ASSESSMENT PROPOSED Mamello EXTENSION 1

rU~.:"!Ir 1 HERITAGE ASSESSMENT

PROPOSED MAMEllO EXTENSION 1 (PORTION OF THE REMAINDER OF FARM VAAlVIEW 486 IR) AND MAMEllO EXTENSION 2 (PORTION 400 OF THE FARM KOPPIESFONTEIN 478 IR) DEVELOPMENTS, SEDIBENG DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY, GAUTENG PROVINCE

PGS Heritage Unit Professional Grave Solutions (pty) Ltd

Tel: 012 332 5305 Fax: 012 332 2625 Cell: 082 717 6661 ERI1AGE UNIT E-mail: [email protected]

Compiled for: Proponent: Compiled by: P.O. Birkholtz Date: 30 October 2009 Mr. Tsepo Maluka Sedibeng District Municipality Enkanyini Projects (Pty) Ltd

Tel: 012 657 1505 Fax: 012 657 0220 PROFESSIONAL GRA VE SOLUTIONS (PTY) L TO

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Professional Grave Solutions was apPointed by Enkanyini Projects to undertake a Phase 1 Heritage Impact Assessment for the proposed establishment of the Mamello Extension 1 (Portion of the remainder of the farm Vaalview 486 IR) and Mamello Extension 2 (Portion 400 of the farm Koppiesfontein 478 IR) residential developments to the north of Vaal Marina, Sedibeng District Municipality, Gauteng Province. The proponent is the Sedibeng District Municipality.

During January 2009 Professional Grave Solutions was commissioned by Enkanyini Projects to undertake a Heritage Options Analysis of six different development options in and around the present study area. After the results of all the various environmental specialist inputs (including heritage) were assessed, slightly modified sections of Option 2 and Option 3 were chosen for the development of Mamello Extensions 1 & 2. As the boundaries of these development areas differed slightly from the original two options, further fieldwork was required before the heritage impact assessment for these developments could be undertaken.

Five sites were located during the study and are all comprised of what appears to be Late Iron Age sites. Three of these sites (Site 3, Site 4 and Site 5) fall well within the development footprint and will be directly impacted upon by it. The western end of Site 1 (Site la) is located on the edge of the development footprint while the eastern end is located approximately 18m outside of it. Similarly, Site 2 is located approximately 26m to the south and outside of the development footprint. While the proposed development will have a direct impact on Sites 3, 4 and 5 and the western end of Site 1, sufficient secondary impact can be expected on the eastern end of Site 1 and on Site 2 to warrant further mitigation on all five the sites.

The following mitigation measures are required for these five sites:

• Measured drawing of a site layout plan

It Photographic recording

e Permit application to SAHRA for auger sampling/shovel testing and excavation

G Once the permit is issued, auger testing or shovel testing must be undertaken across the site to establish whether any subterranean archaeological material or deposits exist

PHASE 1 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOR THE PROPOSED MAMELLO EXT. 1 AND MAMELLO EXT. 2 DEVELOPMENTS 1 PROFESSIONAL GRAVE SOLUTIONS (PIT) LTD

Depending on the results of the auger/shovel testing, the mitigation will proceed along one of two alternatives:

GIl If no evidence for any subterranean archaeological material/deposits can be found, a report (containing the drawings, photographs, descriptions etc.) must be submitted to SAHRA with a permit application for destruction of the site.

QD However, if evidence for subterranean archaeological material or deposits is found, archaeological excavations must be undertaken. After the completion of the excavation and analysis, a report (containing the drawings, photographic recordings and descriptions) must be submitted to SAHRA with a permit application to have the site destroyed.

It is the opinion of the author of this report that on the condition that all the recommendations made in this report are adhered to, the development may be allowed to continue.

PHASE 1 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOR THE PROPOSED MAMELLO EXT. 1 AND MAMELLO EXT. 2 DEVELOPMENTS 2 PROFESSIONAL GRAVE SOLUTIONS (PTY) LTD

TABLE Of CONTENTS

1. PROJECT BACKGROUND ...... 4

2. DESCRIPTION OF STUDY AREA AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ...... 4

3. SCOPE OF WORK ...... 10

4. METHODOLOGy ...... 10

5. LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS AND TERMINOLOGY ...... 11

6. ASSESSMENT CRITERIA ...... 13

7. FINDINGS ...... 18

8. HERITAGE REQUIREMENTS IN TERMS OF SECTION 38 (3) OF THE NATIONAL HERITAGE RESOURCES ACT NOT DEALT WITH IN THE PREVIOUS SECTION ...... 46

9. DISCUSSION ON THE LATE IRON AGE SITES FROM WITHIN THE STUDY AREA ...... 47

10. CONCLUSIONS AND GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 48

ANNEXURES

Annexure A Development Layout Plans Showing Distribution of Located Sites Annexure B Legislative Framework

PHASE 1 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOR THE PROPOSED MAMELLO EXT. 1 AND MAMELLO EXT. 2 DEVELOPMENTS 3 PROFESSIONAL GRAVE SOLUTIONS (PTY) LTD

1. PROJECT BACKGROUND

Marina l Sedibeng District Municipality, Gauteng Province. The proponent is the Sedibeng District Municipality.

2. DESCRIPTION OF STUDY AREA AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

2.1 Study Area

2.1.1 General description

2.1.1.1 Portion of the remainder of the farm Vaalview 486 IR

This portion is located is directly east of the road between Vaal Marina and the R54 Villiers-Vereeniging road. It is located on a sloped landscape with a non-perennial stream crossing east-by-west directly north of it. The steepest gradients are found along the site's south-eastern side as the study area here includes the lower slopes of the hill known as Bakenkop. Cattle handling enclosures and a windmill with cement dam are situated within the site, while a man-made earth dam is located on its north-western boundary. A quarry is located on the site's south--western In terms of vegetation the site can be described as open grassland.

This section of the study area is defined the following coordinates:

$ 5 26.85748 E 28.22141

$ 5 26.85674 E 28.22607

PHASE 1 HERITAGE IMPAIT ASSESSMENT FOR THE PROPOSED MAMELLO EXT. 1 AND MAMELLO EXT. 2 DEVELOPMENTS 4 PROFESSIONAL GRA VE SOLUTIONS (PTY) L TO

~ 5 26.85813 E 28.22674

\l1li 5 26.85848 E 28.22725

0$ S 26.85848 E 28.22885

\l1li S 26.85888 E 28.22885

l1li S 26.85889 E 28.22998

(II S 26.85939 E 28.22997 • S 26.86226 E 28.23119

QI S 26.86401 E 28.23192 • 5 26.86432 E 28.22143

2.1.1.2 Portion 400 of the farm Koppiesfontein 478 IR

This portion is located directly west of the road between Vaal Marina and the R54. The site is located on a gently sloping landscape with a non-perennial stream crossing east by-west across it. In the north-eastern and south-western corners low rocky areas are located with some isolated rocky outcrops along the site's western boundary. These rocky areas are associated with varying levels of tree and shrub coverage. The remainder of the site comprises open grassland. A prominent hill is located a short distance to the west of the study area.

This section of the study area is defined by the following coordinates:

• 5 26.85940 E 28.23016 • 5 26.85888 E 28.23135

(II 5 26.85821 E 28.23485

QI 5 26.85732 E 28.23745

\l1li 5 26.85803 E 28.23775

\l1li 5 26.85822 E 28.23716

lit S 26.85878 E 28.23692 • 5 26.85968 E 28.23430

\l1li 5 26.85990 E 28.23411

@ S 26.86104 E 28.23370

\l1li 5 26.86152 E 28.23305

\l1li 5 26.86282 E 28.23357

!Ill S 26.86339 E 28.23188

PHASE 1 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOR THE PROPOSED MAMELLO EXT. 1 AND MAMELLO EXT. 2 DEVELOPMENTS 5 ______• ______m. __~~~~~~~!~~GRAVESOLUTIONS(PTY)LTD

2.1.2 Extent of the study area

The study area is approximately 79 hectares in extent.

2.2 Proposed Development

The proposed development comprises the establishment of two mixed developments known as Mamello Extension 1 and Mamello Extension 2. The core of Mamello Extension 1 entails a residential component containing 376 Residential 1 units. It furthermore also has an institutional and commercial component. The core of Mamello Extension 2 also comprises a residential component though it is larger and contains 907 Residential 1 and 263 Residential 2 units. Mamello Extension 2 also has an institutional component (including a clinic), primary school, commercial component, cemetery and taxi rank.

Figure 1 Google Image showing the study area (marked in white) within its regional context.

PHASE 1 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOR THE PROPOSED MAMELLO EXT. 1 AND MAMELLO EXT. 2 DEVELOPMENTS 6 PROFESSIONAL GRAVE SOLUTIONS (PTY) LTD

eo Q) l eo .1-1 C Q) E 0- o Qj > Q) ""0 T-I C o til C Q) .1-1 X UJ o Qj E eo ::E Q) .c .1-1 1.1-o C o :i:i u Q) til eo 1.1- o 3: Q) 'S: ~ Q) C Q) 19

M Q) .1-1eo c..

PHASE 1 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOR THE PROPOSED MAMELLO EXT. 1 AND MAMELLO EXT. 2 DEVELOPMENTS 7 PROFESSIONAL GRAVE SOLUTIONS (PTY) LTD

Plate 2 This quarry is located near the south-western corner of the Mamello Extension 1 component of the study area.

Plate 3 This earth dam is located on the western boundary of the Mamelio Extension 1 component of the study area.

PHASE 1 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOR THE PROPOSED MAMELLO EXT. 1 AND MAMELLO EXT. 2 DEVELOPMENTS 8 PROFESSIONAL GRAVE SOLUTIONS (PTY) LTD

Plate 4 View of a section of the Mamello Extension 2 component of the study area.

Plate 5 View of another section of the Mamello Extension 2 component. The road between Vaal Marina and the R54 is visible in the back.

PHASE 1 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOR THE PROPOSED MAMELLO EXT. 1 AND MAMELLO EXT. 2 DEVELOPMENTS 9 PROFESSIONAL GRAVE SOLUTIONS (PTY) LTD

3. SCOPE Of WORK

The aim of the Heritage Impact Assessment is to locate any heritage resources situated

within the study area, assess their respective levels of significancel evaluate the impact of the proposed development on these sites and provide mitigation measures should these sites be negatively impacted upon. The National Heritage Resources Act (25 of 1999) provides a very comprehensive list of what the national estate may consist of:

1. Places, buildings, structures and equipment of cultural significance 2. Places to which oral traditions are attached or which are associated with living heritage 3. Historical settlements and townscapes 4. Landscapes and natural features of cultural significance 5. Geological sites of scientific or cultural importance 6. Archaeological and palaeontological sites 7. Graves and burial grounds 8. Sites of significance relating to the history of slavery in South Africa 9. Movable objects such as military objects and ethnographic art.

With the exception of 'geological sites of scientific or cultural importance' as well as 'palaentological sites' all these items are covered in the scope of this study's work. Furthermore, it must be noted as well that this study focussed on the identification of tangible heritage resources. As a result very little work was undertaken in terms of intangible heritage (i.e. ritual or spiritual aspects of the area, indigenous knowledge systems and living heritage).

4. METHODOLOGY

4.1 Desktop

The desktop study's aim is to compile as much available information as possible on the heritage resources of the area and thereby also providing historical context for any located sites. The focus in the study was placed on archival and historical maps.

4.2 field

During the Heritage Options Analysis the field surveys were undertaken on Tuesday, 20 January 2009 and Wednesday, 21 January 2009. The additional fieldwork required for

PHASE 1 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOR THE PROPOSED MAMELLO EXT. 1 AND MAMELLO EXT. 2 DEVELOPMENTS 10 PROFESSIONAL GRAVE SOLUTIONS (PTY) LTD

this report was undertaken on Thursday, 15 October 2009. It consisted of a walkthrough of the entire study area. Location data was captured with a Garmin MAP60CS handheld GPS receiver, loaded with a Garmap South Africa Topographic & Recreation v1.00 base map. Data was captured only when accuracy greater than 6m was indicated by the instrument. Photographs were taken with a Canon Powershot A550 digital camera.

4.3 Consulting with local Interested and/or Affected Parties

A public participation by the client is currently underway and includes site and press notices. Informal discussions also took place with a couple of individuals met during the survey.

4.4 Aspects regarding Visibility and Constraints

Not subtracting in any way from the comprehensiveness of the fieldwork undertaken, it is necessary to realise that the heritage resources located during the fieldwork do not necessarily represent all the heritage resources located there. This may be due to various reasons, including the subterranean nature of some archaeological sites and dense vegetation cover. As such, should any heritage features and/or objects not included in the present inventory be located or observed, a heritage specialist must immediately be contacted. Such observed or located heritage features and/or objects may not be disturbed or removed in any way until such time that the heritage specialist has been able to make an assessment as to the significance of the site (or material) in question. This is true for graves and cemeteries as well.

5. lEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS AND TERMINOLOGY

5.1 legislation

The identification, evaluation and assessment of any cultural heritage site, artefact or find in the South African context is required and governed by the following legislation:

(Il National Environmental Management Act eNEMA) Act 107 of 1998

@ National Heritage Resources Act (NHRA) Act 25 of 1999

@I Minerals and Petroleum Resources Development Act (MPRDA) Act 28 of 2002

e Development Facilitation Act (DFA) Act 67 of 1995

PHASE 1 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOR THE PROPOSED MAMELLO EXT. 1 AND MAMELLO EXT. 2 DEVELOPMENTS 11 PROFESSIONAL GRAVE SOLUTIONS (PTY) LTD

The following sections in each Act refer directly to the identification, evaluation and assessment of cultural heritage resources.

G National Environmental Management Act eNEMA) Act 107 of 1998 o Basic Environmental Assessment (BEA) - Section (23)(2)(d) o Environmental Scoping Report (ESR) - Section (29)(1)(d)

o Environmental Impacts Assessment (EIA) - Section (32)(2)(d)

o Environmental Management Plan (EMP) - Section (34 )(b)

G National Heritage Resources Act (NHRA) Act 25 of 1999 o Protection of Heritage resources - Sections 34 to 36; and o Heritage Resources Management - Section 38 • Minerals and Petroleum Resources Development Act (MPRDA) Act 28 of 2002 o Section 39(3) • Development Facilitation Act (DFA) Act 67 of 1995

o The GNR.l of 7 January 2000: Regulations and rules in terms of the Development Facilitation Act, 1995. Section 31.

Refer Annexure C for an overview of the National Heritage Resources Act (25 of 1999).

5.2 Terminology

Archaeological resources

This includes:

@I material remains resulting from human activity which are in a state of disuse and are in or on land and which are older than 100 years including artefacts, human and hominid remains and artificial features and structures;

«0 rock art, being any form of painting, engraving or other graphic representation on a fixed rock surface or loose rock or stone, which was executed by human agency and which is older than 100 years, including any area within 10m of such;

@ wrecks, being any vessel or aircraft, or any part thereof which was wrecked in South Africa, whether on land, in the internal waters, the territorial waters or in the maritime culture zone of the republic as defined in the Maritimes Zones Act, and any cargo, debris or artefacts found or associated therewith, which is older than 60 years or which SAHRA considers to be worthy of conservation; * features, structures and artefacts associated with military history which are older than 75 years and the site on which they are found.

PHASE 1 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOR THE PROPOSED MAMELLO EXT. 1 AND MAMELLO EXT. 2 DEVELOPMENTS 12 PROFESSIONAL GRAVE SOLUTIONS (PIT) LTD

Cultural significance

This means aesthetic, architectural, historical, scientific, social, spiritual, linguistic or technological value or significance

Development

This means any physical intervention, excavation, or action, other than those caused by natural forces, which may in the opinion of the heritage authority in any way result in change to the nature, appearance or physical nature of a place or influence its stability and future well-being, including:

• construction, alteration, demolition, removal or change in use of a place or a structure at a place; • carrying out any works on or over or under a place; • subdivision or consolidation of land comprising a place, including the structures or airspace of a place; • constructing or putting up for display signs or boards;

It any change to the natural or existing condition or topography of land;

It any removal or destruction of trees, or removal of vegetation or topsoil

Heritage resources

This means any place or object of cultural significance

6. ASSESSMENT CRITERIA

This chapter describes the evaluation criteria used for the sites listed below. The four main criteria used in the evaluation of archaeological sites are:

• site integrity (i.e. primary vs. secondary context),

® amount of range of features (e.g., stonewailing, stone tools and enclosures), • unIqueness and • lI"'IIuRI'iI"Olll'lllf+:::I!,m to answer present research questions .

PHASE 1 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOR THE PROPOSED MAMELLO EXT. 1 AND MAMELLO EXT. 2 DEVELOPMENTS 13 PROFESSIONAL GRAVE SOLUTIONS (PTY) LTD

In terms of heritage sites, Section 3 (3) of the National Heritage Resources Act 25 of 1999 states that a place or object is considered part of the national estate if it has cultural significance or other special value because of:

(a) its importance in the community, or pattern of South Africa's history;

(b) its possession of uncommon, rare or endangered aspects of South Africa's natural or cultural heritage;

(c) its potential to yield information that will contribute to an understanding of South Africa's natural or cultural heritage;

(d) its importance in demonstrating the principal characteristics of a particular class of South Africa's natural or cultural places or objects;

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

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

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

(h) its strong or special association with the life or work of a person, group or organisation of importance in the history of South Africa; and

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

Management actions and recommended mitigation, which will result in a reduction in the impact on the sites, will be expressed as follows:

A - No further action necessary; B - Mapping of the site and controlled sampling required; C - Preserve site, or extensive data collection and mapping of the site; and D - Preserve site

PHASE 1 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOR THE PROPOSED MAMELLO EXT. 1 AND MAMELLO EXT. 2 DEVELOPMENTS 14 PROFESSIONAL GRAVE SOLUTIONS (PTY) LTD

6.1 Impact

The potential environmental impacts that may result from the proposed development.

6.1.1 Nature and existing mitigation

Natural conditions and conditions inherent in the project design that alleviate (control, moderate, curb) impacts. All management actions, which are presently implemented, are considered part of the project design and therefore mitigate against impacts.

6.2 Evaluation

6.2.1 Site significance

Site significance classification standards prescribed by the South African Heritage Resources Agency (2006) and approved by the Association for Southern African Professional Archaeologists (ASAPA) for the Southern African Development Community (SADC) region, were used for the purpose of this report.

fIELD RATING GRADE SIGNIfICANCE RIECOMMENDED MITIGATION

National Significance (NS) Grade 1 - Conservation; National Site nomination Provincial Significance (PS) Grade 2 - Conservation; Provincial Site nomination Local Significance (LS) Grade 3A High Significance Conservation; Mitigation not advised Local Significance (LS) Grade 3B High Significance Mitigation (Part of site should be retained) Generally Protected A (GP.A) - High / Medium Significance Mitigation before destruction Generally Protected B (GP.B) - Medium Significance Recording before destruction Generally Protected C (GP.C) - Low Significance Destruction

6.2.2 Impact rating

VERY HIGH

These impacts would be considered society as constituting a major and usually permanent change to the (natural and/or social) environment, and usually result in severe or very severe effects, or beneficial or very beneficial effects.

The loss of a species would be viewed by informed society as being of VERY HIGH

PHASE 1 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOR THE PROPOSED MAMELLO EXT. 1 AND MAMELLO EXT. 2 DEVELOPMENTS 15 PROFESSIONAL GRA VE SOLUTIONS (PTY) L TO

n::'V!:IIlI'nnl8CI D The establishment of a large amount of infrastructure in a rural area, which previously had very few services, would be regarded by the affected parties as resulting in benefits with VERY HIGH significance.

HIGH

These impacts will usually result in long term effects on the social and/or natural environment. Impacts rated as HIGH will need to be considered by society as constituting an important and usually long term change to the (natural and/or social) environment. Society would probably view these impacts in a serious light.

Example: The loss of a diverse vegetation type, which is fairly common elsewhere, would have a HIGH significance over the long term, as the area could be rehabilitated.

Example: The change to soil conditions will impact the natural system, and the impact on affected parties (in this case people growing crops on the soil) would be HIGH.

MODERATE

These impacts will usually result in medium- to long-term effects on the social and/or natural environment. Impacts rated as MODERATE will need to be considered by society as constituting a fairly important and usually medium term change to the (natural and/or social) environment. These impacts are real but not substantial.

Example: The loss of a sparse, open vegetation type of low diversity may be regarded as MODERATELY significant.

Example: The provision of a clinic in a rural area would result in a benefit of MODERATE significance.

LOW

These impacts will usually result in medium to short term effects on the social and/or natural environment. Impacts rated as LOW will need to be considered by the public and/or the specialist as constituting a fairly unimportant and usually short term change to the (natural and/or social) environment. These impacts are not substantial and are likely to have little real effect.

PHASE 1 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOR THE PROPOSED MAMELLO EXT, 1 AND MAMELLO EXT, 2 DEVELOPMENTS 16 PROFESSIONAL GRA VE SOLUTIONS (PTY) L TO

Exanlple: The temporary change in the water table of a wetland habitat, as these systems is adapted to fluctuating water levels.

Example: The increased earning potential of people employed as a result of a development would only result in benefits of LOW significance to people who live some distance away.

NO SIGNIFICANCE

No primary or secondary effects at all that are important to scientists or the public.

Example: A change to the geology of a particular formation may be regarded as severe from a geological perspective, but is of NO significance in the overall context.

6.2.3 Certainty

DEFINITE: More than 90% sure of a particular fact. Substantial supportive data exist to verify the assessment. PROBABLE: Over 70% sure of a particular fact, or of the likelihood of impact occurring. POSSIBLE: Only over 40% sure of a particular fact or of the likelihood of an impact. UNSURE: Less than 40% sure of a particular fact or likelihood of an impact occurring.

6.2.4 Duration

SHORT TERM: 0 to 5 years MEDIUM: 6 to 20 years LONG TERM: more than 20 years DEMOLISHED: site will be demolished or is already demolished

Evaluation Example

Impact Significance Heritage Significance Duration Mitigation Moderate Grade GP.B Short term B

PHASE 1 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOR THE PROPOSED MAMELLO EXT. 1 AND MAMELLO EXT. 2 DEVELOPMENTS 17 PROFESSIONAL GRAVE SOLUTIONS (PTY) LTD

7. fINDINGS

7.1 Desktop Study findings

7.1.1 Cartographic: findings

7.1.1.1 'Heidelberg' Sheet of the Major Jackson Series, April 1903

figure 2 below depicts an enlarged section of the 'Heidelberg' sheet of the Major Jackson Map Series (National Archives, Maps, 2/179). This series was compiled and drawn in the Surveyor-General's Office in Pretoria during the South African War under the direction of Major H.M. Jackson of the Royal Engineers. The specific sheet's surveys were undertaken during July 1902. The sheet was drawn and photo-lithographed by the Mapping Section of the Field Intelligence Department during July 1902. The map was revised on the 21 st of April 1903.

The approximate position of the study area is shown in red dotted line. With the exception of a road that is shown coming into the north-eastern section of the general vicinity of the study area, no heritage features are depicted on the map.

7.1.1.2 2628CC Topographical Map, first Edition, figure 3 depicts an enlarged section of the first edition of the 2628CC 1: 50 000 topographical sheet. It was based on aerial photography done in 1952 and 1957. The actual surveys were undertaken in 1954. The map was drawn by the Trigonometrical Survey Office in 1959.

The position of the study area is depicted in diagonal shaded line. No heritage sites or features are shown within or in close proximity to the study area.

PHASE 1 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOR THE PROPOSED MAMELLO EXT. 1 AND MAMELLO EXT. 2 DEVELOPMENTS 18 "\) ~ (I) III '- ::t ~ ~ G) III ~ q~ ),. ~

(I)m ~ ~ -; ~ ;g ::>;) Q ~ III Ul "\) ~ ::>;) Q Q "\) ~ Q r- (I) G) ::>;) ~ ),. ~ ~ ~ (I) 0 iJ:! r- r- c: Q :::j ~ Q :--i ~ ;; ),. <: i:J ~ r- ~ d r-~ 0 ~ :--i f\.J i:J rn r-~ 0 "\) ~ ~ VI

Figure 2 Enlarged section of the Heidelberg sheet of the Major Jackson Series. The sheet is dated to April 1903. The approximate position of the study area is depicted in red dotted line. PROFESSIONAL GRAVE SOLUTIONS (PTY) L TO

Figure 3 First Edition of the 2628CC Topographical Map dated to 1954. The approximate position and boundary of the study area is shown.

PHASE 1 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOR THE PROPOSED MAMELLO EXT. 1 AND MAMELLO EXT. 2 DEVELOPMENTS 20 PROFESSIONAL GRA VE SOLUTIONS (PTY) L TO

7.1.2 Chronology of the area's

DATE DESCRIPTION

1450 - 1650 This period is associated with a Late Iron group referred to as the Ntsuanatsatsi facies of the Urewe Tradition (Huffman, 2007).

1700 - 1820 During the early Historic Period the Ntsuanatsatsi south of the Vaal River developed into the Makgwareng facies (Huffman, 2007).

c. 1800s At the time a Tswana group known as the Khudu settled near the confluence of the Vaal and Suikerboschrand Rivers (Bergh, 1999).

The Matabele of Mzilikazi settled in the central reaches of the Vaal 1823 - 1827 River after leaving present-day KwaZulu-Natal (www.mk.org.za).

A group of Griqua hunters under the leadership of Pieter David were October 1834 hunting near the confluence of the Vaal and Wilge Rivers when they were attacked here by Mzilikazi's Khumalo Ndebele (Bergh, 1999).

Voortrekker leader Louis Trichardt moved with his party to the confluence of the Wilge and Vaal Rivers and stayed on the western February 1836 bank of the Wilge for a while before crossing over the Vaal (d'Assonville, 2002). They subsequently met up with Lang Hans van Rensburg at Elandspruit, near present-day Heidelberg (Bergh, 1999).

Prisoners-of-war Captains Elliott and Lambert were fired on by their 29 December 1880 Boer escort while crossing the Lies Drift and Elliot was killed. This event made headlines worldwide and a case of murder was opened

in the Transvaal high court (d'Assonvilier 2002; Green, 1966).

Although no evidence for battles or skirmishes in the vicinity of the study area during the South African War could be found, d/Assonvi"e (2002) refers to the fact that the Boer farms from the area were burnt down and that women and children were taken to concentration camps. He relates that the farmstead on Zandfontein 1899 - 1902 (directly opposite the Vaal River from Koppiesfontein) was burnt down in July 1901 and the women and children taken to the Vredefortweg and Heilbron Camps. It is interesting to note that the forced movement of women and children to the concentration camps were not race or gender exclusive. During the war black families staying on farms were also taken to the concentration camps.

The construction of the Vaal Dam was undertaken jointly by Rand Water and the Department of Irrigation. Construction commenced in 1934 and the aim of the dam was to address the rapidly increasing need for water of the population of the Witwatersrand. The dam wall 1934 - 1938 was completed in 1938 with a wall height of 54.2 m above the lowest 3 foundation and a full supply capacity of 994 million m • In the early 1950s the wall was raised to 60.3m resulting in a capacity of 2 188 3 million m , In 1985 the wall was raised to a height of 63.4m above the lowest foundation. This increased the capacity of the dam to 2 536 million m 3 (www.dwaf.gov.za).

PHASE 1 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOR THE PROPOSED MAMELLO EXT. 1 AND MAMELLO EXT. 2 DEVELOPMENTS 21 PROFESSIONAL GRA VE SOLUTIONS (PTY) L TO

7.1.3 The late Iron Age

Based on available published archaeological information (i.e. Maggs, 1975) it is known that the general vicinity of the study area has examples of so-called Type N and Type V Late Iron Age stone-walled settlements. While these settlement types are associated with the early history of the Sotho (and especially the Fokeng), the available historical references (i.e. d'Assonville, 2002) suggest that the Khumalo Ndebele were also present in the vicinity as well. Their settlement type is known as Type B (Huffman, 2007).

7.1.3.1 Type N (1450 - 1650)

The Late Iron Age group referred to as the Ntsuanatsatsi facies of the Urewe tradition was associated with the Fokeng. The name Ntsuanatsatsi is derived from the hill of that name located between Vrede and Frankfort in the Free State where the earliest examples of this facies were located. The Fokeng also associates this hill as their place of origin. The Ntsuanatsatsi later moved north across the Vaal River into the Balfour, Suikerboschrand, Klipriviersberg and Vredefort areas. This movement was likely due to the fact that climatic conditions in the Free State became too severe.

The pottery is characterised by the predominance of comb stamping and finger pinching as decoration techniques. The necks of these pottery vessels bear broad bands of stamping and stamped arcades are also characteristic.

The settlement layout has been classified as Type N or Group I and comprises a few central cattle enclosures with an enclosing wall in which a number of smaller enclosures may be located. Alternatively the settlement layout may comprise an enclosing wall with a small enclosure in the centre giving it the appearance of a 'fried egg' (Huffman, 2007).

7.1.3.2 Type V (1700 -

During the early Historic Period the Ntsuanatsatsi south of the Vaal developed into the Makgwareng facies. Though still associated with the Fokeng, this pottery is characterised by the predominance of comb-stamped triangles, finger pinching and rim notching.

The settlement pattern of this group is known as Type V which is named after Vegkop near Heilbron. Type V settlements comprise cattle enclosures surrounded by beehive houses and grain bins without the presence of an enclosing wall. This settlement type is also associated with the first appearance of corbelled huts (Huffman, 2007).

PHASE 1 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOR THE PROPOSED MAMELLO EXT. 1 AND MAMELLO EXT. 2 DEVELOPMENTS 22 PROFESSIONAL GRAVE SOLUTIONS (PTY) LTD

"II II ® II

1\ II /I Hut .-"// ® @ Sheep/goats

o 10 20m

Figure 4 Typical example of a Type N settlement layout (Huffman, 2007: 36).

Paved hut ~ Mjpfloor

tsn

• Stonewall ;;SS Base of stone wall 1-19 Corbelled huts L Lelapa of hut D Drain in wall B Blocked entrance o 10 20m P Primary enclosure - Figure 5 Typical of a Type V settlement layout (Huffman, 2007: 38).

PHASE 1 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOR THE PROPOSED MAMELLO EXT. 1 AND MAMELLO EXT. 2 DEVELOPMENTS 23 PROFESSIONAL GRAVE SOLUTIONS (PTY) LTD

An example of a Type V site from the wider landscape is the site Wildebeestfontein (5 km east of Kinross, Mpumalanga) that was excavated by M.O.V. Taylor. The site was located on a domed hill surrounded by flat plateaus. The work undertaken here has revealed a stone-walled site associated with the post-difaqane Iron Age. It comprised circular shallow depressions around which a line of small stones interposed by big stones were packed. The site contained archaeological deposits and ceramics (Taylor, 1979).

I "0 ~

I I ,...... , ..-I o 0 ~~ N ..-I (j\ f"-.,. .... (j\ oQOf 0 ..-I ~ 0 !...... 0 >. ro ...... I- c 'w o ..J-I o C 0° 0 '-' ..J-I til Q) <0'" Q) :E ..0 Q) "0 0 ~ ..J-I ro Q) ..J-I 'Vi > Q) ~-:E I .c 0° Ill:: ..J-I w I:i. '-' o 0 Ill:: c (jjJ a. ro 0 0.. 0 0 ..J-I C ::J Ill:: 0 « >- o ro til 0 ..J-Ic c9cb Q) (]]) cr: UJ E I Q) 0 0 « ::c; :?; ..J-I ('j) 0 U'J z c ~ z I- « « a:: lIC I- 0° Z ID ..... u ('j) z Z !... 0 0 :J in u 01 (j) ~ ..... w i.i: 0 Ill:: Z 0 I:i. 0 w I- ~~ o i 0 (j) 0

PHASE 1 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOR THE PROPOSED MAMELLO EXT, 1 AND MAMELLO EXT, 2 DEVELOPMENTS 24 PROFESSIONAL GRAVE SOLUTIONS (PTY) LTD

7.1.3.3 B (c. 18205 - 18305)

As mentioned above, the Khumalo Ndebele (more commonly known as the Matabele) of Mzilikazi settled in the central reaches of the Vaal River in the vicinity of Heidelberg after leaving present-day KwaZulu-Natal (www.mk.org.za). Their settlement in these regions took place between 1823 and 1827, In his book about the history of the RAU Island and surrounding area, d'Assonville (2002) mentions that when the first Voortrekkers arrived at the confluence of the Vaal and Wilge Rivers, the Matabele were known to reside in the Rooikoppe north of the river. This name was given to the hills and mountains north of the Vaal River and directly translated means 'red hills',

Two different settlement types have been associated with the Khumalo Ndebele. The first of these is known as Type B walling and was found at Nqabeni in the Babanango area of KwaZulu-Natal. These walls stood in the open without any military or defensive considerations and comprised an inner circle of linked cattle enclosures (Huffman, 2007), The second settlement type associated with the Khumalo Ndebele is known as Doornspruit, and comprises a layout which from the air has the appearance of a 'beaded necklace', This layout comprises long scal/oped walls (which mark the back of the residential area) which closely surround a complex core which in turn comprises a number of stone circles, The structures from the centre of the settlement can be interpreted as kitchen areas and enclosures for keeping small stock.

It is important to note that the Doornspruit settlement type is associated with the later settlements of the Khumalo Ndebele in areas such as the Magaliesberg Mountains and Marico and represent a settlement under the influence of the Sotho with whom the Khumalo Ndebele intermarried, The Type B settlement is associated with the early Khumalo Ndebele settlements and conforms more to the typical Zulu form of settlement. As the Khumalo Ndebele settled in the general vicinity of the study area shortly after leaving Kwazulu-Natal, one can assume that their settlements here would have conformed more to the Type B than the Doornspruit type of settlement. It must be stressed however that no published information could be found which indicates the presence of Type B sites in the general vicinity of the study area.

PHASE 1 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOR THE PROPOSED MAMELLO EXT. 1 AND MAMELLO EXT. 2 DEVELOPMENTS 25 PROFESSIONAL GRAVE SOLUTIONS (PTY) LTD

41V ~ o o SOm Unit 1

({) .::;;

KEY .. .- Walling (;.) @ Huts

• Stone mounds .a @ ~ ~ :~':~:~ Middens

f;) o

(}

()

0 •

• " 0

(:)

II {:} © I) 1~4\II

• til •

Midden 1 -

...... \#1,-:;.. I-ft\-t • .. Dump If;

~~j.r: • o " {2 @ ~ , o C~11 • .. 'II ~ -~"" ..... lilt eI {Ey::-)} Q) t "

Figure 7 Layout plan of a Type B settlement from Babanango, KwaZulu-Natal 2007:38).

PHASE 1 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOR THE PROPOSED MAMELLO EXT. 1 AND MAMELLO EXT. 2 DEVELOPMENTS 26 PROFESSIONAL GRAVE SOLUTIONS (PTY) LTD

7.1.4 Hermanus Lombard and the death of Captain Elliot

During the First Boer War (1880-1881) Hermanus Stephanus Lombard was a farmer who stayed on the farm Koppiesfontein (present number 478 IR),

Late in the afternoon on Tuesday, the 28th of December 1880 two British officers, Captains Elliott and R.H. Lambert, arrived at his front door. Captain Elliot of the 94th Regiment had been the only unwounded officer at the Battle of Bronkhorstspruit (20 December 1880) and was taken prisoner by the Boer forces under Kommandant Frans Joubert. Captain R.H. Lambert of the Royal Scots Fusiliers was taken prisoner on the 18th of December 1800 between Heidelberg and Pretoria. The officers were taken to Heidelberg where General Piet Joubert gave them the option of leaving the Transvaal on the condition that they do so as soon as possible and that they never return to take up arms against the Boer republic.

The two officers were accompanied to Pistorius' Pont (near present-day Vereeniging) which they reached early on the morning of 28 December 1880. They refused to cross over the river as they could not take their carriage with them on the small boat. Upon their refusal to cross over the river their guard returned to Heidelberg to report back to the authorities. The officers subsequently decided to travel along the northern bank of the Vaal River with the carriage and horses to find a suitable spot to cross over the river. Late on the afternoon of the same day they arrived at the farmstead of Hermanus Stephanus Lombard at Koppiesfontein. Lombard gave the officers a meal and also fixed their carriage for them. The officers requested directions to Standerton, and not knowing who they were Lombard willingly provided them with directions to that town. It was evident that the officers had decided to join up with their forces in Standerton.

On Wednesday, the 29th of December 1880 the officers were arrested by a Boer commando under the leadership of Kommandant Roelf Nieuwenhuizen and Veldkornet Adriaan van Niekerk, Accompanied by these Boer officers and seven armed men the two officers arrived back at Koppiesfontein on the afternoon of 29 December 1880. The Boers requested Lombard to take them to the closest drift crossing over the river so that the British officers could be forced to cross into the Free State, Lombard took the men to Lies Driftl, approximately three kilometres from his farmstead.

1 Lies Drift presently lies underneath the Vaal Dam. Although the details of its exact location are not available, it is believed to be situated between RAU Island and the point where the boundary between the farms Koppiesfontein and Stryfontein meets the waters of the Vaal Dam.

PHASE 1 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOR THE PROPOSED MAMELLO EXT. 1 AND MAMELLO EXT. 2 DEVELOPMENTS 27 PROFESSIONAL GRAVE SOLUTIONS (PTY) LTD

When the party arrived at the crossing the light was already fading and the British officers pleaded to be allowed to cross over the river the following day. Kommandant Nieuwenhuizen was adamant that they had to cross at once. When Hermanus Lombard saw that the British officers were not skilled in handling the carriage and horses he volunteered to take them across and swim back through the river. The commandant stated that Lombard did not have permission to enter the Free State and again indicated to the British officers that they had no choice but to cross over the river. They reluctantly moved the carriage forward but only travelled a few meters when it stopped and Captain Lambert shouted that he was going to turn the carriage around. Nieuwenhuizen gave the order to shoot. Lombard later stated that when the order was given to fire he simply pOinted his rifle into the air and fired a shot. Although Captain Lambert managed to jump into the water and escaped to the Free State side, Captain Elliot was killed.

After the shooting Hermanus Stephanus Lombard was peppered with questions from neighbours and acquaintances about the events of that fateful afternoon. With neither Kommandant Nieuwenhuizen nor the remainder of the commando present to verify his innocence, he began to fear that he was going to be charged with the murder of Captain Elliot. As a result he took his rifle and ammunition and fled to the farthest reaches of the Kalahari Desert in present-day Botswana.

Meanwhile, there was an international outcry when the world came to know about the shooting of Captain Elliot. The event also caused considerable embarrassment to the Transvaal Republic. As such the Transvaal Government promised the British authorities that the persons responsible for Captain Elliot's death would be brought to justice. The trial commenced on the 18th of July 1881. The problem the court immediately faced was that most of the men which formed part of the group who fired on the British officers had fled the country. Only Kommandant Nieuwenhuizen and one P.]. Deysel could be located and brought to the court. With most of the witnesses called to testify not actually present at the murder itself the testimony relied heavily on Captain Lambert's evidence. Hollard, acting for the defence, was able to prove that Lambert's testimony was not always true. As a result it came as no surprise when the two accused were acquitted.

Lombard spent a large part of his life in present-day Botswana where he was a hunter and trader. He only returned to the Vaal River after the establishment of the Union of South Africa 1910). Still believing that he will be seen as a murderer, he vowed that he would never be taken alive. He was constantly on the move between Heidelberg and Frankfort in his carriage and never again led a normal life as he lived in constant fear of being caught. He died at the age of 94 in 1931 near a drift over the Vaal River in the

PHASE 1 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOR THE PROPOSED MAMELLO EXT. 1 AND MAMELLO EXT. 2 DEVELOPMENTS 28 PROFESSIONAL GRAVE SOLUTIONS (PTY) LTD

vicinity of Villiers. Hermanus Stephanus Lombard lies buried in a cemetery on the farm Lepelkop 2 on the Free State side of the Vaal Dam (Van der Walt, 2008).

Interestingly, the story of Hermanus Stephanus Lombard and the event of 29 December 1880 have become quite well known in that the Afrikaans author Eugene Marais wrote about it in his Sketse uit die lewe van mens en dier while the South African journalist and author Lawrence George Green wrote a section about Lombard in his book Thunder on the Blaauwberg. The shooting of Captain Elliot was also used by the English author Rider Haggard as the theme for his book Jess.

Figure 4 This photograph of Hermanus Stephanus Lombard was published in Lawrence Green's Thunder on the Blaauwberg (Green, 1966).

PHASE 1 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOR THE PROPOSED MAMELLO EXT. 1 AND MAMELLO EXT. 2 DEVELOPMENTS 29 PROFESSIONAL GRA VE SOLUnONS (PTY) L TO

7.1.5 Short Historic overview of Vaal Marina and Mamelo

7.1.5.1 Vaal Marina

On 16 September 1971 an application was made by Mr. Arnold Fredrich Aab on behalf of Ferco Investments (Pty) Ltd to obtain permission for the establishment of a town titled Vaal Marina on the Remaining Portion of the farm Koppiesfontein 478 IR and Portion 6 (a Portion of Portion 1) of the farm Boschkop 482 IR. The aim of the township establishment was to meet the increasing demand for recreational and holiday facilities in South Africa at the time.

The proposed township development contained a total of 763 stands which were comprised of:

41} 717 special residential stands

lUI 9 special stands • 6 general residential stands

III 1 business stand .. 30 green open spaces (GMO, 2/508, 3)

Vaal Marina was officially approved as a township on the 29th of December 1976 (COB, 7182, PB4/2/2/4/43).

7.1.5.2 Mamelo

Although it is not exactly known when Mamelo was established, the 1976 2628CD topographical sheet depicts the start of the settlement. This suggests that it was established more or less at the same time as Vaal Marina. Mamelo is a Sesotho word meaning "attention" (www.sesotho.web.za).

PHASE 1 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOR THE PROPOSED MAMELLO EXT. 1 AND MAMELLO EXT. 2 DEVELOPMENTS 30 PROFESSIONAL GRAVE SOLUITONS (PTY) LTD

7.2 Survey findings

7.2.1 Site 1

7.2.1.1 Coordinates

(A) S 26.85883 (B) S 26.85863 E 28.23682 E 28.23717

7.2.1.2 General Site Description

Site 1 is located near the south-eastern boundary of the Mamello Extension 1 component of the study area and extends over an area roughly 60 m in length from waypoint A in the west to waypoint B in the east. It is located at the northern foot of the hill known as Bakenkop. The site comprises two circular stone enclosures both of which are covered in dense vegetation. The western structure is 5 m in diameter while the eastern structure is 8 m in diameter. No artifacts or archaeological deposits were observed. The site can be associated with the Late Iron Age and as such can be considered as older than 100 years.

7.2.1.3 Current Protection Status

Archaeological sites are protected by Section 35(4) of the National Heritage Resources Act and are defined as man-made features and artefacts older than 100 years. Archaeological sites may not be destroyed or disturbed without a relevant permit.

7.2.1.4 Evaluation of Site Significance

While the site appears to be older than 100 years, it consists of one poorly preserved structure without any visible archaeological deposit. Due to the limited on-site information, and especially due to the fact that no archaeological material was observed on its surface, it is presently impossible to associate it with any of the known site types from the wider vicinity (Le. Type N, Type V or Type B) (See Section 7.1.3). However, as indicated in Section the site stiil has the potential of providing at least some information with which its function and cultural association can be better understood.

The site is of Medium nrncance and is classified as Grade GP.B.

In terms of the criteria contained in the National Heritage Resources Act (25 of 1999), the site's significance grading was based on the following relevant elements:

PHASE 1 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOR THE PROPOSED MAMELLO EXT. 1 AND MAMELLO EXT. 2 DEVELOPMENTS 31 PROFESSIONAL GRA VE SOLUTIONS (PIT) L TO

Q) its importance in the community, or pattern of South Africa's history;

iii its potential to yield information that will contribute to an understanding of South Africa's natural or cultural heritage; • its strong or special association with a particular community or cultural group for social, cultural or spiritual reasons;

1.2.1.5 Impact of Proposed Development on Site

The western end of the site (Site 1a) is located on the edge of the development footprint whereas its eastern end (Site 1b) is located 18m outside of it. However, significant enough secondary impact is expected on the site to warrant further mitigation.

Impact Impact Significance Heritage Significance Certainty Duration Mitigation Negative High Grade GP.B Definite Long term B

7.2.1.6 Mitigation

The following mitigation measures are proposed:

• Measured drawing of a site layout plan

III Photographic recording • Permit application to SAHRA for auger sampling/shovel testing and excavation

Q) Once the permit is issued, auger or shovel testing must be undertaken across the site to establish whether any subterranean archaeological material/deposits exist

Depending on the results of the auger/shovel testing, the mitigation will proceed along one of two alternatives:

III If no evidence for any subterranean archaeological material/deposits can be found, a report (containing the drawings, photographs, descriptions etc.) must be submitted to SAHRA with a permit application for destruction of the site

lI!I However, if evidence for subterranean archaeological material or deposits is found, archaeological excavations must be undertaken. After the completion of the excavation and analysis, a report (containing the drawings, photographic recordings and descriptions) must be submitted to SAHRA with a permit application to have the site destroyed.

PHASE 1 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOR THE PROPOSED MAMELLO EXT. 1 AND MAMELLO EXT. 2 DEVELOPMENTS 32 PROFESSIONAL

Plate 6 General view of Site 1. The western structure is visible on the left and the eastern structure visible on the right.

Plate 7 Section of walling from the eastern structure at Site 1.

PHASE 1 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOR THE PROPOSED MAMELLO EXT. 1 AND MAMELLO EXT. 2 DEVELOPMENTS 33 PROFESSIONAL GRAVE SOLUTIONS (PTY) LTO

7.2.2 Site 2

7.2.2.1 Coordinates

S 26.85946 E 28.23565

7.2.2.2 General Site Description

Site 2 is located near the southern boundary of the Mamello Extension 1 component of the study area. It is located at the northern foot of the hill known as Bakenkop. The site consists of a single oval-shaped stone enclosure approximately 11 m by 6 m in extent. No artifacts or archaeological deposits were observed. Although no cultural material or deposits exist to substantiate this suggestion, the site appears to be a single Late Iron Age stone enclosure. As such it can be considered as older than 100 years.

7.2.2.3 Current Protection Status

7.2.2.4 Evaluation of Site Significance

While the site appears to be older than 100 years, it consists of one poorly preserved structure without any visible archaeological deposit. Due to the limited on-site information, and especially due to the fact that no archaeological material was observed on its surface, it is presently impossible to associate it with any of the known site types from the wider vicinity (i.e. Type N, Type V or Type B) (See Section 7.1.3). However, as indicated in Section 9, the site still has the potential of providing at least some information with which its function and cultural association can be better understood.

The site is of Medium Significance and is classified as Grade GP.B.

In terms of the criteria contained in the National Heritage Resources Act (25 of 1999), the site's significance grading was based on the following relevant elements:

PHASE 1 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOR THE PROPOSED MAMELLO EXT. 1 AND MAMELLO EXT. 2 DEVELOPMENTS 34 PROFESSIONAL GRAVE SOLUTIONS (PTY) LTD

~ its importance in the community, or pattern of South Africa's history;

liI its potential to yield information that will contribute to an understanding of South Africa's natural or cultural heritage;

Iii its strong or special association with a particular community or cultural group for social, cultural or spiritual reasons;

7.2.2.5 Impact of Proposed Development on Site

The site is located 26m south and outside of the proposed development footprint. However, significant enough secondary impact is expected on the site to warrant further mitigation,

Impact Impact Significance Heritage Significance Certainty Duration Mitigation Negative High Grade GP,B Probable Long term B

7.2.2.6 Mitigation

The following mitigation measures are proposed:

e Measured drawing of a site layout plan • Photographic recording • Permit application to SAHRA for auger sampling/shovel testing and excavation • Once the permit is issued, auger or shovel testing must be undertaken across the site to establish whether any subterranean archaeological material/deposits exist

Depending on the results of the auger/shovel testing, the mitigation will proceed along one of two alternatives:

Iii If no evidence for any subterranean archaeological material/deposits can be found, a report (containing the drawings, photographs, descriptions etc.) must be submitted to SAHRA with a permit application for destruction of the site

PHASE 1 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOR THE PROPOSED MAMELLO EXT. 1 AND MAMELLO EXT. 2 DEVELOPMENTS 35 PROFESSIONAL GRAVE SOLUTIONS (PTY) LTD

Plate 8 General view of Site 2.

Plate 9 The western section of the structure can be seen. The preservation of the structure's wall is best on this side.

PI-IASE 1 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOR THE PROPOSED MAMELLO EXT. 1 AND MAMELLO EXT. 2 DEVELOPMENTS 36 PROFESSIONAL GRAVE SOLUTIONS (PTY) LTD

7m2.3 Site 3

7.2.3.1 Coordinates

S 26.85952 E 28.22719

7.2.3.2 General Site Description

Site 3 is located near the north-eastern corner of the Mamello Extension 2 component of the study area. It is situated directly north of a low rocky outcrop. The site consists of a single circular stone enclosure approximately 5m in diameter. The wall is comprised essentially of a single row of large boulders. No artifacts or archaeological deposits were observed. Although no cultural material or deposits exist to substantiate this suggestion, the site appears to be a single late Iron Age stone enclosure. As such it can be considered as older than 100 years.

7.2.3.3 Current Protection Status

7.2.3.4 Evaluation of Site Significance

While the site appears to be older than 100 years, it consists of one poorly preserved structure without any visible archaeological deposit. Due to the limited on-site information, and especially due to the fact that no archaeological material was observed on its surface, it is presently impossible to associate it with any of the known site types from the wider vicinity (i.e. Type N, Type V or Type B) (See Section 7.1.3). However! as indicated in Section 9, the site still has the potential of providing at least some information with which its function and cultural association can be better understood.

The site is of Medium ll"lliif'ii"~II"II"Q and is classified as Grade GP. B.

In terms of the criteria contained in the National Heritage Resources Act of 1999), the site's significance grading was based on the following relevant elements:

PHASE 1 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOR THE PROPOSED MAMELLO EXT. 1 AND MAMELLO EXT. 2 DEVELOPMENTS 37 PROFESSIONAL GRAVE SOLUTIONS (PTY) LTD

@It its importance in the community, or pattern of South Africa's history;

@It its potential to yield information that will contribute to an understanding of South Africa's natural or cultural heritage; .. its strong or special association with a particular community or cultural group for social, cultural or spiritual reasons;

7.2.3.5 Impact of Proposed Development on Site

The site is located within the proposed development area.

Impact Impact Significance Heritage Significance Certainty Duration Mitigation Negative High Grade GP.B Definite Long term B

7.2.3.6 Mitigation

The following mitigation measures are proposed:

@ Measured drawing of a site layout plan

@ Photographic recording

@ Permit application to SAHRA for auger sampling/shovel testing and excavation

GI Once the permit is issued, auger or shovel testing must be undertaken across the site to establish whether any subterranean archaeological material/deposits exist

Depending on the results of the auger/shovel testing, the mitigation will proceed along one of two alternatives:

@ If no evidence for any subterranean archaeological material/deposits can be found, a report (containing the drawings, photographs, descriptions etc.) must be submitted to SAHRA with a permit application for destruction of the site

e However, if evidence for subterranean archaeological material or deposits is found, archaeological excavations must be undertaken. After the completion of the excavation and analysis, a report (containing the drawings, photographic recordings and descriptions) must be submitted to SAHRA with a permit application to have the site destroyed.

PHASE 1 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOR THE PROPOSED MAMELLO EXT. 1 AND MAMELLO EXT. 2 DEVELOPMENTS 38 PROFESSIONAL GRAVE SOLUTIONS (PTY) LTD

Plate 10 General view of Site 3.

Plate 11 General view of Site 3 with the low rocky outcrop visible in the back.

PHASE 1 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOR THE PROPOSED MAMELLO EXT. 1 AND MAMELLO EXT. 2 DEVELOPMENTS 39 PROFESSIONAL GRAVE SOLUTIONS (PTY) LTD

7.2.4 Site 4

7.2.4.1 Coordinates

S 26.86023 E 28.22207

7.2.4.2 General Site Description

Site 4 is located near the western boundary of the Mamello Extension 2 component of the study area and comprises a single stone enclosure located directly north of a low rocky outcrop. The structure is Sm in diameter. A cross-section of the wall of the structure shows a double row of bigger stones (one row on the outside and one on the inside of the wall) with some sections of better preserved walling containing smaller stones in between the double row of bigger stones. No artifacts or archaeological deposits were observed. The site can be associated with the Late Iron Age and as such can be considered as older than 100 years.

7.2.4.3 Current Protection Status

7.2.4.4 Evaluation of Site Significance

While the site appears to be older than 100 years, it consists of one poorly preserved structure without any visible archaeological deposit. Due to the limited on-site

information l and especially due to the fact that no archaeological material was observed on its surface, it is presently impossible to associate it with any of the known site types from the wider vicinity (i.e. Type N, Type V or Type B) (See Section 7.1.3). However, as indicated in Section 9, the site still has the potential of providing at least some information with which its function and cultural association can be better understood.

The site is of Medium Significance and is classified as Grade GP.B.

In terms of the criteria contained in the National Heritage Resources Act (25 of 1999), the site's significance grading was based on the following relevant elements:

PHASE 1 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOR THE PROPOSED MAMELLO EXT. 1 AND MAMELLO EXT. 2 DEVELOPMENTS 40 PROFESSIONAL GRAVE SOLUTIONS (PTY) LTD

iii its importance in the community, or pattern of South Africa's history;

ID its potential to yield information that will contribute to an understanding of South Africa's natural or cultural heritage;

III its strong or special association with a particular community or cultural group for social, cultural or spiritual reasons;

7.2.4.5 Impact of Proposed Development on Site

The site is located within the proposed development area.

Impact Impact Significance Heritage Significance Certainty Duration Mitigation Negative High Grade GP.B Definite Long term B

7.2.4.6 Mitigation

The following mitigation measures are proposed:

ID Measured drawing of a site layout plan

CD Photographic recording • Permit application to SAHRA for auger sampling/shovel testing and excavation • Once the permit is issued, auger or shovel testing must be undertaken across the site to establish whether any subterranean archaeological material/deposits exist

Depending on the results of the auger/shovel testing, the mitigation will proceed along one of two alternatives:

OIl If no evidence for any subterranean archaeological material/deposits can be found, a report (containing the drawings, photographs, descriptions etc.) must be submitted to SAHRA with a permit application for destruction of the site • However, if evidence for subterranean archaeological material or deposits is found, archaeological excavations must be undertaken. After the completion of the excavation and analysis, a report (containing the drawings, photographic recordings and descriptions) must be submitted to SAHRA with a permit application to have the site destroyed.

PHASE 1 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOR THE PROPOSED MAMELLO EXT. 1 AND MAMELLO EXT. 2 DEVELOPMENTS 41 PROFESSIONAL GRAVE SOLUTIONS (PTY) LTD

Plate 12 General view of the northernmost structure from Site 4.

Plate 13 Section of walling from the northernmost structure at Site 4.

PHASE 1 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOR THE PROPOSED MAMELLO EXT. 1 AND MAMELLO EXT. 2 DEVELOPMENTS 42 PROFESSIONAL GRAVE SOLUTIONS (PTY) LTD

7.2..5 Site 5

7.2.5.1 Coordinates

(A) S 26.86117 (B) S 26.86154 E 28.22228 E 28.22239

7.2..5.2 General Site Description

Site 4 is located near the western boundary of the Mamello Extension 2 component of the study area and extends over an area roughly 50 m in length from waypoint A in the north to waypoint B in the south. The site comprises two circular stone enclosures each directly associated with low rocky outcrops. Both structures are 6m in diameter. A cross-section of the walls from both structures shows a double row of bigger stones (one row on the outside and one on the inside of the wall) with some sections of better preserved walling containing smaller stones in-between the double row of bigger stones. No artifacts or archaeological deposits were observed. The site can be associated with the Late Iron Age and as such can be considered as older than 100 years.

7.2.5.3 Current Protection Status

7.2.5.4 Evaluation of Site Significance

While the site appears to be older than 100 years, it consists of two poorly preserved structures without any visible archaeological deposit. Due to the limited on-site information, and especially due to the fact that no archaeological material was observed on its surface, it is presently impossible to associate it with any of the known site types from the wider vicinity (Le. Type N, Type V or Type B) (See Section 7.1.3). However, as indicated in Section 9, the site still has the potential of providing at least some information with which its function and cultural association can be better understood.

The site is of Medium and is classified as Grade GP.B.

PHASE 1 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOR THE PROPOSED MAMELLO EXT. 1 AND MAMELLO EXT. 2 DEVELOPMENTS 43 PROFESSIONAL GRAVE SOLUTIONS (PTY) LTD

In terms of the criteria contained in the National Heritage Resources Act (25 of 1999), the site's significance grading was based on the following relevant elements:

• its importance in the community, or pattern of South Africa's history;

e its potential to yield information that will contribute to an understanding of South Africa's natural or cultural heritage;

e its strong or special association with a particular community or cultural group for social, cultural or spiritual reasons;

7.2.5.5 Impact of Proposed Development on Site

The site is located within the proposed development area.

Impact Impact Significance Heritage Significance Certainty Duration Mitigation Negative High Grade GP.B Definite Long term B

7.2.5.6 Mitigation

The following mitigation measures are proposed:

• Measured drawing of a site layout plan • Photographic recording • Permit application to SAHRA for auger sampling/shovel testing and excavation • Once the permit is issued, auger or shovel testing must be undertaken across the site to establish whether any subterranean archaeological material/deposits exist

Depending on the results of the auger/shovel testing, the mitigation will proceed along one of two alternatives:

• If no evidence for any subterranean archaeological material/deposits can be found, a report (containing the drawings, photographs, descriptions etc.) must be submitted to SAHRA with a permit application for destruction of the site • However, if evidence for subterranean archaeological material or deposits is found, archaeological excavations must be undertaken. After the completion of

the excavation and analysis j a report (containing the drawings, photographic recordings and descriptions) must be submitted to SAHRA with a permit application to have the site destroyed.

PHASE 1 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOR THE PROPOSED MAMELLO EXT. 1 AND MAMELLO EXT. 2 DEVELOPMENTS 44 PROFESSIONAL GRAVE SOLUTIONS (PTY) LTD

Plate 14 General view of the southernmost structure from Site 5.

Plate 15 Section of walling from the southernmost structure at Site 5.

PHASE 1 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOR THE PROPOSED MAMELLO EXT. 1 AND MAMELLO EXT. 2 DEVELOPMENTS 45 PROFESSIONAL GRAVE SOLUTIONS (PTY) LTD

8. HERITAGE REQUIREMENTS IN TERMS OF SECTION 38 (3) OF THE NATIONAL HERITAGE RESOURCES ACT NOT DEALT WITH IN THE PREVIOUS SECTION.

8.1 "The identification and of all resources in the area affected"

This requirement was suitably addressed under Section 7. Also see Annexure B for the Site Distribution Map.

8.2 "A(a)n evaluation of the impact of the development on heritage resources relative to the sustainable social and economic benefits to be derived from the developmentj"

The following socio-economic benefits are expected from the proposed development:

o Provision of houses to the community members and families. • Improvement of service delivery in the surrounding residential area.

o Uplifting the current living standards of the community in Mame"o. • Provision of economic growth to the community by improving their access to basic social needs.

Ell Fulfilling the demand of housing infrastructure in the area. • Creation of both permanent and temporary jobs for the local community during the construction phase of the project.

When a comparison is drawn between the impacts of the proposed development on the heritage fabric of the area and the socio-economic benefits expected from the project, it is evident that the socio-economic benefits outweigh the mitigated impact of the proposed development on the sites located during the study.

8.3 "T(t)he results of consultation with communities affected the proposed development and other interested oarties reaardina the of the development on heritage resources;"

A public participation process is still undertaken. No issues with regards to heritage have been raised so far. Should such issues be raised in future, the SAHRA will be informed.

Informal communication took place with individuals met during the survey. No information was obtained from these discussions.

PHASE 1 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOR THE PROPOSED MAMELLO EXT. 1 AND MAMELLO EXT. 2 DEVELOPMENTS 46 PROFESSIONAL GRAVE SOLUTIONS (PTY) LTO

9. DISCUSSION ON THE LATE IRON AGE SITES fROM WITHIN THE STUDY AREA

Five sites were located within the study area. All these sites comprise either one or two 2 2 circular stone enclosures of which the sizes ranged between 25m and 66m , The sites on the western half of the study area are all directly associated with low rocky outcrops, while those from the eastern half are near the foot of the rock-covered slope of the hill known as Bakenkop. The selection of site position must have been determined by proximity to a source of building material.

No definite entrances could be observed in the walls of the structures, though this may be due to the poor level of preservation of the walling from the five sites. Although no archaeological deposits (middens) or material could be observed on any of the sites it is possible that the vegetation cover found across the study area may have hidden this from view or alternatively that subterranean material or deposits may exist.

While it is known is that the general vicinity of the study area is associated with Late Iron Age settlements identified through their settlement layouts as Type N (for Ntsuanatsatsi) and Type V (for Makgwareng) (Maggs, 1975), it is evident that the sites found within the study area does not conform to these much more complex settlement layouts. Similarly, while the available information suggest that the Khumalo-Ndebele of Mzilikazi may have resided in the general vicinity of the study area during the 1820s and 1830s, the typical settlement layout associated with them (known as Type B for Babanango) also does not have any clear association with the sites from within the study area.

The only reference to a site similar to the ones found within the study area which could be located in the published literature, was one located by J. Dreyer (1999) on the farm Nox 938, approximately 34 kilometres east of the town of Warden in the Free State Province. This site is located about 150 kilometres south-east of the present study area. Dreyer (1999:53) describes it as "".a single circular stone-walled structure of about 4m diameter... " and indicates that no midden or other archaeological materials were observed on the surface with which its function could have been established.

It is evident that further work needs to be undertaken on the five sites from the study area before they are allowed to be destroyed. While it is true that no middens or archaeological material were observed on the surface of these sites, it is possible for such material to still be found. Because of the lack of visible archaeological materials on the surface of the site, mitigation measures should start off with assessing the subterranean

PHASE 1 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOR THE PROPOSED MAMELLO EXT. 1 AND MAMELLO EXT. 2 DEVELOPMENTS 47 PROFESSIONAL GRAVE SOLUTIONS (PTY) LTD

characteristics of all five sites by way of shovel tests or hand-held auger drilling. Should any material or deposits be found, archaeological test excavations can follow.

All mitigation measures which entail a disturbance or destruction of some kind such as shovel tests, auger drilling and excavation require a permit from the South African Heritage Resources Agency (SAHRA). At the completion of the mitigation measures a destruction permit will also be required from SAHRA before the sites may be destroyed.

10. CONCLUSIONS AND GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS

Professional Grave Solutions was appointed by Enkanyini Projects to undertake a Phase 1 Heritage Impact Assessment for the proposed establishment of the Mamello Extension 1 (Portion of the remainder of the farm Vaalview 486 IR) and Mamello Extension 2 (Portion 400 of the farm Koppiesfontein 478 IR) developments to the north of Vaal Marina, Gauteng Province. The proponent is the Sedibeng District Municipality.

It is the opinion of the author of this report that on the condition that all the recommendations made in this report are adhered to, the development may be allowed to continue.

PHASE 1 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOR THE PROPOSED MAMELLO EXT. 1 AND MAMELLO EXT. 2 DEVELOPMENTS 48 PROFESSIONAL GRAVE SOLUTIONS (PTY) LTD

BIBLIOGRAPHY

National Archives Documents

COB, 7182, PB4/2/2/4/43

National Archives Maps

2/179

Published References

Bergh, J.S. 1999. Geskiedenisatlas van Suid-Afrika: die Vier Noordelike Provinsies. Van Schaik, Pretoria. d'Assonville, V.E. 2002. Op die Bodem van die Vaaldam. Marnix, Weltevredenpark.

Dreyer, J. 1999. Tlokwa History: Report on an Archaeological Survey of Stone-Walled Sites in the North-Eastern Free State. South African Archaeological Bulletin, 8: 46-56.

Green, L.G. 1966. Thunder on the Blaauwberg. Howard Timmins, Cape Town.

Huffman, T.N. 2007. Handbook to the Iron Age. University of KwaZulu-Natal Press, Scottsville.

Maggsr T.M. 1975. Iron Age Patterns and Sotho History on the Southern High veld. World Archaeology, vol. 7 no. 3: 318-332.

Taylor, M.O.V. 1979. Wildebeestfontein: A Late Iron Age site in Southeast Transvaal. In N.J. van der Merwe & T.N. Huffman (eds.), Iron Age Studies in Southern Africa (South African Archaeological Society Goodwin Series 3). Cape Town: South African Archaeological Society, pp. 120-129.

Union of South Africa. 1960. Official Guide: Transvaal. R. Beerman Publishers, Cape Town.

PHASE 1 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOR THE PROPOSED MAMELLO EXT. 1 AND MAMELLO EXT. 2 DEVELOPMENTS 49 PROFESSIONAL GRAVE SOLUTIONS (PlY) LTD

Unpublished References

Van der Walt, ]. 2008. Heritage Scoping Report for the Proposed New Residential Estate on Portion 3 of the farm Lepelkop 2 and on the farm Lombardsville 957, Oranjeville District, Free State Province.

Internet References

www.dwaf.gov.za www.mk.org.za www.sesotho.web.za

PHASE 1 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOR THE PROPOSED MAMELLO EXT. 1 AND MAMELLO EXT. 2 DEVELOPMENTS 50 :z:I> :z m c::>< m~ l> I C m n :z l> CI.i """im en c :r: en 0 1-1 :e 1-1 """'Im :z en G) I * Site 1a ",'1I~e lb

» 2: 2: m c:>< ;AI m m LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK

South Africa has a number of legislative measures in place aimed at protecting its heritage resources. Of these the most important is the National Heritage Resources Act 25 of 1999,

1. National Heritage Resources Act 25 of 1999

The promulgation of the National Heritage Resources Act 25 of 1999 brings the conservation and management of heritage resources in South Africa on par with international trends and standards.

Section 38 (3) of the act provides an outline of ideally what should be included in a heritage report. The act states:

"(3) The responsible heritage resources authority must specify the information to be provided in a report required in terms of subsection (2) (a): Provided that the following must be included:

(a) The identification and mapping of all heritage resources in the area affected; (b) an assessment of the significance of such resources in terms of the heritage assessment criteria set out in section 6(2) or prescribed under section 7; (c) an assessment of the impact of the development on such heritage resources; (d) an evaluation of the impact of the development on heritage resources relative to the sustainable social and economic benefits to be derived from the development; (e) the results of consultation with communities affected by the proposed development and other interested parties regarding the impact of the development on heritage resources; (f) if heritage resources will be adversely affected by the proposed development, the consideration of alternatives; and (g) plans for mitigation of any adverse effects during and after the completion of the proposed development. "

Replacing the old National Monuments Act 28 of 1969, the Heritage Resources Act offers general protection for a number of heritage related features and objects (see below).

Structures are defined by the Heritage Resources Act as " ... any building, works, device or other facility made by people and which is fixed to land/" and includes any fixtures, fittings and equipment associated with it.'/" In section 34 of the Act the general protection for structures is stipulated. It is important to note that only structures older than 60 years are protected. Section 34(1) of the National Heritage Resources Act reads as follows: "No person may alter or demolish any structure or part of a structure which is older than 60 years without a permit issued by the relevant provincial

heritage resources authority. fI

The second general protection offered by the Heritage Resources Act which is of relevance for this project, is the protection of archaeological sites and objects (as well as paleontological sites and meteorites). Section 35(4) of the National Heritage Resources Act states that:

"No person may, without a permit issued by the responsible heritage resources authority- (a) destroy, damage, excavate, alter, deface or otherwise disturb any archaeological or palaeontological site or any meteorite; (b) destroy, damage, excavate, remove from its original position, collect or own any archaeological or palaeontological material or object or any meteorite; (c) trade in, sell for private gain, export or attempt to export from the Republic any category of archaeological or palaeontological material or object, or any meteorite; or (d) bring onto or use at an archaeological or palaeontological site any excavation equipment or any equipment which assist in the detection or recovery of metals or archaeological and palaeontological material or objects, or use such equipment for the recovery of meteorites. "

In order to understand exactly what is protected, it is important to look at the definition of the concept "archaeological" set out in section 2(ii) of the Heritage Act:

"ra) material remains resulting from human activity which are in a state of disuse and are in or on land and which are older than 100 years, including artefacts, human and hominid remains and artificial features and structures; (b) rock art, being any form of painting, engraving or other graphic representation on a fixed rock surface or loose rock or stone, which was executed by human agency and which is older than 100 years, including any area within 10m of such representation; (c) wrecks, being any vessel or aircraft, or any part thereof, which was wrecked in South Africa, whether on land, in the internal waters, the territorial waters or in the maritime culture zone of the Republic, as defined respectively in sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Maritime Zones Act, 1994 (Act No. 15 of 1994), and any cargo, debris or artefacts found or associated therewith, which is older than 60 years or which SAHRA considers to be worthy of conservation; and (d) features, structures and artefacts associated with military history which are older than 75 years and the sites on which they are found; ... " The third important general protection offered by the Heritage Resources Act that is of importance here, is the protection of graves and burial grounds. Section 36(3) of the National Heritage Resources Act states that:

"No person may, without a permit issued by SAHRA or a provincial heritage resources authority -

a) destroy, damage, alter, exhume or remove from its original position or otherwise disturb the grave of a victim of conflict, or any burial ground or part thereof which contains such graves; b) destroy, damage, alter, exhume, remove from its original position or otherwise disturb any grave or burial ground older than 60 years which is situated outside a formal cemetery administered by a local authority; or c) bring onto or use at a burial ground or grave referred to in paragraph (a) or (b) any excavation equipment, or any equipment which assists in the detection or recovery of metals. "

Of importance as well is section 36 (5), which relates to the conditions under which permits will be issued by the relevant heritage authority should any action described in section 36 (3), be taken. Section 36(5) reads that:

"SAHRA or a provincial heritage resources authority may not issue a permit for any activity under subsecion (3)(b) unless it is satisfied that the applicant has, in accordance with regulations made by the responsible heritage resources authority -

a) made a concerted effort to contact and consult communities and individuals who by tradition have an interest in such grave or burial ground; and b) reached agreements with such communities and individuals regarding the future of such grave or burial ground. "

This section of the Act refers to graves and burial grounds which are older than 60 years and situated outside of a formal cemetery administered by a local authority.

Section 36 (6) of the act refers to instances where previously unknown graves are uncovered during development and other activities.

"Subject to the provision of any other law, any person who in the course of development or any other activity discovers the location of a grave, the existence of which was previously unknown, must immediately cease such activity and report the discovery to the responsible heritage resources authority which must, in co-operation with the South African Police Service and in accordance with regulations of the responsible heritage resources authority-

a) carry out an investigation for the purpose of obtaining information on whether or not such a grave is protected in terms of the Act or is of significance to any community; and b) if such a grave is protected or is of significance, assist any person who or community which is a direct descendant to make arrangement for the exhumation and re interment of the contents of such grave or, in the absence of such person or community, make any arrangements as it deems fit."

2. Other legislation

In terms of graves, other legislative measures which may be of relevance include the Removal of Graves and Dead Bodies Ordinance (Ordinance no. 7 of 1925), the Human Tissues Act 65 of 1983, the Ordinance on Excavations (Ordinance no. 12 of 1980) as well as any local and regional provisions, laws and by-laws that may be in place.