyn”, was written by John Sargent, Rector of Lavington, and appeared in 1819 (Smith 1892:v). After Martyn passed away in 1837, his son-in-law, S. Wilberforce, republished two volumes of the “Journals and Letters of the Rev. Henry Martyn, B.D” (Smith 1892:v). According to Wilberforce, Sargent supressed “a great variety of interesting material” (Smith 1892:v). Facts seem to have been omitted “to give Henry Martyn’s personality its human interest and intensify our appreciation of his heroism” (Smith 1892:v). According to Smith (1892:vi), Wilberforce was unsuccessful in supplementing Sargent’s material. He therefore began preparing a new work that would include all of Martyn’s letters, of which two sets of unpublished letters were obtained from Martyn’s grandnephew (Henry Martyn Jeffery) (Smith 1892:vi). For the purposes of this research, Smith’s publication of Martyn’s journal and letters: “First modern missionary to the Mohammedans 1781- 1812”, which was published in 1892, will be used.

On the 8th of January 1806, Martyn’s journal mentions “a most tremendous fire of artillery behind a mountain abreast of the ship”, just after seven the morning (Smith 1892:121). Soon thereafter, Martyn went ashore and accompanied some English soldiers to the battle site (Smith 1892:122). Crossing over a hill to the east of Blaauwberg Mountain, Martyn describes the scene he saw as he looked down on the battle plain: (Figure 4):

The ground then opened into a most extensive plain, which extended from the sea to the blue mountains at a great distance on the east. On the right was the little hill, to which we were attracted by seeing some English soldiers; we found that they were some wounded men of the 24th. They had all been taken care of by the surgeons of the Staff. Three were mortally wounded. One, who

was shot through the lungs, was spitting blood, and yet very sensible. The surgeon desired me to spread a great-coat over him as they left him; as I did this, I talked to him a little of the blessed Gospel, and begged him to cry for mercy through Jesus Christ. The poor man feebly turned his head in some surprise, but took no further notice. I was sorry to be obliged to leave him and go on after the troops, from whom I was not allowed to be absent, out of a regard to my safety. On the top of the little hill lay Captain F., of the grenadiers of the same regiment, dead, shot by a ball entering his neck and passing into his head. I shuddered with horror at the sight; his face and bosom were covered with thick blood, and his limbs rigid and contracted as if he had died in great agony. Near him were several others dead, picked off by the riflemen of the enemy. We then descended into the plain where the two armies had been drawn up. A marine of the Belliqueuse gave me a full account of the position of the armies and particulars of the battle. We soon met with some of the 59th, one a corporal, who often joins us in singing, and who gave the pleasing intelligence that the regiment had escaped unhurt, except Captain McPherson. In the rear of the enemy’s army there were some farm-houses, which we had converted into a receptacle for the sick (Figure 4), and in which there were already two hundred, chiefly English, with a few of the enemy. Here I entered, and found that six officers were wounded; but as the surgeon said they should not be disturbed, I did not go in, especially as they were not dangerously wounded. In one room I found a Dutch captain wounded, with whom I had a good deal of conversation in French. After a few questions about the army and the Cape, I could not help inquiring about Dr. Vanderkemp; he said he had seen him, but believed he was not at the Cape, nor knew how I might hear of him. The spectacle at these houses was horrid. The wounded soldiers lay ranged within and without covered with blood and gore. While the India troops remained here, I walked out into the field of battle with the surgeon. On the right wing, where they had been attacked by the Highland regiment, the dead and wounded seemed to have been strewed in great numbers, from the knapsacks, &c. Some of them were still remaining; with a Frenchman whom I found amongst them I had some conversation. All whom we approached cried out instantly for water. One poor Hottentot I asked about Dr. Vanderkemp, I saw by his manner that he knew him; he lay with

extraordinary patience under his wound on the burning sand; I did what I could to make his position comfortable, and laid near him some bread, which I found on the ground. Another Hottentot lay struggling with his mouth in the dust, and the blood flowing out of it, cursing the Dutch in English, in the most horrid language; I told him he should rather forgive them, and asked him about God, and after telling him of the Gospel, begged he would pray to Jesus Christ; but he did not attend. While the surgeon went back to get his instrument in hopes of saving the man’s life, a Highland soldier came up, and asked me in a rough tone, ‘Who are you?’ I told him, ‘An Englishman;’ he said, ‘No, no, you are French,’ and was going to present his musket. As I saw he was rather intoxicated, and might in mere wantonness fire, I went up to him and told him that if he liked he might take me prisoner to the English army, but that I was certainly an English clergyman. The man was pacified at last. The surgeon on his return found the thigh bone of the poor Hottentot broken, and therefore left him to die. After this I found an opportunity of retiring, and lay down among the bushes, and lifted up my soul to God. I cast my eyes over the plain which a few hours before had been the scene of bloodshed and death, and mourned over the dreadful effects of sin. How reviving to my thoughts were the Blue Mountains on the east, where I conceived the missionaries labouring to spread the Gospel of peace and love (Smith 1892:122-124).

Martyn’s account provides crucial information on the structures at the Blaauwbergsvalley farm, from which important conclusions can be drawn. Martyn’s account states there being more than one structure at Blaauwbergsvalley (“in the rear

Figure 4: The view from where Henry Martyn looked over the battle plain. The red arrow indicate the location of Blaauwbergsvalley where Martyn saw some farmhouses in the distance. Photo: M.E. Breytenbach.

of the enemy’s army there were some farm-houses”). Exactly how many, his journal does not say. Based on primary and secondary sources the structures on Keer’s farm were the only on the entire battlefield. From Martyn’s account, it is clear that a concerted effort was made to transform these buildings (“houses”) into a medical facility (“receptacle”) to treat soldiers, many of whom (“two hundred”) lay outside (Smith 1892:123). With so many wounded soldiers laying around in a relatively small area (“around the houses”), one would expect to find a high concentration of artefacts such as military buttons, buckles, musket balls and rifle parts near where the houses stood.

4.2. Documentary sources after the battle (1806-1836)

Although no title deed stating that Justinus Keer owned Blaauwbergsvalley at the time of the battle could be found, Colonial Office documents of the time do so (CO 3850/407; CO 3859/451; CO 3859/500; CO 8433/5). In a letter addressed to General Sir David Baird and the Commanding Chief, dated the 21st of July 1806, Keer wrote the following: “The petition of Justus Nicolaas Keer, inhabitant of a piece of ground/erf at Blaauwe Berg’s Valleij denominated Blaauwe Bergs Valleij” (CO 3850/407). In the letter, he mentions the battle taking place at “Blaauwe Berg” and that he accommodated in “his habitation all those of His Majesty’s officers and soldiers that were wounded in the said action, together with all those that by His Majesty’s troops were taken prisoners, amounting to a number of about two hundred persons. That your petitioner gave up for the comfort and accommodation the whole of his house and outhouses which they occupied for a span of ten days, while the petitioner has only the use of a very small room for himself” (CO 3850/407). By “house” and “outhouses” it is possible that Keer is referring to either one structure with outer rooms or more than two structures. Because Henry Martyn’s account describes his seeing “farmhouses” (Smith 1892:122) while looking over the battlefield, it can be assumed that Keer is referring to more than two structures. It is very interesting that both Keer and Martyn estimate the total number of wounded soldiers as about two hundred. We can only speculate how they both got to the same number. One possibility is that they met each other at the houses and in conversation agreed on the total number of

wounded soldiers treated at the field hospital. Keer gave the English “everything he possibly could provide” for which he drew up a bill requesting compensation (CO 3850/407).

Less than a month later, on the 12th of August 1806, Keer’s attorney wrote to the Governor and Chief in charge of the Colony, claiming damages sustained by his client (CO 3859/451). Keer’s attorney then requested that a piece of land measuring 25 morgen and situated “in the neighbourhood of the said place” (Blaauwbergsvalley) be granted to him. Later (on the 19th of September 1806), Keer himself wrote a letter requesting the grant, and described the property as being “waste land which by being brought into cultivation might be made into good condition” (CO 3859/500). On the 22nd of September 1806, acting secretary J.C. Smyth informed Keer that a special commission was to be sent to examine the said piece of land and that “the Lieutenant General commanding in chief will grant it to him if it can be done without prejudice to any individual in the neighbourhood” (CO 3859/451). In the following year (24th of April 1807), the widow of Johannes Mostert, of the neighbouring farm De Rustplaas, objected to Keer’s request (CO 3865/451). Keer responded to the objection, suggesting that another piece of land be granted to him, one that would not inconvenience the widow or anyone else. This particular letter is of special importance, as it mentions burying soldiers killed on both sides “in the vicinity of his place”. In the letter, he also acknowledges being paid for damages incurred as a result of the battle (CO 3865/451). According to the Cape Farms register at the Deeds Office in Cape Town, a piece of land, measuring 25 morgen and 70 square Roods at the foot of Groot Blaauwberg, was granted to Justinus Nicolaas Keer on the 1st of January 1811 (C.Q 3.47). As it is the only property for which a title deed in Keer’s name exists, one is easily fooled into thinking that this property was Blaauwbergsvalley on which Justinus Keer lived. The 25 morgen of land, later named Groot Blaauwberg and registered as Cape Farm 143, was adjacent to De Rustplaas (known today as Blaauwberg or Mostert’s farm) (Krynauw 199:155). The farm is situated three km from Blaauwbergsvalley, and one can assume that Keer farmed this land while staying in his house at Blaauwbergsvalley. To confuse matters farm 143 was registered as “Baauwbergsvlei” in 1963 (T 5745).

Two maps of the battlefield area, drawn up in 1806 by Captains Read and Long of the Royal Staff Corps, provide further evidence of structures at Blaauwbergsvalley. The first map, seen in Figure 5, was drawn in March/April 1806 (M1/2064-2071). On this map, two longhouses can be seen lying parallel to a road opposite a spring/dam. The structures on the map are indicated as being the ‘Blau Berg Valley House”. The road running between the spring/dam and houses was probably part of the wagon route on which the outspan at Blaauwbergsvalley was situated. On the 24th September 1806, Captains Read & Long drew up a second map, seen in Figure 6 (M3/21/1806; M1/3297). On this map, the two structures indicated as being the “Blue Berg Valley House” are drawn laying perpendicular to each other (Figure 7). As in the first map, access routes and the location of the nearby spring/dam can be seen.

Figure 5. Map of the battle site dating to March/April 1806, drawn by Captains Read & Long. Two longhouses are indicated parallel to each other with a road passing nearby. On the opposite side of the road, the spring /dam area is indicated (M1/2064-2071).

Figure 6. A second map of the battle site, drawn by Read & Long, dating to the 24th of September 1806. On this map, two houses are drawn perpendicular to each other with a spring/dam laying on the other side of the road (M3/21/1806).

Figure 7. An enlargement of Figure 6 (M3/21/1806).

There are interesting similarities and differences between the two Read & Long maps, which were drawn six months apart. The first map in Figure 5 (M1/2064-2071) depicts the setting prior to the start of the battle, while the second map in Figure 6 (M3/21/1806) depicts the setting during and after the battle. Although the two longhouses were drawn differently (parallel and perpendicular), both maps agree on their being related to nearby road and spring/dam. The spelling of the house also differs. The map in Figure 5 refers to the “Blau Bergs Valley house”, while the map in Figure 6 states its being the “Blue Bergs Valley house”. The different spelling can only be speculated on. When the map in Figure 5 was drawn (March April 1806), Dutch was still used in official documents (“Blau”). When the map in Figure 6 was drawn, in September of 1806, the switch to English was made (“Blue”). This is also consistent with other official documents from the Colonial Office from 1806 onward, in which English replaced Dutch. From September 1806 onwards, all written documents of the Colonial Office commonly refer to the property as “Blue Bergs Valley” (CO 8433/5). It is interesting that both maps uses the singular term “house” while there are evidently two structures. Which of these two structures was the main house in which Keer lived cannot be said. When these two maps are viewed in their full extent, no other structures can be seen on the battlefield.

When data from “opgaafrolle” (table 1) obtained between 1800 and 1824 are merged with letters of the Colonial office and the Read & Long maps, insightful perspectives regarding the historic landscape and living conditions at Blaauwbergsvalley emerge. When calculations are made from measurements provided in documentary sources, it is evident that Blaauwbergsvalley was a small farm within a much larger outspan area. According to documentary sources, the dam area of the outspan encompassed 60 morgen (about 51.022 m2) (CO 8433/5). Keer’s two morgen of farmland consisted of only 1.7 ha (about 17134 m2), which amounted to an area of roughly 130 x 130 m. From the summary of “opgaafrolle” in table 1, it is clear that Keer had a sizable number of animals and people living on the farm.

1824.

. A summary of the 'opgaafrolle' at Blaauwbergsvalley from 1800 of the atsummary 'opgaafrolle' Blaauwbergsvalley . A

1 Table

Considering the fact that his farm was also part of an important outspan, where travellers’ animals were allowed to roam free (CO 8433/5), Keer’s farmyard of two morgen must have been a hive of activity. The evening prior to the battle, about two thousand soldiers from the Cape under command of General Janssens also camped in the area of the spring/dam. The finding of a substantial number of artefacts in the vicinity of the spring would therefore certainly help to determine the perimeter of Keer’s farm. With up to 16 people indicated as living on the property in 1812, one would expect more than only two structures on the farm. The large amount of draft oxen kept by Keer, as indicated in table 1, probably relates to the outspan where weary animals were exchanged for fresh ones.

A civil case against Justinus Keer in 1820 concerning the conditions of the outspan at Blaauwbergsvalley further attests to living conditions on the farm, and assists in reconstructing the historic landscape. On the 4th of February 1820, J.L. Stadler, together with the owner of De Rustplaas, wrote a letter to the Landdrost of the Cape District, informing him of the “bad state of the dam at the outspan place at Blue Bergs Valley” (CO 8433/5). From documentary sources it seems that, adjacent to the marshland (Blaauwbergsvlei), a dam was built to provide fresh water to people passing by. According to the conditions of the title deed, Keer was obliged to keep the dam clean (CO 8433/5), which Keer refused to do (CO 8433/5). Veldcornet Verwey investigated the complaints and issued Keer with a formal warning, after which Keer made an attempt to clean the dam. The complaints, however, kept coming in (CO 8433/5), and Veldkornet Verwey again had to reprimand Keer. According to Verwey, Keer “among other insulting expressions” said that “he would see himself damned first, before he would clean the said dam” (CO 8433/5). On the 13th of May 1820, Keer’s objection were pleaded in court, after which he lost his property (CO8433/5). He however continued living in his house at Blaauwbergsvalley until his death on the 22nd of October 1822 (MOOC 7/1/89). In Keer’s will the house and its contents were left to the Widow Priem, who, in an “opgaaf” is mentioned as living with him at Blaauwbergsvalley (J44). An inventory (MOOC 7/1/89/118) of the Blaauwbergsvalley house was attached to Keer’s will. On the 15th of April 1806, the following items were listed being in the house:

In’t voorhuis: een rustbank twee tafels zes stoelen in zoort een strykyzer een stoof In’t kamer ter rechter hand: twee tafels een lesenaar vier stoelen in zoort twee rakken een pedestal met een oud horlogi van koper een koper ketel met comfoor een pistool een ledekant met behangzel (bedstead) een bed peluwe (bolster) vier kussings en deken een wit lampet met zyn kom In de kamer aan ter linkerhand: twee tafels een ledekant met behangzel bed peluwe twee kussings en een kombaar een ledekant zonder stylen met bed twee kussings en kombaar een kast een stoel een oude trekpot vier koppies en vyf pierings en in zoort twaalf borden in zoort Een schotel een botterpot

elf vurken in zoort zes messen vier silwer eetlepels drie silwer eetlepels een zoutvaatje twee bierglazen drie keljies twee water emmers een klein rustbank vier lakens zes servette “In’t bakhuis: een kast een scheepel een oude bakkist een voeden kist drie potten een rooster een pan twee ledige kisten een party rommeling In een buiten vertrek: een bottel rak een party oud houtwerk een venster koozyn een schaafbank een rak een eg een deur kozyn

Keer’s inventory is a crucial piece of evidence in reconstructing the field hospital. From the inventory, a floor plan of his house can be drawn (Figure 8), which can be used to link and identify possible subsurface structures. The floor plan can also provide clues to the architectural style of Keer’s house. According to Klose & Malan (1993:35), the transition from the 18th to 19th century saw a distinct change in material culture in the Cape, which was reflected in architecture and the use of ceramics. Houses of wattle and daub were being replaced by ‘kapstijlhuisen” and T-plan houses by 1750 (Figure 9) (Brink 2008:95). According to Brink (2008:95), these transitions communicate important socio-economical developments of the time. Keer’s house reflects a typical architectural arrangement commonly found in houses from the middle of the 18th century, namely a three roomed transverse house with the possibility of extending structures to the back (Figure 8) (Brink 2008:69). From the floor plan, it is evident that the internal and external symmetry of structure comply to changes in architecture, which, according to Brink, “inaugurated the blossoming of the Cape architectural tradition” (Brink 2008:69). According to Klose & Malan (1993:35), the main rooms of these houses “all had a mixture of beds, chairs, tables and other items in them”. This seems to be the case when looking at Keer’s inventory and floor plan (Figure 8). Families normally gathered in the room where the teapot, kettle and “comfoor” are indicated as being (Klose & Malan 1993:35). In Keer’s house, this would be the room on the right-hand side of the “voorhuis”, in which there was also a double bed, table with four chairs, shelves, a clock and a desk (B in Figure 8). The “voorhuis”, according to Klose & Malan (1993:36), normally served as the dining area. This is also evident at Blaauwbergsvalley, where the “voorhuis” had a table with six chairs and a footstove (A in Figure 8). In Keer’s house there is no reference to a kitchen but rather to a “bakhuis” which seems to be rather small functioning largely as a type of pantry (D1 , D2 in Figure 8). It is interesting that items related to the kitchen also being in other rooms. The room on the left for example had pots, barrels (tableware) and a cupboard with dishes and cups (C in Figure 8). It is possible that the “bakhuis” extended to the back of the house with a wall dividing it from the “voorhuis” keeping the rectangular shape of the house (A and D1 in Figure 8). D2 in Figure 8 could also have been the “buiten vertrek” referred to in the inventory. I sent a copy of Keer’s inventory to Prof. Matilda Burden, a renowned

culture historian from the University of Stellenbosch who recently published a book on old Cape furniture (Ou-Kaapse Meubels3). Burden’s 4 impression of the inventory is that Justinus Keer was wealthy. At the time, it was not common to have two sets of tables with chairs, a desk, three bedsteads and an old copper clock in a rural farmhouse. What concerns Burden is the fact that the kitchen, normally the space where the most articles are listed, seemed to be rather empty.

3 Burden, M. 2014. Ou-Kaapse Meubels. Studies in Style. Stellenbosch: Sun Media.

4 Interview with Professor Mathilda Burden on the 8th of September 2015.

Figure 8. A graphic representation of Justinus Keer’s inventory merged onto a floorplan. (A) The “voorhuis”, (B) room to the right, (C) room to the left, (D1D2) the kitchen or ‘bakhuis’. D2 can also possibly refer to the “buitenvertrek” referred to in the inventory. Drawn by M.E. Breytenbach.

Figure 9. A ground plan of a typical T-shaped house can be seen: (1) front-room “voorhuis”, (2) rooms “kamers”, (3) kitchen “kombuis”, (6) fireplace “haard” (Cornell & Malan 2005:63). This floorplan very closely resembles that of Keer's inventory.

After Justinus Keer’s death in 1822, the widow Priem married Andreas Wanning. After she passed away on the 15th of April 1835 at Blaauwbergsvalley (MOOC 6/9/4/778), Wanning inherited her estate, which, according to her will (MOOC 7/1/130/58) included the following:

Immovable property: the homestead at Blaauwbergsvalley

Movable property: one wardrobe one desk one table three pictures one bedstand three tables one sofa one ... stand with three ... one old waggon

two window frames with latches two half-used bottles one crowbar one smoothing iron one bushel measure one bar of a cart one pail one trowel two planks

In 1836, Wanning was declared insolvent (MOOC 2/446). When the two inventories resulting from the death of Keer and Neeltjie Catharina van den Berg are compared, it is evident that, within 14 years, this family suffered impoverished circumstances.

4.3. Documentary sources from 1836 to the 21st century

The first accurate ordinance survey of the area at Blaauwbergsvalley was done in 1872 (diagram 289/1872 and 291/1872 in Figure 10 and 11). The survey doesn’t mention the name of any farm, but the outspan related to the property can be seen and is shown covering an area of three hundred morgen (or 157 ha, roughly amounting to an area of 1.6 km x 1.6 km). The outspan is situated on the border of two adjacent properties: Lot La. H (Figure 10) and La. F. (Figure 11). Lot La. F (diagram 289/1872 or Farm 151) represented 1002 morgen and 239 square roods of government land granted to Abraham Dirk in September 1884 (C.Q. 20-14). Lot La. H (diagram 291/1872 or Farm 150) represented 118 morgen and 358 square roods of government land (CQ. 14-7). In 1966, Lot La.F & La.H were consolidated with various other smaller pieces of property into Farm 431 (Figure 12), which incorporated 2289.1617 morgen of land (S.G. 8234/65).

Figure 10. Diagram of Lot La. H, in which the three hundred morgen outspan area can also be seen (Diagram 291/1872).

Figure 11. A diagram of Lot La.F in which the outspan area related to the farm Blaauwbergsvalley can be seen (Diagram 289/1872).

In 1972, various smaller properties of the area (including Blaauwbergsvalley) were consolidated into Farm 1141, which comprised 330 hectares of land (Figure 13) (S/4520, 5/8475/15). In 2002 the City of Cape Town purchased the Farm 1141 (T62980) for R4 million.

Figure 12. A diagram of Farm 431 encompassing various smaller properties (S.G. 8234/1965).

Figure 13. A diagram of Farm 1141 (Diagram 9944/1971).

Although many historians refer to the Battle of Blaauwberg, very few have written about it extensively. In 1972, L.J. Erasmus, writing his masters degree dissertation on the Second British Occupation of the Cape in 1806, devoted some time to the battle (his research was not published). The first published account of the battle came from D.W. Krynauw in 1999. Krynauw took an interest in the Battle of Blaauwberg in 1949 when, working as an archivist at the Cape Town archives, he stumbled across a map of the battle site drawn by the Royal Staff Corps in 1806 (Krynauw 1999:1). Armed with the map as reference, he set off to Blaauwberg in an attempt to identify the location of the battle (Krynauw 1999:2). It was only after retiring that Krynauw had the time to pursue his interest, which, in 1999, resulted in the publication of “Beslissing by Blouberg” (Krynauw 1999). To date, the work of Erasmus and Krynauw are regarded as seminal work on the Battle of Blaauwberg, and many researchers have since referred to their research. In 2008, Mark Robert Dunbar Anderson, for example, published an account of the battle with the title “Blue Berg, Britain takes the

Cape” (Anderson 2008). According to Anderson (2008:9), he never set out to write a history, but, drawing on Krynauw’s account, tried to tell a tale. Anderson therefore omits any referencing. Most recently, Willem Steenkamp published a book “Assegais, Drums & Dragoons” (2012), in which he deals with the military and social history of the Cape from 1510-1806 (Steenkamp 2012). Steenkamp also makes use of Erasmus and Krynauw’s publications when referencing past happenings.

There are a few issues regarding Krynauw’s use of primary sources that need to be addressed. In his book he regularly refers to information obtained from Blaauwbergsvalley’s title deed, but omits references to his source. I obtained the first two title deeds of the property, in which Blaauwbergsvalley was granted to Jan Hendrik Muller in 1794 (CTD 14:37) and sold to Jan Casper Harsym in December 1805 (CTD T.13). There are various inconsistencies in the information Krynauw provides. Both title deeds (CTD 14:37) clearly state “Jan Hendrik Muller” was the first owner. Krynauw (1999:158), however, uses the name “Johan Hendrik Muller”. Both title deeds refer to the property as “Blaauwebergs Valley” (CTD 14:37; CTD T.13). Krynauw (1999:158), refers to the property as “Blaauwbergsvlei”. Other researchers drawing on Krynauw’s research have since followed suit, and the word “Blaauwbergsvlei” has since been used erroneously on official maps and other contemporary documents when indicating the location of the Battle of Blaauwberg. Erasmus (1972:123), however, got the name right. Krynauw (1999:159) claims that Justinus Keer purchased Blaauwbergsvalley from Muller at an auction in 1802, and mentions the auction was advertised in the “Caapse Courant”, but again omiting references to his source. According to the second title deed, CTD T.13, Muller however sold the property to Jan Casper Harsym in 1805. It may not seem worthwhile to make a big fuss about these differences, but there is more to these inconsistencies than meets the eye. It is apparent that crucial primary sources have faded into the background and that information from secondary sources, such as those provided by Krynauw, has been uncritically accepted.

4.4. Discussing documentary sources

Considering the significance of the Battle of Blaauwberg, it is puzzling why so little has been written on the battle and why no monument has been erected to commemorate the event and the lives of the many soldiers lost. Of the few secondary sources we do have, some omit or do not adequately reference primary sources. When reviewing documentary sources, it becomes apparent that primary sources have, in some ways, faded into the background and are in need of being revisited and corrected. All in all, there is still a lot of historical research to be done on the battle.

Although no title deed stating that Justinus Keer owned Blaauwbergsvalley could be found, Colonial Office documents place Keer at Blaauwbergsvalley during and after battle. How Keer managed to obtain Blaauwbergsvalley remains unclear, and needs to be researched further. Documentary sources have assisted in establishing the location of two structures, indicated as belonging to Justinus Keer, near a road and spring/dam, which can be assumed to be the location of the farmhouse/ field hospital. These topographical features, mentioned in primary and secondary sources, can be linked to features on the current landscape. From documentary sources, the general geographical location of Justinus Keer’s farm can therefore be established. Written documents pertaining to the farm, outspan and field hospital also highlight Blaauwbergsvalley’s distinct archaeological signatures. The finding of various artefacts, such as military ordnances, along with household articles such as ceramics, glass and metal implements in a relatively small area (2 morgen or 130x130 meters), would be instrumental in determining where Keer’s farmhouse stood. Data obtained from title deeds, inventories, “opgaafrolle”, Colonial Office documents and maps provide a lot of information from which a map of the historical landscape can be drawn.

5. RESEARCH AT BLAAUBERGSVALLEY

During the past three decades, other researchers have worked at Blaauwbergsvalley. Their contributions are important and therefore also need to be taken into account.

5.1. Pat Matejek

From 1995-1997, Pat Matejek headed a Ranger Guide project at Blaauwbergsvalley. Their aim was the restoration of the marshland (“vlei”) area to its natural environmental state, while also preserving the cultural and historical aspects related to the area. Permission was obtained from Garden Cities (land owners) and the National Monuments Council to work, conduct surveys and research the site. Their research resulted in the National Monuments Council’s declaring a hundred hectares of land around the farm “Bloubergsvlei a nature reserve5” (Garden Cities, 1998:B/A36). In an interview with Matejek7, she indicated that, in a certain area, over a thousand artefacts were recovered, which included pieces of ceramics, glass and metal. Some metal pieces were of military origin, while others were related to household articles. Unfortunately, these artefacts have since been misplaced8 and are nowhere to be found. Matejek’s research found a high percentage of artefacts located in a small area9 about 50 m northwest of the marshland area.

5 It was originally thought that the battle took place within the hundred hectares surrounding Blaauwbergsvlei.

6 Garden Cities, 1998. Proposed Bloubergsvlei Nature Reserve. A letter from Garden Cities to Ms S Matejek, 6 April 1998. Reference B/A3.

7 Interview with Pat Matejek on the 8th of August 2015. Interviewer: M.E. Breytenbach.

8 According to Matejek, the artefacts were taken to the Rondebosch Educational Museum. I contacted the curator, who was not able to trace the artefact assemblage.

9 Matajek took us this specific area which was then marked on the current landscape. A lot of ceramics could still be seen laying in the area.

5.2. Gary Thomson

Gary Thomson is a founding member and Chair of the Battle of Blaauwberg Preservation Society and Committee member of the Battle of Blaauwberg Heritage Society. He has been actively researching the Battle of Blaauwberg for the last 20 years. In 1996, he obtained a permit to investigate the supposed site of the field hospital at Blaauwbergsvalley. Along with Joe Ribaudo, he conducted a metal detector survey of the area around the Blaauwbergsvalley in 1996-1997, and found, marked and retrieved various metal artefacts relating to the battle and farm (in Figure 15-28 a variety of artefacts that were retrieved can be seen). Their assemblage of artefacts included the following:

Coins (Figure 14):

001 Halfpenny of George IV

002 Penny of George IV (1826)

003 Halfpenny of George III (1806-1807)

004 Coin from St. Helena (1821)

005 Penny of South Africa (1933)

006 Penny of South Africa (1934)

007 Penny of South Africa (1948)

008 Penny of South Africa (1951)

Figure 14. A map indicating the locations of coins retrieved by Gary Thomson and Joe Ribaudo at Blaauwbergsvalley from 1996-1997. Map drawn by Gary Thomson.

Military buttons (Figure 15):

001 Royal Marines

002 Military button showing Scottish star

003 King’s Royal Irish Light Dragoons

004 Donegal Volunteers

005 Button with inlaid pattern

006 Royal Artillery

007 Button with inlaid pattern

008 a,b,c Three identical brass buttons

009 Identical buttons found on dumpsite

010 Brass button North of farm

Figure 15. Map showing the locations of military buttons retrieved by Gary Thomson and Joe Ribaudo at Blaauwbergsvalley from 1996-1997. Map drawn by Gary Thomson.

Pieces from various firearms (Figure 16 and 17):

Brass front end of musket 001

Brass front end of musket (possibly 002 Indian Pattern Brown Bess). See Figure 28 and 29.

Brass trigger guard. 003

Brass plates from middle band securing 004 barrel. Possible from French musket.

Figure 16. A map indicating the location of musket parts found at Blaauwbergsvalley. The map was drawn by Gary Thomson.

Figure 17. A sketch by Gary Thomson of musket parts that were collected from Blaauwbergsvalley.

Musket balls (Figure 18):

Figure 18. Map indicating where Gary Thomson and Joe Ribaudo retrieved musket balls from 1996-1997. Map drawn by Gary Thomson.

Gary Thomson’s collection of musket balls was measured, weighed and analysed by Ian van Oordt, who has been researching the Battle of Blaauwberg for past eight years. The following table was drawn up:

Country of Find no. Weight Height Width Description origin

1 33,4 14,95 18,18 Impact shot English

2 31 17,87 19,25 Dirty – un shot English

3 29,5 15,55 18,47 Fired Unknown

4 22 16,01 15,85 HC

5 30 16,73 18,88 Fired - no hit English

6 18,5 14,69 14,48 HC

7 29,5 16,92 17,66 Fired Unknown

8 30 17,52 7,59 Unfired English

9 26 16,62 16,74 Charleville

10 29,5 17,61 17,86 Unknown

11 28 10,01 31,7 Close range Charleville

12 31 10,45 24,87 Close range< 10 m English

Shot - hit. Ramrod 13 25 15,13 17,98 marks Charleville

14 31 16,66 17,97 Shot- impacted? English

15 16 13,86 14,78 Dirty -unshot Pistol

16 26 16,75 17,52 Charleville

17 19 14,53 15,04 Unfired HC

18 26 16,45 16,52 Unfired Charleville

19 30,5 17,45 17,59 Unfired English

20 31 17,46 17,41 Fired, hit ground English

21 29,5 17,41 17,64 Fired Unknown

22 21,5 16,1 15,39 Canister Canister

23 30,5 17,28 17,49 Fired English

24 30,5 18,39 17,8 Dirty unfired English

25 22,5 16,2 15,57 Badly cast Canister

Appears being 26 31 17,61 17,24 shot English

Possibly fired. 27 31,75 17,64 17,69 Landed spent English

28 20,5 15,4 15,34 not fired HC

29 29,5 17,46 17,53 Fired, unspent Unknown

Hit 70 meter. 30 31 23,64 12,72 Nicked bone English

31 30,5 17,35 17,84 not fired English

32 30 11,25 27,52 English

33 31,5 17,95 17,75 English

34 32,5 18,07 18,45 Extremely dirty English

35 22 14,65 16,9 Canister? Canister

36 19,5 14,9 15,28 HC

37 31 16,86 17,74 Unfired English

38 31 17,53 17,66 Fired English

39 245 15,79 17,06 Fired Charleville

40 29,5 17,37 17,43 Unfired Unknown

41 30,5 17,65 18,61 Hit something English

Fired, hit 42 19 13,64 15,23 something HC

Dirty, fired. 43 31 17,8 18,29 Landed spent English

44 29 17,76 18,7 Extremely dirty Unknown

45 29 16,18 17,17 Odd ball Unknown

46 29 16,98 17,39 Unknown

47 29,5 17,07 17,16 Unfired Unknown

48 26 16,27 16,6 Unfired Charleville

49 25 16 16,49 Charleville

50 30,5 16,86 17,47 Unfired English

51 23 14,34 16,9 Canister

52 30 17,49 17,45 English

53 19,5 14,21 15,15 HC

54 32 17,78 17,74 Un shot English

55 17,5 13,85 14,8 Pistol

56 17,5 12,97 15,39 Pistol

57 34,5 17,72 18,36 English

58 31 17,51 17,63 English

By analysing the musket balls, we are able to identify what rifle each ball was fired from. A concentrated number of musket balls were retrieved from a small area dubbed “the dumpsite” (Figure 18) by Thomson. This is the area where Matejek also retrieved many artefacts. Unfortunately, not all of the musket balls retrieved from the area in Figure 18 were individually recorded. We are therefore not able to trace these musket balls to specific areas. We are, however, able to determine the presence of soldiers from both the Cape Batavian and English forces in the farmyard area. Along with the musket balls, Thomson also retrieved many other metal artefacts such as buckles, coins and nails (see Figures 19-27). Because of the permit conditions, we were not permitted to conduct a metal detector survey or excavate in the area Gary Thomson’s metal detector survey was conducted.

From Matejek and Thomson’s survey it is clear that high concentrations of artefacts are located in a very specific area near the marshland area, where documentary sources indicate Keer’s farmhouse was. The high percentage of musket balls retrieved from the “dumpsite” is significant, and may be directly related to the location of the field hospital.

Figure 19. A Military button Figure 20. A button with an Figure 21. A button with inlaid from the King's Royal Irish inlaid pattern. Photo: M.E. pattern. Photo: M.E. Breytenbach. light Dragoons. Photo: M.E. Breytenbach. Breytenbach.

Figure 22. A coin from St. Figure 23. A halfpenny of Figure 24. A musket ball fired by Helena dated 1821. Photo: King George III dating to a Charleville musket. Photo: M.E. M.E. Breytenbach. 1806-1807. Photo: M.E. Breytenbach. Breytenbach.

Figure 25. A Military buckles Figure 26. A brass front end of Figure 27. A side view of Figure retrieved from the dumpsite. a musket. Photo: M.E. 26. Photo: M.E. Breytenbach. Photo: M.E. Breytenbach. Breytenbach.

5.3. Willem Hutten

Willem Hutten is a post graduate student at the Archaeological Department of the University of South Africa. During 2013–2014, Hutten conducted his honours degree project in archaeology on the Battle of Blaauwberg. The aim of his project was to locate the British Artillery positions during the battle. By way of systematic surveys using metal detectors, a substantial number of military ordnances such as cannon shrapnel, grape shot, musket balls and artillery pieces were found. He also found metal artefacts from soldiers’ uniforms, such as military buttons and buckles, as well as various coins dating to the time of the battle and thereafter (Hutten 2015). According to Hutton, “the archaeological evidence suggesting the possible position of the stationary British Howitzer guns could be used effectively, but unfortunately is not concrete enough to confirm this position” (Hutten 2015:66).

6. METHODOLOGY

In preceding chapters I reviewed the contributions of primary and secondary sources in establishing the location of the farmhouse of Justinus Keer, which served as a field hospital in the 1806 Battle of Blaauwberg. Drawing on historical documents, I set out to reconstruct the historic landscape of the period Justinus Keer lived at Blaauwbergsvalley. In this chapter, I will highlight the ways in which archaeology can generate data from which hypotheses of documentary sources regarding the location of the field hospital can be tested.

6.1. Site description

As seen in Figure 28 and 29, the topographical landscape of the Blaauwberg area, where the battle was fought, varies quite a lot. The battlefield area, consisting of roughly 7 km2, extents from Grootberg and Kleinberg in the northwest, descending eastward into a range of dunes (running from the north to the south) and into an extensive grass plain towards the east. This grass plain, where the major part of the battle was fought, is the most fertile area in the region, and falls within the area that has been identified as Justinus Keer’s farm. From Grootberg, laying at an elevation of 231 m, one has a panoramic view to the south, of Table Bay, and to the east, of the battlefield. To the west of Grootberg and Kleinberg, the deposition of Aeolian sands has formed a series of dune ridges running along the coast (Küyler 2011:13).

In an aerial photo taken of Blaauwbergsvalley in 1938, the agricultural land and some structures of a mid 20th century farm are visible (Figure 30). The yellow square in Figure 30 indicates the piece of land that secondary sources have alleged being Justinus Keer’s farm. Figure 31 is a scale representation of the topography of the current landscape, in which the ruins of 20th century structures (farmhouse, stables, barn and dam), a road and a natural spring can be seen. Ferricrete (“koffieklip”) ridges divide the site into three terraces. On the top terrace, the ruins of a 20th century farmhouse, barn and stables which were demolished in the late 1990’s are visible (Figure 31). The photos of the farmhouse and stables in Figures 32 and 33 were taken prior to its demolition. The lower terrace in Figure 31 gradually descends into

a marshland area that drains into the Blaauwbergsvlei. A road, which can be associated with an old wagon route, runs through the centre of the site, curving through the three terraces. To the west and north of the farmyard, evidence of ploughed farmland is visible. The ground in and around the farmyard has been disturbed by ploughing and mole activity.

Figure 28. A visual presentation of the landscape where the Battle of Blaauwberg took place. Various ecological zones are colour-coded. RED: a repatriated conservation area; GREEN: thick Port Jackson vegetation; YELLOW: sand dunes; PURPLE: open grass and sand area; ORANGE: cultivated farmland area; BLUE: spring area; MAROON: mountain/hill area. Taken from Google Earth 27 July 2015. Image C 2015 DigitalGlobe Data SIO, NOAA, U.S. Navy, NGA, GEBCO, Image Landsat. 33̊ 46’10.52”S, 18̊ 29’08.52”E altitude 4.78 km.

Figure 29. A topographical map of the area encompassing the Battle of Blaauwberg. The points marked 3-7 indicates the location of the Blaauwbergsvalley farm. The battle mainly took place on the plain toward the east of Klein and Grootberg (Garmin SA TOPO 2012.3 NT).

Figure 30. An aerial photograph of Blaauwbergsvalley from 1938. 26_73_11392.

Figure 31. A scale representation of grids O23, O24, P23 and P24. The dark brown shade indicates the upper terrace, the lighter brown shade the middle terrace and the green shade a marshland area running into the dam of the natural spring. Drawn by Marius Breytenbach.

Figure 32. A photo taken in 1996 of the stables at the back of the 20th century farmhouse. Photo: Pat Matejek.

Figure 33. A photo taken in 1952 of the 20th century farmhouse with Table Mountain in the background (Krynauw 1999).

Figure 34. A photo taken in 2015 where the ruins of the farmhouse in Figure 33 can be seen. Photo: M.E. Breytenbach.

6.2. Archaeological survey

In 2014, the entire battlefield area was divided into 100 m x 100 m grids and numbered sequentially (Figure 36). For the Blaauwbergsvalley project, I made use of this existing grid and numbering system drawn up by Willem Hutten. The data obtained from assessing historical documents were used to demarcate an area adjacent to the marshland area of the farmyard. This area falls within the following grids: O23, O24, P23 and P24 (Figure 35). On the 14th of February 2015, a total station was set up and three datum points, as indicated in Figure 36, were identified. Datum 1: S33 ̊ 46’18.0” E 18 ̊ 29’ 53.1”; Datum 2: S33 ̊ 46’18.6” E 18 ̊ 29’ 49.3”; Datum 3: S33 ̊ 46’21.2” E 18 ̊ 29’ 53.8”. Both grid O 23 and O 24 were subdivided into smaller survey blocks of 10 m x 10 m and numbered sequentially from 1-100 (Figure 35).

Figure 36. A map of the grid layout of a part of the battlefield area covering about 4.42 km2. The Figure 35. A map of grid area O23 and O24. solid green rectangle on the bottom right Each square represents an area of 10 m x 10 indicates the location of block O23 and O24. m. Taken from Google Earth, 1 April 2015. Taken from Google Earth, 1 April 2015. Image C Image C 2015 DigitalGlobe Data SIO, NOAA, 2015 DigitalGlobe Data SIO, NOAA, U.S. Navy, U.S. Navy, NGA, GEBCO, Image Landsat. 33̊ NGA, GEBCO, Image Landsat. 33̊ 46’10.52” S, 18̊ 46’10.52” S, 18̊ 29’08.52”E altitude 4.78 km. 29’08.52”E altitude 4.78 km.

6.2.1. Geophysical archaeological survey (see Addendum A for the full report)

On the 20th and 21st of July 2015, Coen Nienaber, a specialist consultant in Cultural Resources Management, Bio-Archaeology and Archaeological Geophysics, conducted a ground penetrating radar survey (GPR) of areas in block O 23 and O 24 (Figure 37). The Victims Unit of the forensic laboratory of the South African Police Services, under command of Captain Marius Joubert, provided us with the needed instrument (Figure 38-39). In the span of two days, Captain Joubert, along with Warrant Officers Brand and Masters, assisted Nienaber in conducting the survey. I, Louisa Hutten and Willem Hutten also participated. Areas in which war graves were thought to be were also surveyed. The GPR survey was done within the existing grids set out for the battlefield. Data from historical documents, and in particular those of the Royal Staff Corps drawn in 1806, led to our conducting a GPR survey in seven very specific areas around the Blaauwbergvlei (Figure 37): SET 12 (10 m x 20 m block), SET 13 (10 m x 20 m block), SET 14 (10 m x 10 m block), SET 15 (10 x 10 m block), SET 16 (10 m x10 m block), SET 17 (10 m x 10 m block) and SET 19 (10 m x 12 m block). For the purposes of this project, I will not be excavating subsurface structures found by GPR. This will be dealt with in a Masters degree project.

Figure 37. A graphic representation of the areas where the GPR survey was conducted (Nienaber 2015).

Figure 38. The survey team calibrating the Figure 39. The surveyor team surveying SET GPR. From the left: Louisa Hutten, Captain 12 within grid O 24. Photo: M.E. Joubert, Coen Nienaber and Warrant Officer Breytenbach. Masters. Photo: M.E. Breytenbach.

6.2.2. Intensive archaeological survey

An intensive archaeological survey was conducted in grids O 23 and O 24 (Figure 40). Grid areas P 23 and P 24 were excluded because of its being situated in the marshland area draining into the natural spring. With the aid of steel droppers and rope, grid O 23 and O 24 were subdivided into a hundred smaller survey blocks of 10 m x 10 m and numbered sequentially from 1-100 (Figure 40). Each of these blocks was drawn on graphic paper (Figure 43). Five volunteers surveyed each of the 10 m x 10 m blocks by way of systematic field walking (Figures 41,42). Walking in transects, the five volunteers covered the full extent of each 10 m x10 m survey block. Prior to each survey, the volunteers were briefed on how to conduct the survey and shown examples of various types of artefacts they might encounter. All surface artefacts were marked with a red flag (Figure 42, 44). After marking finds in a stretch of ten blocks, the team returned to where they started and placed each find in a plastic bag with an artefact label (Figure 42,44,45). Each find was individually tagged (Figure 44,45), received a unique accession number and recorded on a find list

(Figure 46). Thereafter the finds and their accessions number were plotted by myself on graph paper, and aspects of the landscape were added (Figure 43).

Archaeological research has shown that most historic houses at the Cape had midden areas where various types of artefacts can be found. These artefacts, especially ceramics, can be typologically analysed. This technique can date periods of occupation and also provide information about the status and living conditions of the inhabitants (Klose & Malan 1993). For the purposes of this project an extensive typological analysis of artefacts found will not be done. The aim of this project is rather to collect data from which a spatial map of the distribution of artefacts can be drawn. A high concentration of artefacts in one area could indicate the presence of a midden that can related to subsurface structures.

Figure 40. A map of grid O23 and O24. The orange areas indicate where the GPR survey was conducted. Taken from Google Earth, 1 April 2015. Image C 2015 DigitalGlobe Data SIO, NOAA, U.S. Navy, NGA, GEBCO, Image Landsat. 33̊ 46’10.52” S, 18̊ 29’08.52”E altitude 4.78 km.

Figure 41. A ceramic artefact laying on the surface. Photo: M.E. Breytenbach.

Figure 42. A photo of the survey team working in one of the 10x10 meter survey squares. Photo: M.E. Breytenbach.

Figure 43. A graphic representation of artefacts found in Grid O24 (block 28) in which each of the artefacts that were recovered was marked and mapped. Drawn by Marius Breytenbach.

Figure 44. Artefacts being marked by red flags. Each find was recorded and given a unique accession number. Photo: M.E. Breytenbach.

Figure 45. An example of a label used to tag each artefact.

Figure 46. The finds list on which the details of each artefact was recorded.

7. RESULTS

7.1. Intensive archaeological survey (see also Addendum B)

An intensive archaeological survey of grids O 23 and O 24 resulted in the recovery of 2374 artefacts (Table 2). Figure 47 indicates where a high concentration of artefacts retrieved from the surface suggests the location of two possible midden areas. The midden area in grid O 23 (blocks 7, 8, 17 and 19) yielded a total of 172 artefacts, while the second area (blocks 96, 97 in grid O 23 and blocks 6, 7, 8, 16, 17, 18, 19, 27, 28, 29, 38 and 39 in grid O 24) yielded a total of 1560 artefacts. In 2016, I plan to enrol for a Masters degree study in which I will do an extensive typological analysis of artefacts found at the site. A preliminary assessment of ceramics recovered from Blaauwbergsvalley indicates evidence of three centuries of occupation (18th, 19th and 20th century) (see addendum B for examples retrieved).

Table 2. A summary of various artefacts that was recovered from grid O23 and O24.

Total amount of artefacts Grid O23 recovered Grid O24 Total recovered

Ceramics 332 Ceramics 1224

Glass 372 Glass 153

Metal 15 Metal 6

Shell 3 Shell 58

Bone 61 Bone 110

Stone 18 Stone 22

TOTAL 801 TOTAL 1573

Figure 47. A map indicating two midden- related areas within grid O 23 and O 24. Taken from Google Earth, 1 April 2015. Image C 2015 DigitalGlobe. Data SIO, NOAA, U.S. Navy, NGA, GEBCO, Image Landsat. 33̊ 46’10.52” S, 18̊ 29’08.52”E altitude 4.78 km.

A preliminary analysis (Addendum B) shows Khoi and Dutch earthenware found at the site, as well as fine Chinese porcelain and coarse Asian porcelain, date to the 18th century, when the Dutch ruled the Cape. Chinese porcelain, German stoneware and refined industrial ware, such as European pearl and cream ware found at the site, date to the transitional years (1790-1820). Slip decorated earthenware and transfer printed European porcelain found date to the second part of the 19th century, while refined industrial earthenware that had been decal printed date to the early 20th century.

With the decline of the Dutch East India Company at the end of the 18th century and rise of British influence at the start of the 19th century, the Cape “became a minor part of a highly organised, interconnected, competitive and consumer-orientated juggernaut, and ceramics found in excavations and documents record this change” (Klose & Malan 1993:17). In the 1790’s, the number of porcelain imports from the East declined and mass produced refined earthenware from Staffordshire in England flooded the Cape markets. A large number of creamware, pearlware and whiteware shards were retrieved from Blaauwbergsvalley’s ceramic assemblage, attesting to these changes.

The variety in Blaauwbergsvalley’s ceramic assemblage is consistent with important social, economical, cultural and political changes at the Cape during the transitional years at Blaauwbergsvalley (1790-1820).

From the intensive archaeological survey a preliminary analysis suggests that two possible midden areas at Blaauwbergsvalley can be linked to the early 19th century, when Justinus Keer inhabited the farmhouse. Keer’s inventory (MOOC 7/1/89/118) mentions ceramics being kept in a cupboard in a room to the left of the three-roomed house.

7.2. Geophysical analysis

A full report of the GPR survey, conducted by Coen Nienaber, is included in Addendum A. All four areas surveyed by GPR in grid O 24 (SET 12, 13, 14 and 15 seen in Figure 48) show anomalies (Figure 49-52) which, according to Nienaber, can be linked to the foundations of a three-roomed structure measuring 10 m x 6 m (Nienaber 2015). From the 3D image in Figure 51 and 52, the outlines and inner walls

Figure 49. The GPR survey grids in O 23 and O 24 (Nienaber 2015).

64 Figure 48. A side view of SET13. Line 15 shows subsurface

of the structure, thought to be about 60-150 cm under the surface, can be seen (Nienaber 2015).

Figure 50. A side view of SET13. Line 15 shows subsurface anomalies (Nienaber 2015).

Figure 50. A side view of the area in SET 12. Around line five sub-surface anomalies can be seen (Nienaber 2015).

Figure 51. A 3D reconstruction of GPR data from SET 19 in which anomalies can be seen (Nienaber 2015).

SET 19 within grid O 24 (Figure 52) shows anomalies that, according to Nienaber (2015), possibly relate to second structure. The location and nature of the substructural anomalies in SET 12-15 and 19 corroborate the data of the “Blueberg Valley Houses”, obtained from maps drawn by Read & Long. According to Nienaber (2015) “to fully investigate and document the subsurface features observed at site BBV1 (Blaauwbergsvalley) ground truthing, archaeological test excavation and additional high resolution GPR is advised”. I will be submitting a permit application to Heritage Western Cape to conduct test pit excavations where GPR survey indicate corner foundations in 2016. This will allow us to properly access the subsurface structures and archaeological material related to it.

Figure 51. A 3D reconstruction of SET 12-15 in grid O24. The foundation walls of a three-roomed structure can be seen (Nienaber 2015).

7.3. Reconstructing the historical landscape of Blaauwbergsvalley

Topographical features on the current landscape, such as the dam/spring and roads, were identified and used as geographic markers in order to merge various sets of data to reconstruct the historical landscape of Blaauwbergsvalley (Figure 53).

The data of Blaauwbergsvalley obtained from the property surveys of 1872 (289/1872; 291/1872), 1965 (Diagram S.G. 8234/65) and 1971 (Diagram 9944/71) and an aerial map of 1938 (26_73_11392) were merged with historical maps of the “Blueberg Valley House”, drawn by Read & Long in 1806 (M3/21/1806; M1/2064- 2071). This enabled me to assign the following global positioning positions (GPS) to the two structures indicated by Read & Long to be the residence of Justinus Keer: 33̊,46’ 18.37”S; 18̊,29’51.25’E and 33̊,46’17.42”S; 18̊,29’51.89”E. When data from the archaeological surveys (GPR and intensive) and documentary sources are added to the contemporary landscape, the historical landscape of Blaauwbergsvalley at the beginning of the 19th century comes to life. From this historical reconstruction, seen in Figure 53, various important conclusions can be drawn.

The midden area in grid O 24, the GPR data of subsurface structures, Thomson’s musket ball “dumpsite” and the area in which Matejek found various artefacts all overlap in an archaeological hotspot (Figure 54). In his account, reverend Henry Martyn describes the area around Justinus Keer’s house/field hospital, where about two hundred wounded soldiers were laying “covered with blood and gore” as being “horrid” (Smith 1892:122). It is probable that the concentration of musket balls found at the “dumpsite” by Gary Thomson, points to an area where some wounded soldiers could have been laying. When the “dumpsite” area is merged with data from the intensive archaeological survey, the outlines of the subsurface structure can be seen in block 7 and 17 of grid O 24 (Figure 55). Block 7 and 17 of grid O 24, laying on the east side of the structure, yielded 162 (block 7) and 227 (block 17) artefacts. As can be seen in table of addendum B, these two blocks are amongst those that yielded the highest amount of artefacts.

From the drawing of the historical landscape we can therefore conclude that this area in Figure 5410 is of special significance for any future archaeological investigations.

10 The GPS coordinates of the top red rectangle (structure 1) in Figure 53 is 33̊,46’ 18.37”S; 18̊,29’51.25’E and that of the bottom red rectangle (structure 2) is 33̊,46’17.42”S; 18̊,29’51.89”.

Figure 53. A graphic representation of the historic and contemporary landscape of Blaauwbergsvalley. Drawn by Marius Breytenbach.

Figure 54. A graphic representation of an archaeological hotspot at . Blaauwbergsvalley that can be related to Justinus Keer’s farmhouse and the field hospital during the Battle of Blaauwberg. Drawn by Marius Breytenbach.

Figure 55. A graphic representation of blocks 07 (top) and 17 (bottom) within grid O 24 are brought together. The foundations of the structure found by GPR in O 24 was drawn by hand. There is a clear archaeological signature of ceramics and musket balls at the edges of the structure.

8. CONCLUSION

The Battle of Blaauwberg, fought on the outskirts of Cape Town on the 8th of January 1806, impacted not only the lives of people living at the Cape in the beginning of the 19th century, but also future South Africans. English rule resulted in distinctive social, economical and political realities, which became part of South African society in subsequent years. These changes are reflected in the material culture at the Cape, such as in architectural style and use of ceramics. The Battle of Blaauwberg, which inaugurated British rule, is therefore regarded as being one of South Africa’s most pivotal battles.

According to documentary sources, Justinus Keer’s farmhouse at Blaauwbergsvalley was transformed into a field hospital, where, for ten days after the battle, injured soldiers were treated. In recent years, secondary sources have claimed that a farmyard southeast of the Blaauwberg Mountain and adjacent to a spring called Blaauwbergsvlei was the location of Keer’s farm and house. Despite the testimony of documentary sources, the site of Justinus Keer’s farmhouse and subsequently the field hospital, has not been formally identified and presented. The aim of this project was to assess the archaeological evidence for this piece of land being the Blaauwbergsvalley where Justinus Keer farmed. Determining the location of Keer’s house/field hospital is important. Being the only structures on the battle field, it serves as an important point of reference to orient the battle and is the ideal location from where the historic battle can be presented to the public. Blaauwbergsvalley’s extensive artefact assemblage can also make significant contributions towards our understanding of rural life during the transitional years at the Cape of Good Hope. I will be investigating this subject in a Masters degree project.

The project was conducted in three phases. During the first phase, data from primary and secondary sources were assessed. Primary sources place Justinus Keer on the farm Blaauwbergsvalley during the Battle of Blaauwberg in 1806. These sources also attest to Keer’s house and outhouses being temporarily transformed into a field hospital, where about two hundred soldiers were treated. Documentary evidence also states that Keer’s two morgen of farmland served as an important outspan for people

travelling to and from Cape Town. In an assessment of secondary sources, it is evident that primary sources have faded into the background and that some information in secondary sources has been uncritically accepted and needs updating and correction. During the second phase of the project, documentary sources were used to reconstruct the historical landscape of Blaauwbergsvalley at the start of the 19th century. Topological features on the landscape described in documentary sources, such the natural spring/dam and wagon road associated with Keer’s farm, were isolated and merged with features of the contemporary landscape. Information from various documentary sources, such as Keer’s house inventory, official colonial office letters, “opgaafrolle”, maps and ordinance survey’s also helped in bringing Keer’s early 19th century farmyard to life. During the third phase, archaeological data were used to test the assumption made by secondary sources regarding the location of Justinus Keer’s house and field hospital. Data obtained from an intensive archaeological and GPR survey highlighted the location of two possible midden areas and two structures that can be linked to the early 19th century.

The archaeological data therefore confirm that this piece of land can indeed be linked to Blaauwbergsvalley where Justinus Keer lived and where, after the battle of Blaauwberg, his house was transformed into a temporary field hospital. Because of permit restrictions, the test pit excavations could not be conducted in order to determine the provenance of the sub surface structures. Future excavations of the midden areas will be able to confirm whether these two structures are linked to the houses indicated on historical maps as being Blaauwbergsvalley.

9. REFERENCE LIST

Anderson, M. 2008. Blue Berg, Britain takes the Cape. Mark Robert Dunbar Anderson.

Brink, Y. 2008. They Came to Stay. Stellenbosch: African Sun Media.

Carman, J. 2005. Battlefields as cultural resources. Post-Medieval Archaeology, 2(39):215-223.

Deetz, J. 1996. In Small Things Forgotten. New York: Anchor Books.

Erasmus, L. 1972. Die Tweede Britse Verowering van die Kaap, 1806. (unpublished MA thesis). Potchefstroom: Potchefstroomse Universiteit vir Christelike Hoër Onderwys.

Foard, G. & Morris, R. 2012. The Archaeology of English Battlefields. York: Council for British Archaeology.

Geier, C.R., Babits, L.E., Scott, D.D. & Orr, D.G. 2011. Historical-archaeological methods and documentation, analysis, and interpretation of military sites. In Geier, C.R., Babits, L.E., Scott, D.D. & Orr, D.G (ed) Historical Archaeology of military sites, pp. 1-2. Texas: A&M University Press.

Hanna, W.F. 2011. Geophysics: some recommendations and applications. Geier, C.R., Babits, L.E., Scott, D.D. & Orr, D.G (ed) Historical archaeology of military sites, pp. 11-20. Texas: A&M University Press.

Hutten, W. 2015. A systematic archaeological survey of the British artillery positions during the 1806 Battle of Blaauwberg (unpublished Honours Research Proposal). University of South Africa.

Johnson, R.W., Mehls, S.F. & Mehls, D.D. 1990. Disputed methods: “The Battle of little Bighorn". The Public Historian, 109-114.

Klose, J. & Malan, A. 2009. An introduction to the identification of ceramics from 18th and 19th century archaeological sites. Historical Archaeology Research Group. University of Cape Town.

Krynauw, D. 1999. Beslissings by Blouberg. Kaapstad: Tafelberg Uitgewers.

Küyler, E. 2011. “Integrated reserve management plan Blaauwberg nature reserve”, 13 July 2015, .

Lowe, K. 2012. Review of geophysical applications in Australian archaeology. Australian Archaeological Association 74:71-84.

Mehls, S.F. & Mehls, C.D. 1990. Archaeological perspectives on the Battle of Little Bighorn. The Public Historian, 109-114.

Nienaber, C. 2015. Report on exploratory archaeological geophysics conducted at the Blaauwberg 1806 Battle Site. PGS Heritage, University of Pretoria.

Orser, C. E. 1995. Historical Archaeology. New Jersey:

Pollard, T. & Banks, I. 2006. Past tense. Studies in the archaeology of conflict. Leiden/Boston: Brill.

Pollard, T. 2009. The rust of time: metal detecting and battlefield archaeology. In Thomas, S. & Stone. P.G. (ed) Metal detecting & archaeology, pp. 181-202. Heritage Matters Series 2. New Castle University.

Scott, D. & McFeaters, A.P. 2011. The archaeology of historic battlefields: a history and theoretical developments in conflict archaeology. Journal of Archaeological Research, 1(19):103-132.

Smith, G. 1892. The First Modern Missionary to the Mohammedans 1781-1812. London: The Religious Tract Society.

Steenkamp, W. 2012. Assegais, drums & dragoons. Johannesburg & Cape Town: Jonathan Ball Publishers.

Sutherland, T.L. & Schmidt, A. 2003. The Towton battlefield archaeological survey project: An integrated approach to battlefield archaeology. Landscapes, 2(4):15-25.

Whitehorne, J. 2011. Following the paper trail. a historian's role at the Snake Hill excavations, Ontario, Canada. In Geier, C.R., Babits, L.E., Scott, D.D. & Orr, D.G (ed) Historical archaeology of military sites, pp. 3-9. Texas: A&M University Press.

10. ARCHIVAL SOURCES

C 223:30-115. Western Cape Provincial Archives and Records Services. Resolutions of the Council of Policy of the Cape of Good Hope.

CO 8455/5. Colonial Office. Western Cape Provincial Archives and Records Services.

CO 3879. Colonial Office. Western Cape Provincial Archives and Records Services.

CO 3850/407. Colonial Office. Western Cape Provincial Archives and Records Services.

CO 3859/500. Colonial Office. Western Cape Provincial Archives and Records Services.

CO 8433/5. Colonial Office. Western Cape Provincial Archives and Records Services.

CTD 14:37. Cape Transfer Deed. Western Cape Provincial Archives and Records Services.

CTD T.13. Cape Transfer Deed. Western Cape Provincial Archives and Records Services.

C.Q. 20-14. Cape farm register. Department of Rural Development and Land Reform. Deeds Office. Cape Town.

C.Q.3.41. Cape farm register. Department of Rural Development and Land Reform. Deeds Office. Cape Town.

Department of Rural Development 26_73_11392. National Geo-spatial Information. Department of Rural Development and Land Reform.

J37/31/402. Opgaafrolle. Western Cape Provincial Archives and Records Services.

J38/22/259. Opgaafrolle. Western Cape Provincial Archives and Records Services.

J44. Opgaafrolle. Western Cape Provincial Archives and Records Services.

M1/2064-2071. Maps Western Cape Provincial Archives and Records Services.

M1/3297. Western Cape Provincial Archives and Records Services.

M3/21/1806. Western Cape Provincial Archives and Records Services.

MOIC 2/3/220. Insolvent Estates. Western Cape Provincial Archives and Records Services.

MOOC 7/1/89. Death Notices. Western Cape Provincial Archives and Records Services.

MOOC 7/1/89/118. Inventories and wills. Western Cape Provincial Archives and Records Services.

MOOC 7/1/130/58. Inventories and wills. Western Cape Provincial Archives and Records Services.

MOOC 2/446. Western Cape Provincial Archives and Records Services.

S/4570. Chief Surveyor-General. Cape Town.

S/8475/15. Chief Surveyor-General. Cape Town.

SG Dgm 289/1872. Chief Surveyor-General. Cape Town.

SG Dgm 191/1872. Chief Surveyor-General. Cape Town.

S.G. Dgm 30/1794. Chief Surveyor-General. Cape Town.

S.G. Dgm 8234/1965. Chief Surveyor-General. Cape Town.

T.5745. Title Deed. Department of Rural Development and Land Reform. Deeds Office. Cape Town.

11. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Archaeology is regarded as a discipline which uncovers the lives of past people. This project has however also brought me on an exiting journey meeting new people with a passion for the past. I would therefore like to extent my gratitude toward the following people who contributed in conducting my research.

Foremost my gratitude toward Willem and Louisa Hutten who introduced me to the Battle of Blaauwberg and provided me the opportunity to conduct this research. Their knowledge, experience and patience was instrumental in this project. I am also indebted to Pat Matejek, Mansell Upham, Ian van Oordt and Gary Thomson, whose research has been invaluable. The following people have all taken time to assist in the archaeological surveys: Anja Huisamen, Roy Fuller-Gee, Ian van Oordt, Francois van Lill, Louisa Hutten, Captain Joubert’s team of forensic detectives, Helene Booysen and the Botha family. Abigail Moffat kindly assisted me with the typological analysis of ceramics. Thank you to Helene Booysen who proofread the document. I want to especially extend my gratitude toward Roy Fuller-Gee for always making it a pleasure and fun to work at Blaauwbergsvalley. I appreciate the guidance by Dr. Natalie Swanepoel from the University of South Africa.

Lastly I want to thank my wife Riëtte and children, Lara and Tertius who had to keep up with me during my research and on many occasions assisted in surveys at the Blaauwbergsvalley.

ADDENDUM A: Report of Geophysical Survey

Report on exploratory archaeological geophysics conducted at the Blaauwberg 1806 Battle Site, Western Cape Province, by means of Ground

Penetrating Radar.

Submitted by: Coen Nienaber on the 8th of September 2015 [email protected]

083 279 5738

Specialist consultant - Cultural Resources Management, Bio-Archaeology and Archaeological Geophysics

BA [Hons] Archaeology

BSc [Hons] Physical Anthropology

MInstAgrar Environmental Management (current)

Heritage Impact Assessment, Graves, Human remains and Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR)

Department of Anatomy Tel +27 12 319 2233 [email protected]

School of Medicine Fax +27 12 319 2240 http://www.up.ac.za

Faculty of Health Sciences

University of Pretoria

Private Bag x323

ARCADIA 0007

Republic of South Africa

1. Introduction

Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) has become an established technique in the field of archaeological geophysics and has wide application (Clark, 1996; Kwamme, 2001: Daylan and Bevan, 2002: Gaffney and Gater, 2003, Conyers, 2004; Jones, 2008). Exploratory surveys to detect the presence the subsurface indications of historical structures are one of many possible uses of this technique.

2. Location of the survey

Seven sites in the Blaauwberg Nature Reserve in the Western Cape province of South Africa were investigated. The survey locations were based on previous literature reviews, historical research and preliminary archaeological surveys of the area. GPR was used to investigate a possible historical structure at sites BBV1-3 and possible graves related to the 1806 Battle of Blaauwberg at sites BBV 4-7 (Figure 1). The GPS locations of the investigated localities were as follows:

Site ID latitude longitude elevation

1 -33.7717 18.49811 27.30531

2 -33.7717 18.49776 26.98228

3 -33.7716 18.4975 32.90945

4 -33.767 18.49888 41.93586

5 -33.7667 18.49854 41.39411

6 -33.7702 18.49886 38.17968

7 -33.771 18.49926 38.07418

3. Means and methods

3.1. Technical specifications of survey equipment

A US Radar sub Surface Imaging Systems Seeker 500M™ with 500 Mhz antenna was used.

3.2. Survey specific equipment settings for SET12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17

Antenna Configuration Antenna preset Scan size 576

Hardware ave 10 Sampling interval PS_200

Software ave 32 Averaging Num HW Avgs 10

Drift compensation Enabled Num SW Avgs 32

Time range 51 Material Attenuation 8

TVG slope 0.399 dB/ns Dialectic 9

TVG start 24 dB Gain Start (dB) 24

Depth offset Sample 9 Slope 0.399

Data offsets Linear offset 0

Scan Depth offset 9

Material type Earth

Material type Moist

Range 2.6m

Resolution Course (256)

Figure 1. Locality map showing sites investigated at Blaauwberg Nature Reserve.

3.3. Survey specific equipment settings for SET19, SURVEY 13, 14, 17 and 18

Antenna Configuration Antenna preset Scan size 1088

Hardware ave 10 Sampling interval PS_100

Software ave 32 Averaging Num HW Avgs 20

Drift compensation Enabled Num SW Avgs 20

Time range 51 Material Attenuation 2

TVG slope 0.399 dB/ns Dialectic 9

TVG start 24 dB Gain Start (dB) 24

Depth offset Sample 9 Slope 0.399

Data offsets Linear offset 0

Scan Depth offset 9

Material type Earth

Material type Moist

Range 2.6m

Resolution Course (256)

3.4. Survey methods: Sites BBV1-3 (SET12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 19)

GPR surveys were conducted in the indicated areas using fixed pinned grids strung with twine. Guidelines strung within grids were used to direct survey lines. Where vegetation or uneven surface features interfered with the survey, these were either removed of levelled. Grids were placed to avoid large trees or other obstacles to the survey.

3.5. Survey methods: Sites BBV 4-7

At these sites, linear surveys collected profiles over the indicated areas. Two lines, perpendicular to each other and covering the extent of each area, were collected.

3.6. Data collection

Data were collected to the on board Data Value Logger (DVL) according to the specific manufacturer setup and data collection structure. Automatically generated filenames and directories were noted in field notes. Data were downloaded to a USB drive from the DVL.

3.7. Data post processing

Data were post processed using Reflex-Win Version 75™. 2D data analysis included:

 time 0 adjustment static correction of data profiles

 profile length adjustment with corresponding trace increment recalculation.

3D data interpretation was done on the post-processed data where the data were collected in such a way that this was possible.

3.8. Survey grid layout

Seven grids within the larger Bauuwbergs Valley (BBV) survey grid blocks O 23 and O 24 were surveyed. These comprised 2 grids of 20 m x 10 m, 4 grids of 10 m x 10 m, and an additional grid of 10 m x 12 m (Figure 2).

Figure 2. GPR survey grid layout at Blaauwbergs Valley.

4. Survey and results

4.1. Sites BBV1-3 – possible location of historic built structure

4.2. SET12

A 20 m x 10 m grid on the northern baseline of BBV block O24 was surveyed, starting from the southeastern corner in a westerly direction and returning in an easterly direction in a zigzag fashion with 50 cm intervals, repeated.

Subsurface anomalies of a linear nature, in some aspects spaced exactly 3 m apart, were observed, in addition to indications of local near-surface geology (Figure 3).

Figure 3. SET12 line 5 showing subsurface anomalies.

4.3. SET13

A 20 m x 10 m grid directly south of SET12 was surveyed, starting from the southeastern corner in a westerly direction and returning in an easterly direction in zigzag fashion with 50 cm intervals, repeated.

Subsurface anomalies of a linear nature were observed, in addition to indications of local near-surface geology (Figure 4).

Figure 4. SET13 line 15 showing subsurface anomalies.

4.4. SET14

In order to establish the extent of the linear anomalies observed in the SET12 and 13 grids, these were expanded to the west by 2 10 m x 10 m grids, directly adjacent to SET12 and 13.

SET 14 was to the west next to SET12 (Figure 2), and was surveyed starting from the southeastern corner in a westerly direction and returning in an easterly direction in zigzag fashion with 50 cm intervals, repeated.

The linear subsurface anomalies observed in SET12 extended into this grid. In addition, near-surface anomalies of a geological nature were also observed (Figure 5).

Figure 5. SET14 line 12 showing subsurface anomalies.

4.5. SET15

SET 15 was to the west next to SET13 (Figure 2) and was surveyed starting from the south eastern corner in a westerly direction and returning in an easterly direction in zigzag fashion with 50 cm intervals, repeated.

Figure 6. SET15 line 5 showing subsurface anomalies.

The linear subsurface anomalies observed in SET13 extended into this grid. In addition, near-surface anomalies of a geological nature were also observed (Figure 6).

4.6. SET16 and 17

In attempt to locate the possible second structure that was also indicated to be present by historical sources, the survey grid was extended by 2 10 m x 10 m blocks directly north of grid SET14 (into BBV block O23) (Figure 2). Both grids were surveyed starting from the southeastern corner in a westerly direction and returning in an easterly direction in zigzag fashion with 50 cm intervals, repeated. No significant subsurface anomalies other than the modern structure, visible on the surface in this area, could be observed.

4.7. SET19

A 10 m x 12 m grid in BBV block O23 (Figure 2) was surveyed, starting from the southeastern corner in a westerly direction and returning in an easterly direction in zigzag fashion with 50 cm intervals, repeated. Subsurface anomalies of a linear nature were observed, in addition to indications of local near-surface geology (Fig. 7).

Figure 7. SET19 line 4 showing subsurface anomalies.

4.8. SURVEY13 Site BBV4

A rectangular surface area showing a shallow surface depression and differences in vegetation was investigated in order to determine whether indications of graves were present. Single line surveys were conducted in order to assess the presence of subsurface anomalies (Fig. 8).

No subsurface anomalies were observed.

Figure 8. SURVEY13 radargram.

4.9. SURVEY15 Site BBV5

Figure 9. SURVEY14 radargram.

4.10. SURVEY17 Site BBV6

A large circular surface area showing a shallow surface depression and differences in vegetation was investigated in order to determine whether indications of graves might be present. The area was defined by the absence of trees. Single line surveys were conducted in order to assess the presence of subsurface anomalies (Fig. 10).

No subsurface anomalies were observed.

Figure 10. SURVEY17 radargram.

4.11. SURVEY18 Site BBV7

Figure 11. SURVEY18 radargram.

No subsurface anomalies were observed.

5. Discussion

5.1. Site BBV1

Subsurface anomalies were observed with GPR in the southwestern corner of survey grid SET12 and in the western part of survey grid SET13, as well as in the corresponding areas of survey grids SET 15 and 15 (Refer Fig. 2). A linear angular subsurface anomaly is clearly visible in the SW corner of survey grid SET14, continuing from the previous grids (Fig. 12). The SET16 and 17 surveys recorded only subsurface indications of previous disturbances in the area. Subsurface anomalies observed in survey grid SET19 were linear and displayed sharp angles (Fig. 13).

Figure 12. 3D reconstruction of GPR data from site BBV1 (SET12, 13, 14 and 15) (Width of image = 30 m).

Figure 13. 3D reconstruction of GPR data from survey grid SET19 (width of image = 12 m).

5.2. Sites BBV4, 5, 6 and 7

No anomalies that might indicate any significant subsurface features were observed.

6. Conclusion

The radar anomalies observed at site BBV1 are evenly spaced at set distances, are linear in nature and show a possible three-roomed structure foundation. This structure is thought to be the farm house on the farm at the time of the January 1806 battle, reportedly used as a field hospital. The anomalies observed to the north of this structure (in survey grid SET16 and 17) are associated with the modern structure visible on the surface in this area. The anomalies observed in SET19 could possibly indicate the presence of a second building in the area, one that extends beyond the survey grid. None of the investigations conducted to assess possible grave sites yielded any results.

7. Recommendations

To fully investigate and document the subsurface features observed at site BBV1 ground trothing, archaeological test excavation and additional high resolution GPR is advised. No additional actions are required at the indicated sites for possible graves.

Literature Cited

Jones, G. 2008. Geophysical Mapping of Historic Cemeteries. Technical Briefs In Historical Archaeology. 3: 25–38.

Clark, A. J. 1996. Seeing Beneath the Soil: Prospecting Methods in Archaeology. London, UK: B.T. Batsford.

Conyers, L. B. 2004. Ground-Penetrating Radar for Archaeology. Walnut Creek, CA: .AltaMira Press.

Dalan, R. A., Bevan, B.W. 2002. Geophysical Indicators of Culturally Emplaced Soils and Sediments. Geoarchaeology 17(8):779–810.

Gaffney, C., Gater, J. 2003. Revealing the Buried Past: Geophysics for Archaeologists. Stroud, UK: Tempus.

Kvamme, K. L. 2001. Interim Report of Geophysical Investigations at the Fort Clark and Primeau’s Trading Posts, Fort Clark State Historic Site (32ME2): 2000 Investigations. Report to PaleoCultural Research Group, Flagstaff, and the State Historical Society of North Dakota, Bismarck, from ArcheoImaging Lab, Department of Anthropology and Center for Advanced Spatial Technologies, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville . (Accessed 3 January 2008).

ADDENDUM B: Tables summarising artefact finds from midden areas

Artefacts from midden area 1 (Grid O23)

BLOCK 18 (O 23) 48

BLOCK 17 (O 23) 29

BLOCK 8 (O 23) 69 Survey blocks Survey

BLOCK 7 (O 23) 26

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Amount of artefacts retrieved

Table 3. The table above indicates the number of artefacts recovered in each survey block of the midden area in Grid O 23.

Table 4. TheArtefacts table above indicate from the middenamount of artefacts area recovered 2 (Grid in each O24) survey block of the midden39 area (O 24) in Grid O24.Table 5. The table above 131indicate the amount of artefacts recovered in each survey38 (O 24)block of the midden area in87 Grid O23. 29 (O 24) 235 28 ( O 24) 130 27 (O 24) 167 19 (O 24) 68 Table 618. The (O 24) table above indicate the75 amount of artefacts recovered in each survey block of the midden17 area (O 24)in Grid O24. 227

16 (O 24) 80 Survey blocks Survey 8 (O 24) 46 7 (O 24) 162 6 (O 24) 63 97 (O 23) Table 7. The above graph show45 the distribution of class type artefacts retrieved from the midden 96 (O 23) 44 area in Grid O23.Table 8. The table above indicate the amount of artefacts recovered in each 0 50 100 150 200 250 survey block of the midden area in Grid O24.Table 9. The table above indicate the amount of Amount of artefacts retrieved artefacts recovered in each survey block of the midden area in Grid O23.

Table 4. The table above indicates the number of artefacts recovered in each survey block ofTable the 10midden. The table area abovein Grid indicate O 24. the amount of artefacts recovered in each survey block of the midden area in Grid O24.Table 11. The table above indicate the amount of artefacts recovered in each survey block of the midden area in Grid O23. 93

Table 659. The above graph show the distribution of class type artefacts retrieved from the midden area in Grid O23.Table 660. The table above indicate the amount of artefacts recovered in each surveyTable 12 block. The of table the midden above indicatearea in Grid the amountO24. of artefacts recovered in each survey block of the

Artefacts from midden area 1 (Grid O 23)

15 3 61 18

332

372

Ceramics Glass Metal Shell Bone Stone

Table 5. The above graph shows the distribution of artefacts retrieved from the midden area in Grid O 23.

Table 1154. TheArtefacts above graph show from the distribution midden of class area type artefacts2 (Grid retrieved O 24) from the midden area in Grid O24.Table 1155. The above graph show the22 distribution of class type artefacts retrieved from the midden area in Grid O23. 6 110 58 153

Table 1156. The above graph show the distribution of class type artefacts retrieved from the midden area in Grid O24.

1224

Table 1157. The above graph show the distribution of class type artefacts retrieved from the midden area in Grid O24.Table 1158. The above graph show the distribution of class type artefacts retrieved from the midden area in Grid O23.

Ceramics Glass Metal Shell Bone Stone

Table 1159. The above graph show the distribution of class type artefacts retrieved from the midden area in Grid O24.Table 1160. The above graph show the distribution of class type artefacts retrieved from the Tablemidden 6 .area The inabove Grid graphO23. shows the distribution of artefacts retrieved from the midden area in Grid O 24.

94 Table 14091161. The above graph show the distribution of class type artefacts retrieved fromfrom ththee midden area in Grid O24.

Khoi earthenware (unglazed). Photo: M.E. Breytenbach.

Dutch style earthenware. Photo: M.E. Breytenbach.

Fine Chinese export porcelain. Photo: M.E. Breytenbach.

Coarse Asian porcelain. Photo: M.E. Breytenbach.

German stoneware. Photo: M.E. Breytenbach.

Fine Chinese export porcelain (one above; coarse Asian porcelain (two below). Photo: M.E. Breytenbach.

Refined (industrial) pearl ware (hand painted). Photo: M.E. Breytenbach.

Refined (industrial) cream coloured ware. Photo: M.E. Breytenbach.

Refined (industrial) ware (printed). Willow pattern. Photo: M.E. Breytenbach.

Refined (industrial) yellow ware. Photo: M.E. Breytenbach.

Refined (industrial) earthenware (slip decorated). Photo: M.E. Breytenbach.

European porcelain (decal printing). Photo: M.E. Breytenbach.

European porcelain. Photo: M.E. Breytenbach.

Refined (industrial) ware. Willow pattern. Photo: M.E. Breytenbach.

Refined (industrial) earthenware (printed). Photo: M.E. Breytenbach.

ADDENDUM C: The research team

Various people contributed to the project. Besides the many volunteers working on weekends, the following people have been involved in and significantly contributed to this project.

Louisa Hutten: Field director

Louisa holds a BBibl degree, a BA honours degree in archaeology and a masters degree in anatomy, specialising in archaeozoology. She is a member of the Association of Southern African Professional Archaeologists (ASAPA) and is an accredited Cultural Resource Management (CRM) member. She currently serves on the ASAPA council and has 20 years of experience as an archaeologist. She is currently employed at the department of archaeology, UCT, as a senior scientific officer. She co-ordinates the UCT field school and is actively involved in the training and skills development of the postgraduate students. A number of postgraduate students will be actively involved in this project as part of the field training.

Willem Hutten: Field supervisor

Willem obtained his honours in Archaeology at the University of South Africa in 2015 and currently conducting his Masters studies in archaeology.

Marius Breytenbach: Field supervisor

Marius is currently completing his honours in archaeology at UNISA. Specialisation: Historical archaeology and Iron Age archaeology. The results of this study will be written up for his honours thesis.

Roy Fuller-Gee – Chairman FoBCA

Roy has been a member of the Steering Committee of the FoBCA since its establishment in 2003 and was involved in the proposed 2006 Bicentenary celebration of the Battle of Blaauwberg. He has also served as Chairman of the Committee of the FoBCA since 2010.

Ian van Oordt

Ian has been researching the Battle of Blaauwberg for past 8 years and built the diorama for the 200 year celebration. He is a founder member of the Cannon Association of South Africa and takes a keen interest in cannon design and history.

Gary Thomson

Gary is a founding member and Chair of the Battle of Blaauwberg Preservation Society and Committee member of the Battle of Blaauwberg Heritage Society. Gary was responsible for the exhibition component of the 2006 Battle of Blaauwberg Bicentenary celebration. Has been actively researching the Battle of Blaauwberg for the last 20 years in order to assist the British War Graves (Major Anthony Gordon) and the then National Monuments Council. He undertook a detailed investigation of the site of the Bloubergsvalley farm in 1996 (site of the field hospital after the battle of 8 January 1806). Gary is presently retired, but actively involved as a volunteer at the Military Museum at the Castle.

100