Phase 1B1 Thornhill Housing Development, Port Alfred, Ndlambe Municipality, Eastern Cape Province

PHASE 1B1 THORNHILL HOUSING DEVELOPMENT, PORT ALFRED, NDLAMBE MUNICIPALITY, EASTERN CAPE PROVINCE.

Phase 1 – Heritage Impact Assessment

Issue Date - 29 May 2018 Revision No. - 2.0 Project No. - 299HIA

PGS Heritage (Pty) Ltd PO Box 32542 Totiusdal 0134, T +27 12 332 5305 F: +27 86 675 8077 Reg No 2003/008940/07

Declaration of Independence

The report has been compiled by PGS Heritage (Pty) Ltd, an appointed Heritage Specialist for Nemai Consulting on behalf of the Thornhill Housing Development Project, in Port Alfred. The views stipulated in this report are purely objective and no other interests are displayed during the decision-making processes discussed in the Heritage Impact Assessment Process .

HERITAGE CONSULTANT - PGS Heritage

REPORT COMPILED BY - Ilan Smeyatsky

CONTACT PERSON - Ilan Smeyatsky Tel - +27 (0) 12 332 5305 Email - [email protected]

SIGNATURE - ______

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RECEIPT

CLIENT - Nemai Consulting

CONTACT PERSON - Samantha Gerber Tel - +27 (0) 11 781 1730 Fax - +27 (0) 11 781 1731 Email – [email protected]

SIGNATURE - ______

HIA – Thornhill Housing Development Project ii Date - 29 May 2018 Phase 1 Heritage Impact assessment: Phase 1B1 Thornhill Housing Development Document Title - Port Alfred, Ndlambe Municipality, Eastern Cape Province Control Name Signature Designation Author Ilan Archaeologist / PGS Smeyatsky Heritage

Reviewed PGS Wouter Archaeologist / PGS Fourie Heritage

Reviewed Samantha Nemai Consulting Gerber

HIA – Thornhill Housing Development Project iii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

PGS Heritage (Pty) Ltd (PGS) was appointed by Nemai Consulting to undertake a Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) that forms part of the Environmental Impact Assessment Report (EIA) for the proposed Phase 1B1 of the Thornhill Housing Development Project, Port Alfred, Ndlambe Municipality, Eastern Cape Province.

During the heritage study, no heritage related sites were identified. However, due to an update in the development layout, a 1 ha portion of one of the proposed layouts (Alternative Layout 1) now sits outside the purview of the study area that had been surveyed for this report.

The study has identified that the proposed development layout for Alternative Layout 1 will result in a MODERATE heritage impact risk. This rating is assigned as a direct result of the fact that a 1 ha portion of the proposed layout has not been surveyed due to project scope amendments. This rating takes into account the LOW heritage impact risk of the surveyed portion of project footprint and the likelihood of heritage finds in the non-surveyed portion.

The proposed development layout for Alternative Layout 2 will result in a LOW heritage impact risk as no surface heritage finds were uncovered and the likelihood of subterraneous heritage finds is relatively low.

While it is unlikely that anything of heritage value will be uncovered, it is our professional recommendation that if Alternative Layout 1 is preferred then additional fieldwork will be required to fill in that gap as we cannot guarantee the absence of heritage resources in that area. However, we can endorse the development of Alternative Layout 2 without any additional fieldwork as Alternative Layout 2 presents no impacts on heritage resources and therefore is rated as LOW. Therefore, Alternative Layout 2 is preferential as it would not require any additional fieldwork.

In terms of the palaeontological impact of the development, it is clear that the study area falls within a ‘MODERATE’ rated sensitivity zone as per the palaeontological sensitivity map accessed via the SAHRIS service and therefore required a palaeontological desktop study before development could continue (Figure 14). The results of which showed that no further palaeontological heritage studies, ground truthing and/or specialist mitigation are required pending the discovery of newly discovered fossils (Butler 2018). It is thus considered that the development of the proposed development is

HIA – Thornhill Housing Development Project iv deemed appropriate and feasible and will not lead to detrimental impacts on the palaeontological resources of the area (Butler 2018).

HIA – Thornhill Housing Development Project v The HIA report has been compiled taking into account the National Environmental Management Act (Act 107 of 1998) (NEMA) appendix 6 requirements for specialist reports as indicated in the table below.

NEMA REGS (2014) - APPENDIX 6 RELEVANT SECTION IN REPORT

Details of the specialist who prepared the report Page 2 of Report – Contact details and company The expertise of that person to compile a specialist report including a curriculum vitae Section 1.2 – refer to Appendix B A declaration that the person is independent in a form as may be specified by the competent authority Page 2 of the report An indication of the scope of, and the purpose for which, the report was prepared Section 1.1 The date and season of the site investigation and the relevance of the season to the outcome of the assessment Section 5 A description of the methodology adopted in preparing the report or carrying out the specialised process Section 3 The specific identified sensitivity of the site related to the activity and its associated structures and infrastructure Section 3.2, 4.1- 4.2 An identification of any areas to be avoided, including buffers Not applicable A map superimposing the activity including the associated structures and infrastructure on the environmental sensitivities of the site including areas to be avoided, including buffers; Section 2.1 A description of any assumptions made and any uncertainties or gaps in knowledge; Section 1.3 A description of the findings and potential implications of such findings on the impact of the proposed activity, including identified alternatives, on the environment Section 5

Any mitigation measures for inclusion in the EMPr Section 6 Any conditions for inclusion in the environmental authorisation Section 6 Any monitoring requirements for inclusion in the EMPr or environmental authorisation Section 6 A reasoned opinion as to whether the proposed activity or Section 6 portions thereof should be authorised and If the opinion is that the proposed activity or portions thereof should be authorised, any avoidance, management and mitigation measures that should be included in the EMPr, and where applicable, the closure plan A description of any consultation process that was undertaken Not applicable. A public consultation process was during the course of carrying out the study handled as part of the EIA and EMP process. Not applicable. To date no comments regarding A summary and copies if any comments that were received during heritage resources that require input from a any consultation process specialist have been raised.

Any other information requested by the competent authority. Not applicable.

HIA – Thornhill Housing Development Project vi

CONTENTS Page

1 INTRODUCTION ...... 10

1.1 SCOPE OF THE STUDY ...... 10

1.2 SPECIALIST QUALIFICATIONS ...... 10

1.3 ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITATIONS ...... 11

1.4 LEGISLATIVE CONTEXT ...... 11

1.5 TERMINOLOGY AND ABBREVIATIONS ...... 12 2 TECHNICAL DETAILS OF THE PROJECT ...... 17

2.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ...... 17

2.2 SITE DESCRIPTION ...... 22 3 ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY ...... 23

3.1 METHODOLOGY FOR ASSESSING HERITAGE SITE SIGNIFICANCE ...... 23 3.1.1 Site Significance ...... 24

3.2 METHODOLOGY FOR IMPACT ASSESSMENT ...... 25 3.2.1 Significance Assessment ...... 26 3.2.2 Spatial Scale ...... 27 3.2.3 Duration Scale ...... 28 3.2.4 Degree of Probability ...... 28 3.2.5 Degree of Certainty ...... 28 3.2.6 Quantitative Description of Impacts ...... 29 3.2.7 Cumulative Impacts ...... 30 4 ARCHIVAL AND DESKTOP RESEARCH FINDINGS ...... 30

4.1 ARCHIVAL FINDINGS ...... 30 4.1.1 Archival/historical maps ...... 31 4.1.2 Topographical Maps 3326DB (First Edition) ...... 31

4.2 ASPECTS OF THE AREA’S HISTORY ...... 31 4.2.1 Previous Heritage Studies in area ...... 31 4.2.2 Archaeological Background ...... 32 4.2.3 Earlier Stone Age ...... 33 4.2.4 Middle Stone Age ...... 33 4.2.5 Later Stone Age ...... 33 4.2.6 Early Iron Age ...... 34 4.2.7 Late Iron Age ...... 35 4.2.8 Historical Background ...... 35

HIA – Thornhill Housing Development Project vii 5 FIELD WORK FINDINGS ...... 36

5.1 HERITAGE FINDINGS ...... 37

5.2 PALAEONTOLOGY...... 38 OVERALL IMPACT EVALUATION ...... 40

6 40

6.1 STATUS QUO AND “NO GO” OPTION ...... 41 6.1.1 Status Quo ...... 41 6.1.2 “No go” Option ...... 41

6.2 CUMULATIVE IMPACT ...... 41 7 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 41

8 PREPARERS ...... 42

9 REFERENCES ...... 44

List of Appendices

A Project team CV’s

List of Figures

Figure 1: Human and Cultural Time line in Africa (Morris, 2008)...... 16 Figure 2: Locality Plan ...... 18 Figure 3: Original Proposed Development Layout plan (Bigen Africa 2017)...... 19 Figure 4: Proposed Alternative Layout Plan 1 for Phase 1B1, 20 April 2018 (Bigen Africa 2018)...... 20 Figure 5: Proposed Alternative Layout Plan 2 for Phase 1B1, 20 April 2018 (Bigen Africa 2018)...... 21 Figure 6: Grassy mounds formed after growing over old construction debris...... 22 Figure 7: Makeshift cattle fence dividing the site...... 22 Figure 8: General view of vegetation occurring at site...... 23 Figure 9: View of the northern portion of the site looking into Phase 1 of the development...... 23 Figure 10: Cable joint box...... 23 Figure 11: View of the northern portion of the site looking from Phase 1 of the development...... 23 Figure 12: 1964 Topographic Map showing no heritage features present within the study area...... 31 Figure 13: Map indicating track logs of the HIA conducted ...... 36 Figure 14: Palaeontological sensitivity map indication study area falls within MODERATE sensitivity zone...... 38 Figure 15 - Extract from 1: 250 000 geological sheet 3326 Grahamstown (Council for Geoscience, Pretoria) showing geology of the study area (white rectangle) in Port Alfred, Eastern Cape (Butler 2018)...... 39

HIA – Thornhill Housing Development Project viii List of Tables

Table 1: List of abbreviations...... 14 Table 2: Site significance classification standards as prescribed by SAHRA...... 25 Table 3: Quantitative rating and equivalent descriptors for the impact assessment criteria...... 26 Table 4: Description of the significance rating scale ...... 26 Table 5: Description of the significance rating scale ...... 27 Table 6: Description of the temporal rating scale ...... 28 Table 7: Description of the degree of probability of an impact occurring ...... 28 Table 8: Description of the degree of certainty rating scale ...... 29 Table 9: Example of Rating Scale ...... 29 Table 10: Impact Risk Classes ...... 30 Table 10: Impact evaluation table for Alternative Site 1 ...... 40 Table 11: Impact evaluation table for Alternative Site 2 ...... 40

HIA – Thornhill Housing Development Project ix 1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Scope of the Study

The aim of the study is to identify possible heritage sites and finds that may occur in the proposed development area and as a result help determine if the proposed layout is viable. The HIA aims to inform the EIA in the development of a comprehensive Environmental Management Programme (EMPr) to assist the developer in managing the discovered heritage resources in a responsible manner, in order to protect, preserve, and develop them within the framework provided by the National Heritage Resources Act (Act 25 of 1999) (NHRA).

1.2 Specialist Qualifications

This HIA was compiled by PGS Heritage (PGS). The staff at PGS has a combined experience of nearly 80 years in the heritage consulting industry. PGS and its staff have extensive experience in managing HIA processes and will only undertake heritage assessment work where they have the relevant expertise and experience to undertake that work competently.

Mr. Ilan Smeyatsky, author for this project, graduated with his Master’s degree (MSc) in Archaeology and is registered as a Professional Archaeologist with the Association of Southern African Professional Archaeologists (ASAPA).

Ms. Jessica Angel, field archaeologist for the project, holds a Master’s degree (MSc) and is registered with the Association of Southern African Professional Archaeologists (ASAPA) as a Professional Archaeologist.

Mr. Wouter Fourie, the Project Coordinator, is registered with the Association of Southern African Professional Archaeologists (ASAPA) as a Professional Archaeologist and is accredited as a Principal

HIA – Thornhill Housing Development Project 10 Investigator; he is further an Accredited Professional Heritage Practitioner with the Association of Professional Heritage Practitioners (APHP).

1.3 Assumptions and Limitations

Not detracting 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 possible heritage resources present within the development area. Various factors account for this, including the subterranean nature of some archaeological sites.

This caveat is especially pertinent in this particular case since the project layout plan was altered after the fieldwork was undertaken and this alteration caused a minimal portion of the new layout to fall out of the purview of the prescribed fieldwork area. As such, should any heritage features and/or objects not included in the present inventory be located or observed, a heritage specialist must be contacted immediately.

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 applies to graves and burial grounds as well. In the event that any graves or burial grounds are located during the development, the procedures and requirements pertaining to graves and burials will apply as set out below.

1.4 Legislative Context

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 -

i. National Environmental Management Act (NEMA); ii. National Heritage Resources Act (NHRA) Act 25 of 1999; and iii. Minerals and Petroleum Resources Development Act (MPRDA) Act 28 of 2002.

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

GNR 982 of 2014 (Government Gazette 38282) promulgated under the NEMA:

HIA – Thornhill Housing Development Project 11 • Basic Assessment Report (BAR) – Regulations 19 and 23 • Environmental Scoping Report (ESR) – Regulation 21 • Environmental Impacts Report (EIR) – Regulation 23 EMPr – Regulations 19 and 23 NHRA: • Protection of Heritage Resources – Sections 34 to 36; and • Heritage Resources Management – Section 38 MPRDA Regulations of 2014: • Environmental reports to be compiled for application of mining right – Regulation 48.

The NHRA stipulates that cultural heritage resources may not be disturbed without authorization from the relevant heritage authority. Section 34 (1) of the NHRA states that, “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…”. The NEMA (Act No 107 of 1998) states that an integrated EMP should, (23 -2 (b)) “…identify, predict and evaluate the actual and potential impact on the environment, socio-economic conditions and cultural heritage”. In accordance with legislative requirements and EIA rating criteria, the regulations of the South African Heritage Resources Agency (SAHRA) and the Association of Southern African Professional Archaeologists (ASAPA) have also been incorporated to ensure that a comprehensive legally compatible HIA report is compiled.

1.5 Terminology and Abbreviations

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; ii. 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; iii. 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

HIA – Thornhill Housing Development Project 12 cargo, debris or artefacts found or associated therewith, which is older than 60 years or which SAHRA considers to be worthy of conservation; iv. features, structures and artefacts associated with military history which are older than 75 years and the site on which they are found.

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 a change to the nature, appearance or physical nature of a place or influence its stability and future well-being, including - i. construction, alteration, demolition, removal or change in use of a place or a structure at a place; ii. carrying out any works on or over or under a place; iii. subdivision or consolidation of land comprising a place, including the structures or airspace of a place; iv. constructing or putting up for display signs or boards; v. any change to the natural or existing condition or topography of land; and vi. any removal or destruction of trees, or removal of vegetation or topsoil Earlier Stone Age

The archaeology of the Stone Age, between 400 000 and 2500 000 years ago. Fossil

Mineralised bones of animals, shellfish, plants and marine animals. A trace fossil is the track or footprint of a fossil animal that is preserved in stone or consolidated sediment. Heritage

That which is inherited and forms part of the National Estate (Historical places, objects, fossils as defined by the National Heritage Resources Act 25 of 1999). Heritage resources

This means any place or object of cultural significance.

HIA – Thornhill Housing Development Project 13 Holocene

The most recent geological time period which commenced 10 000 years ago.

Later Stone Age

The archaeology of the last 30 000 years, associated with fully modern people.

Late Iron Age (Early Farming Communities)

The archaeology of the last 1000 years up to the 1800s, associated with people who carried out iron working and farming activities such as herding and agriculture.

Middle Stone Age

The archaeology of the Stone Age between 30 000-300 000 years ago, associated with early modern humans.

Palaeontology

Any fossilised remains or fossil trace of animals or plants which lived in the geological past, other than fossil fuels or fossiliferous rock intended for industrial use, and any site which contains such fossilised remains or trace.

Table 1: List of abbreviations. ABBREVIATIONS DESCRIPTION

AIA Archaeological Impact Assessment ASAPA Association of Southern African Professional Archaeologists CRM Cultural Resource Management EIA Environmental Impact Assessment

ESA Earlier Stone Age GPS Global Positioning System HIA Heritage Impact Assessment LSA Later Stone Age LIA Late Iron Age

HIA – Thornhill Housing Development Project 14 MSA Middle Stone Age NEMA National Environmental Management Act NHRA National Heritage Resources Act SADC Southern African Development Community

SAHRA South African Heritage Resources Agency

Refer to Appendix A for further discussions on heritage management and legislative frameworks.

HIA – Thornhill Housing Development Project 15

Figure 1: Human and Cultural Time line in Africa (Morris, 2008).

HIA – Thornhill Housing Development Project 16 2 TECHNICAL DETAILS OF THE PROJECT

2.1 Project description

The proposal is to develop Phase 1B1 of an affordable housing project in Port Alfred, in the Eastern Cape (see Figure 2). The initial proposal involved the development of 251 ha of Portion 4 of the Farm Thornhills No. 388; however, the project was subsequently separated into phases and houses were constructed on only 438 stands (as part of Phase 1A). Originally, the layout size of the current proposed development (Phases 1B1) was approximately 48 ha (Figure 3), however the layout size was significantly reduced as of 12 March 2018.

As of 20 April 2018, the development footprint had been updated to include two alternative footprints. Alternative Layout 1 (Figure 4) and Alternative Layout 2 (Figure 5), slightly increases the footprint size to 19.96 ha and 19.99 ha respectively. Alternative Layout 2 layout still remains within the original 48 ha layout that was surveyed however, Alternative Layout 1 contains a 1 ha section that falls outside of the original study area (Figure 3). The proposals are at the initial stages of their development and include (but are not limited to) the following:

• The development of 524 stands (Alternative Layout 1) or 509 stands (Alternative Layout 2) for residential use of varying densities, with provision for business sites that will be developed in parallel with the residential erven, possibly by private enterprises.

HIA – Thornhill Housing Development Project 17

Figure 2: Locality Plan

HIA – Thornhill Housing Development Project 18

Figure 3: Original Proposed Development Layout plan (Bigen Africa 2017).

HIA – Thornhill Housing Development Project 19

Figure 4: Proposed Alternative Layout Plan 1 for Phase 1B1, 20 April 2018 (Bigen Africa 2018).

HIA – Thornhill Housing Development Project 20

Figure 5: Proposed Alternative Layout Plan 2 for Phase 1B1, 20 April 2018 (Bigen Africa 2018).

HIA – Thornhill Housing Development Project 21 2.2 Site Description

The proposed site (33°33.832’S, 26°54.024’E) occurs in Port Alfred, along the R67 main road, just East of the Nelson Mandela Township. The site is situated within an urban area which falls under the Ndlambe Local Municipality.

The site has not been particularly disturbed, except for a portion where construction debris dumping had occurred at some point in the past (Figure 6), the construction of a makeshift fence dividing the study area probably for cattle grazing purposes (Figure 7) and the occasional vagrant campsite or tent. The site contains predominantly grassland type vegetation with a few forested portions that made access fairly difficult in those particular places (Figure 8). Overall, the site was accessible by foot and site detection visibility was good. The only visible infrastructure on the site was a series of cable joint boxes (Figure 10) as well as a residence on the border of the site. Figure 9 and Figure 11 show general views from different parts of the study area.

Figure 6: Grassy mounds formed after growing Figure 7: Makeshift cattle fence dividing the site. over old construction debris.

HIA – Thornhill Housing Development Project 22

Figure 8: General view of vegetation occurring Figure 9: View of the northern portion of the site at site. looking into Phase 1 of the development.

Figure 10: Cable joint box. Figure 11: View of the northern portion of the site looking from Phase 1 of the development.

3 ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY The section below outlines the assessment methodologies utilised in the study.

3.1 Methodology for Assessing Heritage Site Significance

This HIA was compiled by PGS for the proposed Phase 1B1 of the Thornhill Housing Development Project, Port Alfred, Ndlambe Municipality, Eastern Cape Province. The applicable maps, tables and figures are included, as stipulated in the NHRA (Act No 25 of 1999) and NEMA (Act No 107 of 1998). The HIA process consisted of three steps;

Step I – Literature Review - The background information to the field survey relies greatly on the Heritage Background Research.

HIA – Thornhill Housing Development Project 23 Step II – Physical Survey - A physical survey was conducted predominantly by foot within the proposed areas by two qualified archaeologists, which aimed at locating and documenting sites falling within and adjacent to the proposed development footprint.

Step III – The final step involved the recording and documentation of relevant archaeological resources, the assessment of resources in terms of the HIA criteria and report writing, as well as mapping and constructive recommendations.

The significance of identified heritage sites are based on four main criteria - • Site integrity (i.e. primary vs. secondary context), • Amount of deposit, range of features (e.g., stonewalling, stone tools and enclosures), • Density of scatter (dispersed scatter) o Low - <10/50m2 o Medium - 10-50/50m2 o High - >50/50m2 • Uniqueness; and • Potential to answer present research questions.

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 - No-go or relocate development activity position; D - Preserve site, or extensive data collection and mapping of the site; and E - Preserve site.

Impacts on these sites by the development will be evaluated as follows -

3.1.1 Site Significance

Site significance classification standards prescribed by the SAHRA (2006) and approved by the ASAPA for the Southern African Development Community (SADC) region, were used for the purpose of this report (Table 2).

HIA – Thornhill Housing Development Project 24

Table 2: Site significance classification standards as prescribed by SAHRA.

FIELD RATING GRADE SIGNIFICANCE RECOMMENDED MITIGATION National Significance Grade 1 Conservation; National Site (NS) nomination Provincial Significance Grade 2 Conservation; Provincial Site (PS) 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 High / Medium Mitigation before destruction (GP.A) Significance Generally Protected B Medium Significance Recording before destruction (GP.B)

Generally Protected C Low Significance Destruction (GP.A)

3.2 Methodology for Impact Assessment

The impacts will be ranked according to the methodology described below. Where possible, mitigation measures will be provided to manage impacts. In order to ensure uniformity, a standard impact assessment methodology will be utilised so that a wide range of impacts can be compared with each other. The impact assessment methodology makes provision for the assessment of impacts against the following criteria:

• Significance; • Spatial scale; • Temporal scale; • Probability; and • Degree of certainty.

A combined quantitative and qualitative methodology was used to describe impacts for each of the aforementioned assessment criteria. A summary of each of the qualitative descriptors along with the equivalent quantitative rating scale for each of the aforementioned criteria is given in Table 3.

HIA – Thornhill Housing Development Project 25 Table 3: Quantitative rating and equivalent descriptors for the impact assessment criteria RATING SIGNIFICANCE EXTENT SCALE TEMPORAL SCALE 1 VERY LOW Proposed site Incidental 2 LOW Study area Short-term 3 MODERATE Local Medium-term 4 HIGH Regional / Provincial Long-term 5 VERY HIGH Global / National Permanent

A more detailed description of each of the assessment criteria is given in the following sections.

3.2.1 Significance Assessment

Significance rating (importance) of the associated impacts embraces the notion of extent and magnitude, but does not always clearly define these since their importance in the rating scale is very relative. For example, the magnitude (i.e. the size) of area affected by atmospheric pollution may be extremely large (1 000 km2) but the significance of this effect is dependent on the concentration or level of pollution. If the concentration is great, the significance of the impact would be HIGH or VERY HIGH, but if it is diluted it would be VERY LOW or LOW. Similarly, if 60 ha of a grassland type are destroyed the impact would be VERY HIGH if only 100 ha of that grassland type were known. The impact would be VERY LOW if the grassland type was common. A more detailed description of the impact significance rating scale is given in Table 4 below.

Table 4: Description of the significance rating scale RATING DESCRIPTION 5 Very high Of the highest order possible within the bounds of impacts which could occur. In the case of adverse impacts: there is no possible mitigation and/or remedial activity which could offset the impact. In the case of beneficial impacts, there is no real alternative to achieving this benefit. 4 High Impact is of substantial order within the bounds of impacts, which could occur. In the case of adverse impacts: mitigation and/or remedial activity is feasible but difficult, expensive, time-consuming or some combination of these. In the case of beneficial impacts, other means of achieving this benefit are feasible but they are more difficult, expensive, time-consuming or some combination of these. 3 Moderate Impact is real but not substantial in relation to other impacts, which might

HIA – Thornhill Housing Development Project 26 RATING DESCRIPTION take effect within the bounds of those which could occur. In the case of adverse impacts: mitigation and/or remedial activity are both feasible and fairly easily possible. In the case of beneficial impacts: other means of achieving this benefit are about equal in time, cost, effort, etc. 2 Low Impact is of a low order and therefore likely to have little real effect. In the case of adverse impacts: mitigation and/or remedial activity is either easily achieved or little will be required, or both. In the case of beneficial impacts, alternative means for achieving this benefit are likely to be easier, cheaper, more effective, less time consuming, or some combination of these. 1 Very low Impact is negligible within the bounds of impacts which could occur. In the case of adverse impacts, almost no mitigation and/or remedial activity are needed, and any minor steps which might be needed are easy, cheap, and simple. In the case of beneficial impacts, alternative means are almost all likely to be better, in one or a number of ways, than this means of achieving the benefit. Three additional categories must also be used where relevant. They are in addition to the category represented on the scale, and if used, will replace the scale. 0 No impact There is no impact at all - not even a very low impact on a party or system.

3.2.2 Spatial Scale

The spatial scale refers to the extent of the impact i.e. will the impact be felt at the local, regional, or global scale. The spatial assessment scale is described in more detail in Table 5.

Table 5: Description of the significance rating scale RATING DESCRIPTION 5 Global/National The maximum extent of any impact. 4 Regional/Provincial The spatial scale is moderate within the bounds of impacts possible, and will be felt at a regional scale (District Municipality to Provincial Level). 3 Local The impact will affect an area up to 10 km from the proposed site. 2 Study Site The impact will affect an area not exceeding the Eskom property. 1 Proposed site The impact will affect an area no bigger than the ash disposal site.

HIA – Thornhill Housing Development Project 27 3.2.3 Duration Scale

In order to accurately describe the impact it is necessary to understand the duration and persistence of an impact in the environment. The temporal scale is rated according to criteria set out in Table 6.

Table 6: Description of the temporal rating scale RATING DESCRIPTION 1 Incidental The impact will be limited to isolated incidences that are expected to occur very sporadically. 2 Short-term The environmental impact identified will operate for the duration of the construction phase or a period of less than 5 years, whichever is the greater. 3 Medium term The environmental impact identified will operate for the duration of life of facility. 4 Long term The environmental impact identified will operate beyond the life of operation. 5 Permanent The environmental impact will be permanent.

3.2.4 Degree of Probability

Probability or likelihood of an impact occurring will be described as shown in Table 7 below.

Table 7: Description of the degree of probability of an impact occurring RATING DESCRIPTION 1 Practically impossible 2 Unlikely 3 Could happen 4 Very Likely 5 It’s going to happen / has occurred

3.2.5 Degree of Certainty

As with all studies it is not possible to be 100% certain of all facts, and for this reason a standard “degree of certainty” scale is used as discussed in Table 8. The level of detail for specialist studies is

HIA – Thornhill Housing Development Project 28 determined according to the degree of certainty required for decision-making. The impacts are discussed in terms of affected parties or environmental components.

Table 8: Description of the degree of certainty rating scale RATING DESCRIPTION Definite More than 90% sure of a particular fact. Probable Between 70 and 90% sure of a particular fact, or of the likelihood of that impact occurring. Possible Between 40 and 70% sure of a particular fact or of the likelihood of an impact occurring. Unsure Less than 40% sure of a particular fact or the likelihood of an impact occurring. Can’t know The consultant believes an assessment is not possible even with additional research. Don’t know The consultant cannot, or is unwilling, to make an assessment given available information.

3.2.6 Quantitative Description of Impacts

To allow for impacts to be described in a quantitative manner in addition to the qualitative description given above, a rating scale of between 1 and 5 was used for each of the assessment criteria. Thus the total value of the impact is described as the function of significance, spatial and temporal scale as described below:

Impact Risk = (SIGNIFICANCE + Spatial + Temporal) X Probability 3 5

An example of how this rating scale is applied is shown in Table 9.

Table 9: Example of Rating Scale Impact Significance Spatial Scale Temporal Scale Probability Rating LOW Local Medium-term Could Happen Impact to air 2 3 3 3 1.6

Note: The significance, spatial and temporal scales are added to give a total of 8, that is divided by 3 to give a criteria rating of 2,67. The probability (3) is divided by 5 to give a probability rating of 0,6. The criteria rating of 2,67 is then multiplied by the probability rating (0,6) to give the final rating of 1,6.

HIA – Thornhill Housing Development Project 29

The impact risk is classified according to five classes as described in the Table 10 below.

Table 10: Impact Risk Classes RATING IMPACT CLASS DESCRIPTION

0.1 – 1.0 1 Very Low

1.1 – 2.0 2 Low

2.1 – 3.0 3 Moderate

3.1 – 4.0 4 High

4.1 – 5.0 5 Very High

Therefore, with reference to the example used for air quality above, an impact rating of 1.6 will fall in the Impact Class 2, which will be considered to be a low impact.

3.2.7 Cumulative Impacts

It is a requirement that the impact assessments take cognisance of cumulative impacts. In fulfilment of this requirement the impact assessment will take cognisance of any existing impact sustained by the operations, any mitigation measures already in place, any additional impact to environment through continued and proposed future activities, and the residual impact after mitigation measures.

It is important to note that cumulative impacts at the national or provincial level will not be considered in this assessment, as the total quantification of external companies on resources is not possible at the project level due to the lack of information and research documenting the effects of existing activities. Such cumulative impacts that may occur across industry boundaries can also only be effectively addressed at Provincial and National Government levels.

4 ARCHIVAL AND DESKTOP RESEARCH FINDINGS

4.1 Archival findings

The high level archival research focused on available information sources that were used to compile a general background history of the study area and surrounds.

HIA – Thornhill Housing Development Project 30 4.1.1 Archival/historical maps

Historical topographic maps were available for utilisation in the study: • Topographical map 3326DB – First edition 1964 (Figure 12). The aerial photography on which the map was based dates to 1955 and its survey work was undertaken in 1964. It was drawn in 1965 by the Trigonometrical Survey Office.

4.1.2 Topographical Maps 3326DB (First Edition)

The map was utilised to identify structures that could possibly be older than 60 years and thus protected under Section 34 and 35 of the NHRA. No structures are depicted in the study area.

Figure 12: 1964 Topographic Map showing no heritage features present within the study area.

4.2 Aspects of the area’s history

4.2.1 Previous Heritage Studies in area

A search on the South African Heritage Resources Information System (SAHRIS) has identified Heritage Impact Assessments conducted in and around the study area:

HIA – Thornhill Housing Development Project 31 • Binneman, J. 2006. Phase 1 Archaeological Heritage Impact Assessment for the Proposed Mixed Use Development on the Farm Rosehill Erf No. 20 Port Alfred, Ndlambe District Municipality, Eastern Cape. An Archaeological Impact Assessment that located no heritage features. • Van Ryneveld, K. 2007. Thornhill Phase 1 Ministerial Housing Project, Port Alfred, Eastern Cape, South Africa. - An Archaeological Impact Assessment that located no heritage features. • Van Ryneveld, K. 2007. Thornhill Phase 2 Ministerial Housing Project, Port Alfred, Eastern Cape, South Africa. - An Archaeological Impact Assessment that located no heritage features. • Van Ryneveld, K. 2012. Refurbishment, Operation and Maintenance of the Port Alfred East Bank Dune Well Water Supply Scheme, Port Alfred, Ndlambe Municipality, Eastern Cape, South Africa. – An Archaeological Impact Assessment that located a single colonial period cemetery near the development site.

4.2.2 Archaeological Background

Southern Africa is known to be rich in archaeological sites that tell the story of humans and their predecessors in the region going back 2.5 million years. The pre-colonial period is divided broadly into the Stone Age and the Iron Age. The Stone Age refers to the earliest people of South Africa who relied mainly on stone for their tools and were hunter-gatherers. This period is divided into the Earlier, Middle and Later Stone Age: • Earlier Stone Age: The period from ± 2.5 million yrs. - ± 250 000 yrs. ago. Acheulean stone tools are dominant. • Middle Stone Age: Various stone tool industries in SA dating from ± 250 000 yrs. – 40 000 yrs. before present. • Later Stone Age: The period from ± 40 000 yrs. before present to the period of contact with either Iron Age farmers or European colonists. (Delius & Hay, 2009; Morris, 2008)

The Iron Age as a whole represents the spread of Bantu speaking people whose way of life was pastoral-agricultural and includes both the Pre-Historic and Historic periods. As indicated by the name, this period is distinguished by the knowledge of extraction and use of various metals, mainly iron. Similarly to the Stone Age, it can also be divided into three periods: • The Early Iron Age: Most of the first millennium AD.

HIA – Thornhill Housing Development Project 32 • The Middle Iron Age: 10th to 13th centuries AD • The Late Iron Age: 14th century to colonial period. (Delius & Hay, 2009; Morris, 2008)

4.2.3 Earlier Stone Age

The Earlier Stone Age is the first and oldest phase identified in South Africa’s Stone Age timeline and comprises two technological phases. The earliest of these is known as Oldowan and is associated with crude flakes and hammer stones. It dates to approximately 2 million years ago. The second technological phase is the Acheulian and comprises more refined and better made stone artefacts such as the cleaver and bifacial hand axe. The Acheulian dates back to approximately 1.5 million years ago. In areas where there are beach and/or river gravels, these large stone tools may be found (Binneman 2006).

No Earlier Stone Age sites are known from the study area or direct vicinity. This is more than likely due to lack of research focus in this area rather than an absence of such sites

4.2.4 Middle Stone Age

The Middle Stone Age is the second oldest phase identified in South Africa’s Stone Age timeline. This phase is associated with flakes, points and blades manufactured by means of the so-called ‘prepared core’ technique. Fossil bone may in rare cases be associated with MSA occurrences along the coast (Binneman 2006).

No Middle Stone Age sites are known from the study area or direct vicinity. This is more than likely due to lack of research focus in this area rather than an absence of such sites. However certain sites such as Klasies River Cave (Wurz 2002), lies roughly 300km away from the study area within the Eastern Cape and is one of the most well-known representations of Middle Stone Age materials in the entire country.

4.2.5 Later Stone Age

The Later Stone Age is the youngest phase of the Stone Age timeline, characterised by rock paintings and micro-lithic tools. In the Eastern Cape, along the coastline, a particular brand of hunter-gatherer subsistence strategy existed in the form marine foraging, as evidenced by the amount of shell

HIA – Thornhill Housing Development Project 33 middens that are found. In general, these shell middens date from the past 6 000 years (called the Later Stone Age) and consist of two types (Binneman 2006). Shell middens are relatively large piles of marine shell and they are in generally referred to as ‘strandloper middens’ (Binneman 2006). They are found mainly opposite rocky coasts, but also occur along sandy beaches if there was a large enough source of white mussel (Binneman 2006). These concentrations of shell represent the campsites of San hunter-gatherers (dating from as old as 6 000 years ago), Khoi pastoralists and KhoiSan peoples (dating from the past 1800 years in the region) who lived along the immediate coast and collected marine foods on a daily basis (Binneman 2006).

No Later Stone Age sites are known from the study area or direct vicinity. This is more than likely due to lack of research focus in this area rather than an absence of such sites. However, there are multiple Later Stone Age sites scattered throughout the Eastern Cape, such as Kablejous River Mouth (Binneman 2004/2005), Melkhoutboom Cave (Deacon 1976) and Highlands Rock Shelter (Deacon 1976).

4.2.6 Early Iron Age

Early farming communities moved into the Eastern Cape area around AD 500. These early farmers used metal tools and pottery and lived in fairly permanent agricultural villages. A few pot shards associated with Early Iron Age mixed farmers were also found near Port Alfred (Binneman 2006). This suggests that this part of the coast was also sporadically visited by these people between 1 600 and 1 000 years ago, or conversely, could have just indicated that trade was occurring between the more inland EIA farmers and the coastal Khoekhoen herders (Binneman 2006, Feely & Bell-Cross 2011).

Between 500 to 1200 years ago, the movement of Bantu speaking people from the Great Lakes area of Central Africa reached the Eastern Cape Region of South Africa (Huffman, 2007). There is some evidence of Xhosa speaking people that settled on the southern coast of Southern Africa, almost as far as East London, however EIA settlement distribution tailed off significantly in the south westerly direction of East London (Feely & Bell-Cross 2011). This may have been due to geographic factors or social factors, namely the vast presence of Khoekhoen herders in the area (Feely & Bell-Cross 2011).

HIA – Thornhill Housing Development Project 34 4.2.7 Late Iron Age

Dating, the beginning of the Late Iron Age in this region is obscure. At the time of Maggs’ article there were few sites known that were intermediate in age between the Early Iron Age sites and Late Iron Age sites. However, according to dates from a handful of Late Iron Age sites in the Eastern Cape, these late Iron Age Farmers settled in this region as early as 1100 A.D. (Maggs 1980).

4.2.8 Historical Background

At the age of 27, William Cock led a party of 91 British settlers who landed from the Weymouth at Algoa Bay on 30 May 1820 (Gledhill 1960). For the next 20 or so years, he put considerable efforts into building a prosperous trading economy along the southern coast of South Africa, from Grahamstown to the Cape Colonies (Gledhill 1960). He was so successful that the then Governor of Grahamstown, Sir Henry Young, had invited him to become a Legislative Council member and with the accompanying powers afforded to him through such a position, he pushed for the opening of the Kowie River for trade (Gledhill 1960). Thus began work on the transformation of the Kowie River mouth into the proposed harbour, Port Frances, or Port Alfred as it is known today (Gledhill 1960).

High seas, floods and a lack of engineering experience wrecked Cock’s first two attempts at cutting a new exit for the river through the sand hills on the west bank (Gledhill 1960). In February 1841, the course of the river was changed and the new mouth on the west opened, giving a navigable stretch of about three- quarters of a mile inland from the sea (Gledhill 1960). Despite a long continued and at times even malicious campaign to develop the harbours of East London and Port Elizabeth in preference to the Kowie, William Cock established the Kowie Navigation Company to trade with the Cape and Mauritius (Gledhill 1960).

In spite of these personal misfortunes, it seemed that Cock’s faith in Port Frances, later to be known as Port Alfred, was justified (Gledhill 1960). For over 40 years, Port Alfred was possibly the busiest harbour on the south-east coast. With expert advice, the harbour works were strengthened and extended, workshops erected and lighters built (Gledhill 1960).

The advent of steam ships with a deeper draft, the developing of new harbour facilities on the Buffalo River at East London and the opening of a rail link from Grahamstown to Port Elizabeth in 1881, led to a decline in the town’s importance as a commercial harbour and it finally fell into disuse in the 1890’s (http://greenfountainfarm.co.za/blog/). In 1989 harbour life was revitalized with the

HIA – Thornhill Housing Development Project 35 opening of the small craft harbour on the newly built residential Royal Alfred Marina, where pleasure craft of all kinds, including seagoing yachts, find safe anchorage (http://greenfountainfarm.co.za/blog/).

5 FIELD WORK FINDINGS

Due to the nature of cultural remains, with the majority of artefacts occurring below the surface, a controlled-exclusive surface survey was conducted on foot over a period of one day by two archaeologists from PGS. The fieldwork was conducted on the 21st February 2018. The track logs (in orange) for the survey are indicated on the map below (Figure 13).

Figure 13: Map indicating track logs of the HIA conducted

HIA – Thornhill Housing Development Project 36 5.1 Heritage Findings

During the fieldwork component, the proposed Phase 1B1 of the Thornhill Housing Development Project was assessed. No heritage resources were located. As of 12 March 2018, the proposed layout for Phases 1B1 of the Thornhill Housing Development Project has been amended. The layout had been reduced to 19.8 hectares and the number of erven has been reduced to 569.

As of 20 April 2018, the proposed layout had been amended again to include 2 alternative layouts, being represented by the areas highlighted in blue and green (Figure 13). Alternative Layout 1 and Alternative Layout 2 have footprint sizes 19.96 ha and 19.99 ha, while each containing 524 and 509 erven respectively. As can be seen, the Alternative Layout 2 falls entirely within the original layout (outlined in red). However, a 1 ha portion on the north-eastern side of Alternative Layout 1 lies outside of the original layout. Therefore, this particular portion has not been surveyed. While it is unlikely that anything of heritage value will be uncovered, we cannot guarantee that there is nothing of heritage value in that area.

Other HIAs from this particular area, including our own have not uncovered any heritage remains. It should be noted however that even though the likelihood of the occurrence of any heritage remains in the proximate surrounds is minimal, any development that may take place on these un-surveyed portions should be done with extreme caution. Should any heritage remains be uncovered during the development process, construction must halt immediately, and a professional archaeologist must be contacted with immediate effect.

HIA – Thornhill Housing Development Project 37 5.2 Palaeontology

Figure 14: Palaeontological sensitivity map indication study area falls within MODERATE sensitivity zone. COLOUR SENSITIVITY REQUIRED ACTION RED VERY HIGH field assessment and protocol for finds is required ORANGE/YELLOW HIGH desktop study is required and based on the outcome of the desktop study, a field assessment is likely GREEN MODERATE desktop study is required BLUE LOW no palaeontological studies are required however a protocol for finds is required GREY INSIGNIFICANT/ZERO no palaeontological studies are required WHITE/CLEAR UNKNOWN these areas will require a minimum of a desktop study. As more information comes to light, SAHRA will continue to populate the map.

According to the palaeontological sensitivity map accessed via the SAHRIS service, it is clear that the study area falls within a ‘MODERATE’ rated sensitivity zone and therefore a Palaeontological Desktop Study was commissioned (Figure 14).

HIA – Thornhill Housing Development Project 38

Figure 15 - Extract from 1: 250 000 geological sheet 3326 Grahamstown (Council for Geoscience, Pretoria) showing geology of the study area (white rectangle) in Port Alfred, Eastern Cape (Butler 2018).

The results of the Palaeontological Desktop Study indicates that the proposed development footprint is primarily underlain by the Weltevrede Formation of the Witteberg Group (Cape Supergroup)(Figure 15) (Butler 2018). According to the SAHRIS PalaeoMap (Figure 15), the Palaeontological Sensitivity of the Weltevrede Formation is moderate (Butler 2018). It is consequently recommended that no further palaeontological heritage studies, ground truthing and/or specialist mitigation are required pending the discovery of newly discovered fossils (Butler 2018). It is thus considered that the development of the proposed development is deemed

HIA – Thornhill Housing Development Project 39 appropriate and feasible and will not lead to detrimental impacts on the palaeontological resources of the area (Butler 2018). In the event that fossil remains are discovered during any phase of construction, either on the surface or unearthed by fresh excavations, the ECO in charge of these developments ought to be alerted immediately (Butler 2018). These discoveries should be protected, preferably in situ, and the ECO must report to SAHRA so that proper mitigation (recording, collection) can be carried out by a professional paleontologist (Butler 2018).

Preceding any collection of fossil material, the specialist would need to apply for a collection permit from SAHRA (Butler 2018). Fossil material must be curated in an approved collection (museum or university collection) and all fieldwork and reports should meet the minimum standards for palaeontological impact studies created by SAHRA (Butler 2018).

6 Overall Impact Evaluation

Table 11: Impact evaluation table for Alternative Site 1 Impact Spatial Temporal Significance Probability Rating Impact Direction Scale Scale Could Impact on unidentified MODERATE Local Permanent heritage resources Negative happen - 3 3 5 3 2.20

Table 12: Impact evaluation table for Alternative Site 2 Impact Spatial Temporal Significance Probability Rating Impact Direction Scale Scale Impact on heritage NO IMPACT Local Permanent Unlikely resources Negative - 0 3 5 2 1.07

The study has identified that the proposed project layout for Alternative Layout 1 will result in a MODERATE heritage impact risk. This rating is assigned as a direct result of the fact that a 1 ha portion of the proposed layout has not been surveyed due to project scope amendments. This rating takes into account in the LOW heritage impact risk of the surveyed project footprint and the likelihood of heritage finds in the non-surveyed portion.

HIA – Thornhill Housing Development Project 40 The proposed project layout for Alternative Layout 2 will result in a LOW heritage impact risk as no surface heritage finds were uncovered and the likelihood of subterraneous heritage finds is relatively low.

6.1 Status Quo and “No Go” option

6.1.1 Status Quo

During the heritage study no heritage resources were identified. Adhering to the above-mentioned mitigation measures, no fatal flaws were identified from a cultural, historical and archaeological perspective.

6.1.2 “No go” Option

During the heritage study, no heritage resources were located, therefor the “no go” option does not apply.

6.2 Cumulative Impact

The baseline impacts are considered to be low for heritage resources, and additional project impacts (if no mitigation measures are implement) will increase the significance of the existing baseline impacts, the cumulative unmitigated impact will probably be of a Low negative significance. The impact is going to happen and will be of short term in nature. The impact risk class is thus Very Low.

7 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

PGS was appointed by Nemai Consulting to undertake an HIA that forms part of the EIA for the proposed Phase 1B1 of the Thornhill Housing Development Project, Port Alfred, Ndlambe Municipality, Eastern Cape Province.

HIA – Thornhill Housing Development Project 41 The study has identified that the proposed development layout for Alternative Layout 1 will result in a MODERATE heritage impact risk. This rating is assigned as a direct result of the fact that a 1 ha portion of the proposed layout has not been surveyed due to project scope amendments. This rating takes into account the LOW heritage impact risk of the surveyed portion of project footprint and the likelihood of heritage finds in the non-surveyed portion.

The same recommendation can be made for chance findings during the development process in that if any chance finding of either heritage or human remains occurs, construction must halt immediately, and a professional archaeologist must be contacted with immediate effect.

8 PREPARERS

Ilan Smeyatsky – Archaeologist Jessica Angel - Archaeologist

HIA – Thornhill Housing Development Project 42 Wouter Fourie – Senior Heritage Specialist

HIA – Thornhill Housing Development Project 43 9 REFERENCES

Author Unknown. 2011. Port Alfred: A Brief History. Accessed: 2018/02/27 - http://greenfountainfarm.co.za/blog/port-alfred-a-brief-history Binneman, J. 2004/2005. Archaeological research along the south eastern Cape coast part 1: open- air shell middens. Southern African Field Archaeology 13 & 14: 49-77. Binneman, J. 2006. Phase 1 Archaeological Heritage Impact Assessment for the Proposed Mixed Use Development on the Farm Rosehill Erf No. 20 Port Alfred, Ndlambe District Municipality, Eastern Cape. Butler, E. 2018. Palaeontological Desktop Assessment for the Proposed Thornhill Housing Project, Ndlambe Municipality, Port Alfred, Eastern Cape Province. De Jong, R. 2010. Draft Heritage Impact Assessment Report: Installation of Dark Fibre Ducting Infrastructure along N2 between Somerset West and East London; and as an alternative, along the R72 between the N2 and East London via Port Alfred, Western and Eastern Cape Provinces. Deacon, H.J. 1976. Where Hunters Gathered: a Study of Holocene Stone Age People in the Eastern Cape. South African Archaeological Society, Monograph Series 1. Delius, P. N. S. M., & Hay, M. A. 2009. Mpumalanga: an illustrated history. Highveld. Feely, J. M., & Bell-Cross, S. M. 2011. The distribution of early iron age settlement in the Eastern Cape: some historical and ecological implications. The South African Archaeological Bulletin, 105-112. Gledhill, E.E.A. 1960. William Cock – A Pioneer of Commerce. Africana, Notes and News. Vol. 14, No 3, pp 83 – 87. Huffman, T.N. 2007. Handbook of the Iron Age. University of KZN Press. Maggs, T. 1980. The Iron Age sequence south of the Vaal and Pongola Rivers: some historical implications. The Journal of African History, 21(1), 1-15. Maggs, T. 1995. Neglected rock art: the rock engravings of agriculturist communities in South Africa. The South African Archaeological Bulletin, 132-142. Morris, D. 2008. Archaeological and Heritage Impact Assessment on Remainder of Carter Block 458, near Lime Acres, Northern Cape. McGregor Museum. Van Ryneveld, K. 2007. Thornhill Phase 1 Ministerial Housing Project, Port Alfred, Eastern Cape, South Africa. Van Ryneveld, K. 2007. Thornhill Phase 2 Ministerial Housing Project, Port Alfred, Eastern Cape, South Africa.

HIA – Thornhill Housing Development Project 44 Van Ryneveld, K. 2011. The Albany/Kowie Power Line (& Bathurst Substation) Grahamstown – Port Alfred, Eastern Cape, South Africa. Van Ryneveld, K. 2012. Refurbishment, Operation and Maintenance of the Port Alfred East Bank Dune Well Water Supply Scheme, Port Alfred, Ndlambe Municipality, Eastern Cape, South Africa. Wurz, S. 2002. Variability in the middle stone age lithic sequence, 115,000–60,000 years ago at Klasies river, South Africa. Journal of Archaeological Science, 29(9), 1001-1015.

HIA – Thornhill Housing Development Project 45

Appendix A CURRICULUM VITAE OF TEAM

WOUTER FOURIE Professional Heritage Specialist and Professional Archaeologist and Director PGS Heritage

Summary of Experience Specialised expertise in Archaeological Mitigation and excavations, Cultural Resource Management and Heritage Impact Assessment Management, Archaeology, Anthropology, Applicable survey methods, Fieldwork and project management, Geographic Information Systems, including inter alia -

Involvement in various grave relocation projects (some of which relocated up to 1000 graves) and grave “rescue” excavations in the various provinces of South Africa Involvement with various Heritage Impact Assessments, within South Africa, including - • Archaeological Walkdowns for various projects • Phase 2 Heritage Impact Assessments and EMPs for various projects • Heritage Impact Assessments for various projects • Iron Age Mitigation Work for various projects, including archaeological excavations and monitoring • Involvement with various Heritage Impact Assessments, outside South Africa, including - • Archaeological Studies in Democratic Republic of Congo • Heritage Impact Assessments in Mozambique, Botswana and DRC • Grave Relocation project in DRC

Key Qualifications BA [Hons] (Cum laude) - Archaeology and Geography - 1997 BA - Archaeology, Geography and Anthropology - 1996 Professional Archaeologist - Association of Southern African Professional Archaeologists (ASAPA) - Professional Member Accredited Professional Heritage Specialist – Association of Professional Heritage Practitioners (APHP) CRM Accreditation (ASAPA) - • Principal Investigator - Grave Relocations • Field Director – Iron Age • Field Supervisor – Colonial Period and Stone Age • Accredited with Amafa KZN

HIA – Thornhill Housing Development Project 1

Key Work Experience 2003- current - Director – Professional Grave Solutions (Pty) Ltd 2007 – 2008 - Project Manager – Matakoma-ARM, Heritage Contracts Unit, University of the Witwatersrand 2005-2007 - Director – Matakoma Heritage Consultants (Pty) Ltd 2000-2004 - CEO– Matakoma Consultants 1998-2000 - Environmental Coordinator – Randfontein Estates Limited. Randfontein, Gauteng 1997-1998 - Environmental Officer – Department of Minerals and Energy. Johannesburg, Gauteng

Worked on various heritage projects in the SADC region including, Botswana, Mozambique and the Democratic Republic of the Congo

HIA – Thornhill Housing Development Project 2

JESSICA ANGEL Professional Archaeologist

Personal Details  Name: Jessica  Surname: Angel  Identity Number: 8312250052082  Date of Birth: 25-12-1983  Citizenship: South African  Gender: Female  Marital Status: Single  Languages Spoken: English and Afrikaans

Education History

• 2002: Matriculated from Northcliff High School with the following subjects: English, Afrikaans, Mathematics, Science, Biology and Art. • 2005: Completed BA at University of the Witwatersrand with Geography and Archaeology Majors. • 2006: Completed BSc Hons (Geography) at the University of the Witwatersrand with the following subjects: Environmental Management, Advanced Geographic Information Systems (GIS), Paleogeomorphology and Globalisation and Agro Food Restructuring. • 2009 – 2013: M.Sc Archaeology and Geography, with thesis title: Mpumalanga Late Iron Age: Incorporating Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and Archaeological Data to Better Understand Spatial and Temporal Distribution of Past Societies. (Graduated March 2014).

Employment History Part time employment as a student: • 2011: Research Assistant: GIS work for Prof Karim Sadr. Duties include: Google Earth survey work and digitising. • 2012-2013: Basic internship at PGS. Duties include gaining familiarity with gathering relevant background data, field surveys, exhumations and report writing. • 2013: Heritage work at NGT. Background research, report writing and ground surveys. • 2015 – PRESENT: Archaeologist – PGS Heritage

HIA – Thornhill Housing Development Project 3

Experience in the field of archaeology:

September 2012: First Phase Heritage Assessment. Belfast. Marko Hutten and Jennifer Kitto August 2012: First Phase Heritage Assessment. Delareyville. Wouter Fourie. Stone Age survey August 2012: Heritage Assessment. MP. Chris van Vuuren and Jennifer Kitto. Ndebele initiation site. February 2013: Map survey. PTA East. Polka Birkholtz. Mapping Iron Age site. February 2013: Grave Exhumation. Chlorkop. Marko Hutten March 2013: First Phase Heritage Assessment. MP. Jennifer Kitto. July 2013: Grave Exhumation. Mafikeng. Prof Maryna Steyn and Coen Nienaber. November 2013: First Phase Heritage Assessment. Port Nolloth. Luke Verbant, Ursula Verbant. January 2015 – Present: Heritage Impact assessments, background research and mitigation for PGS Heritage

HIA – Thornhill Housing Development Project 4

ILAN SMEYATSKY Professional Archaeologist

Personal Details  Name: Ilan  Surname: Smeyatsky  Identity Number: 9109275072080  Date of Birth: 27-09-1991  Citizenship: South African  Gender: Male  Marital Status: Single  Languages Spoken: English

Education History

2010-2013: BSc Bachelors Degree

University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa ▪ Archaeology ▪ Psychology ▪ Statistics ▪ Research Design and Analysis ▪ 67% Pass (2:1 Qualification)

2014: BSc (Hons) in Archaeology

AWARDS: ▪ Received the 2014 Center of Excellence in Palaeoscience award - Bursary to the value

of ZAR 30000 ≈ $2500

▪ Received the Post-Graduate Merit Award in 2015 for academic merit for my Honours

academic results - Bursary to the value of ZAR 25000 ≈ $1800

University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa ▪ Archaeology ▪ Excavation techniques ▪ Theory HIA – Thornhill Housing Development Project 5

▪ 69% Pass (2:1 Qualification) ▪ Distinction received for thesis entitled: “Stylistic variation in Later Stone Age tanged arrowheads: a pilot study using geometric morphometrics”

2015-2017: MSc by Research (Archaeology)

University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa ▪ Archaeology ▪ Statistical analysis ▪ GIS (Geographic Information Systems) ▪ Thesis entitled: “Discerning and explaining shape variations in Later Stone Age tanged arrowheads, South Africa”

Aug 2016 – Jan 2017: Semester of Archaeology Masters

AWARD: Received the 2016 AESOP+ full Masters scholarship to study at Uppsala University,

Uppsala, Sweden – Scholarship to the value of ZAR 160,000 ≈ $11,000

Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden ▪ Archaeological theory ▪ GIS (Geographic Information Systems) ▪ Invitational research

Employment History Part time employment as a student:

• 2009-2013: Part-Time Electrician Apprentice: Assisting in home electrical repair jobs.

• 2014-2015: Lab Research Assistant: Analysing and classifying lithic artefacts, Data capturing, Mentoring trainee research assistants.

Experience in the field of archaeology:

• 2013-2015: Fieldwork/Excavator - Responsibilities: Feature detection, excavation, sieving, sorting, analysis, soil sampling, field documentation, ‘dumpy’ operation , Total Station operation, DGPS operation, rock art tracing and photography, engraving tracing and photography.

HIA – Thornhill Housing Development Project 6

o South African excavations: ▪ Early Stone Age excavation at Maropeng World Heritage Site in Gauteng (1 Week – August 2015) ▪ Pig cadaver exhumation as part of forensic experiment near Pretoria, Gauteng (1 Week – December 2014) - Praised for having the determination of returning for each subsequent excavation day as it was performed on a purely volunteer basis and the work conditions were particularly strenuous - Dr. Coen Nienaber ▪ Iron Age excavation at Komati Gorge, Mpumalanga (1 Week – August 2014) - Praised for being exceptionally “methodical and proficient” with my excavation techniques – Dr. Alex Schoeman ▪ Rock art fieldwork at Komati Gorge, Mpumalanga (1 Week – August 2014) ▪ Underwater archaeology site mapping Komati Gorge, Mpumalanga (1 Week – August 2014) ▪ Early Stone Age excavation at Maropeng World Heritage Site in Gauteng (2 Weeks - September 2013) - Personally uncovered some of the only stone tools (~1.8 million years old) found during that digging season. • 2016: Excavation Supervisor - Responsibilities: Supervision of two junior excavators, site detection, decision of excavation grid placement, excavation, sieving, sorting, soil sampling, field documentation. ▪ Historical (farm site) excavation at Graaff-Reinet, Eastern Cape, South Africa (2 Weeks) ▪ Completed dig 1 week ahead of schedule aided by my efficient direction, drive and support to the excavators under my supervision.

• 2017 – PRESENT: Intern Archaeologist – PGS Heritage: Heritage Impact assessments, background research, report writing, permit applications, collections management, stakeholder engagement and grave relocation.

HIA – Thornhill Housing Development Project 7