HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT

THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF THE KARINO INTERCHANGE, LOCATED EAST OF MBOMBELA, MBOMBELA LOCAL MUNICIPALITY, EHLANZENI DISTRICT MUNCIPALITY, MPUMALANGA PROVINCE.

Date: 24 June 2017

PGS Heritage 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 Trans African Concessions (TRAC). 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.

HERITAGE CONSULTANT: PGS Heritage (Pty) Ltd

CONTACT PERSON: Polke Birkholtz Tel: +27 (0) 12 332 5305 Email: [email protected]

SIGNATURE: ______

DETAILS OF CLIENT:

CLIENT: Trans African Concessions (TRAC)

CONTACT PERSON: Carla Davis Tel: +27 (0) 13 755 3316 Email: [email protected]

HIA – PROPOSED KARINO INTERCHANGE 8 JUNE 2017 Page ii of viii Heritage Impact Assessment for the Proposed Development of the Karino Report Title Interchange, located east of Mbombela, Mbombela Local Municipality, Ehlanzeni District Muncipality, Mpumalanga Province

Control Name Signature Designation

Project Manager /

Author Polke Birkholtz Heritage Specialist & Archaeologist

Architectural Co-Author Mauritz Naudé Historian

HIA – PROPOSED KARINO INTERCHANGE 8 JUNE 2017 Page iii of viii As indicated in the table below, this Heritage Impact Assessment report was compiled in accordance with the NEMA Appendix 6 requirements for specialist reports.

NEMA REGS (2014) - APPENDIX 6 RELEVANT PAGES AND SECTIONS Details of the specialist who prepared the report. Pages i, ii, iii & 1. Also Appendix B The expertise of that person to compile a specialist report including a Pages i, ii, iii & 1. Also Appendix B curriculum vitae. A declaration that the person is independent in a form as may be specified Page ii by the competent authority. An indication of the scope of, and the purpose for which, the report was Page 1 (Section 1.1) prepared. The date and season of the site investigation and the relevance of the Page 14 (Section 3.1) season to the outcome of the assessment. A description of the methodology adopted in preparing the report or Page 14 (Section 3.1) carrying out the specialised process. The specific identified sensitivity of the site related to the activity and its Sections 5 to 8 associated structures and infrastructure. An identification of any areas to be avoided, including buffers. Sections 5 to 8 A map superimposing the activity including the associated structures and infrastructure on the environmental sensitivities of the site including areas Figures 29 & 30 on Pages 55 & 56 to be avoided, including buffers. A description of any assumptions made and any uncertainties or gaps in Page 2 & 3 (Section 1.3) knowledge. A description of the findings and potential implications of such findings on Section 7. Please note that no the impact of the proposed activity, including identified alternatives, on the development alternatives were environment. assessed. Any mitigation measures for inclusion in the EMPr. See Section 8 & 9 Any conditions for inclusion in the environmental authorization. See Sections 8 & 9 Any monitoring requirements for inclusion in the EMPr or environmental See Sections 8 & 9 authorisation A reasoned opinion as to whether the proposed activity or portions thereof should be authorised and If the opinion is that the proposed activity or portions thereof should be Executive Summary and Section 9 authorised, any avoidance, management and mitigation measures that should be included in the EMPr, and where applicable, the closure plan Not applicable. It is not known A description of any consultation process that was undertaken during the whether a public participation was course of carrying out the study undertaken. A summary and copies if any comments that were received during any Not applicable. See previous item. consultation process Any other information requested by the competent authority. Not applicable.

HIA – PROPOSED KARINO INTERCHANGE 8 JUNE 2017 Page iv of viii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

PGS Heritage (Pty) Ltd was appointed by Trans African Concessions to undertake a Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) for the proposed development of the Karino Interchange, located east of Mbombela, in Mbombela Local Municipality, Ehlanzeni District Muncipality, Mpumalanga Province.

An archival and historical desktop study was undertaken to provide a historic framework for the project area and surrounding landscape. This was augmented by a study of available historical aerial photographs and an assessment of previous archaeological and heritage studies completed for the area. The desktop study revealed that the surroundings of the study area is characterised by a long and significant history, whereas previous archaeological and heritage studies from this area have revealed a number of archaeological and heritage sites including cemeteries, Late Iron Age stonewalled sites and historic sites such as buildings and old water furrows.

Sections of the fieldwork was undertaken by a team comprising one archaeologist (Polke Birkholtz), whereas those sections associated with buildings were assessed by a fieldwork team comprising one archaeologist (Polke Birkholtz) and one architectural historian (Mauritz Naudé). The fieldwork resulted in the identification of 11 heritage sites, which are all buildings and structures. These were numbered from Building 1 to Building 11. No archaeological sites or features were identified within the study area during the fieldwork.

Seven of the buildings identified during the fieldwork (Buildings 1 to 7), form part of a cluster of railway houses associated with the Karino Station. The station itself is located on the opposite side of the railway line and outside of the study area boundaries. As a way of dating the older buildings from this cluster, and especially as a way to establish a terminus post quem for these buildings, the Transnet Heritage Library as well as a thesis on the railway houses of South Africa (Wasserfall, 1989) was accessed for information. In the end, the documentary evidence suggested that the oldest buildings from the cluster of railway houses dates to the period between 1913 and 1936. The field assessment by the project architectural historian (Mauritz Naudé), suggested a construction date nearer to the latter date than the former in terms of the oldest railway dwellings from the study area.

The table below provides an overview of all the identified heritage sites. The building numbers, brief description, significance and coordinates are provided in the table. The final column indicates whether any mitigation would be required.

HIA – PROPOSED KARINO INTERCHANGE 8 JUNE 2017 Page v of viii Table 1: Summarised List of Heritage Sites Identified during the Fieldwork

Site Description Significance S E Mitigation Building 1 Dwelling Medium/High S 25° 28' 22.52" E 31° 06' 00.04" See Section 8. Building 2 Outbuilding Medium S 25° 28' 22.82" E 31° 06' 00.72" See Section 8. Building 3 Dwelling Medium/High S 25° 28' 22.45" E 31° 05' 57.87" See Section 8. Building 4 Outbuilding Medium S 25° 28' 22.73" E 31° 05' 57.08" See Section 8. Building 5 Dwelling Medium S 25° 28' 22.34" E 31° 05' 55.83” See Section 8. Building 6 Outbuilding Low S 25° 28' 22.65" E 31° 05' 55.12" See Section 8. Building 7 Dwelling Low S 25° 28' 22.23" E 31° 05' 54.20" See Section 8. Building 8 Dwelling Low S 25°28' 25.65" E 31° 05' 33.66" See Section 8. Building 9 Dwelling Low S 25° 28' 27.50" E 31° 05' 30.81" See Section 8. Building 10 Dwelling / Low S 25° 28' 25.34" E 31° 05' 27.23" See Section 8. Guest House Building 11 Swimming Low S 25° 28' 24.42" E 31° 05' 27.25" No mitigation. Pool

The impact of the proposed development on the located heritage sites was assessed, and it was established that the proposed development will have a Low Impact Risk on Building 6, Building 7, Building 9 and Building 11. The proposed development will have a Moderate Impact Risk on Building 1, Building 2, Building 3, Building 4, Building 5, Building 8 and Building 10.

The following mitigation measures are required for the seven buildings forming part of the cluster of railway dwellings (Buildings 1 to 7):

• Drafting a site plan with the footprints of all the buildings.

• All the buildings must be photographically recorded and described.

• All the buildings must be recorded with as-built drawings: (a) floor plans; (b) elevations; (c) sections (d) and compiled into a report.

• If any buildings will be reused, a set of color drawings as an overlay on top of the existing building drawings indicating the position and nature of repair and renovation work.

• Indication of any public participation process: (a) copies of advertisements in local papers; (b) photographs of site notices on fences and (c) copies of any comments and letters from

HIA – PROPOSED KARINO INTERCHANGE 8 JUNE 2017 Page vi of viii interested and affected parties.

The following mitigation measures are required for the two buildings forming part of the staff village of a citrus farm (Buildings 8 & 9) as well as a guest house building (Building 10):

• All the buildings must be photographically recorded and described.

• Indication of any public participation process: (a) copies of advertisements in local papers; (b) photographs of site notices on fences and (c) copies of any comments and letters from interested and affected parties.

No mitigation measures would be required for the swimming pool (Building 11).

The following general mitigation measures are required:

• An archaeological watching brief must be implemented during the construction phase. This watching brief is aimed at monitoring the construction and excavation work for any subterranean archaeological deposits and features which may be exposed during these development activities.

On the condition that the recommendations made in this report are adhered to, and that the boundaries of the footprint areas do not change, no heritage reasons can be given for the development not to continue.

HIA – PROPOSED KARINO INTERCHANGE 8 JUNE 2017 Page vii of viii CONTENTS PAGE

1 INTRODUCTION ...... 1

2 TECHNICAL DETAILS OF THE PROJECT ...... 9

3 ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY ...... 14

4 CURRENT STATUS QUO ...... 21

5 DESKTOP STUDY FINDINGS ...... 27

6 FIELDWORK FINDINGS ...... 54

7 ASSESSMENT OF IMPACT OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ...... 87

8 REQUIRED MITIGATION MEASURES ...... 97

9 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 99

10 PREPARERS ...... 102

11 REFERENCES ...... 103

List of Appendices

A Legislative Requirements – Terminology and Assessment Criteria B Curriculum Vitae C Coordinates for Identified Heritage Sites

HIA – PROPOSED KARINO INTERCHANGE 8 JUNE 2017 Page viii of viii 1 INTRODUCTION

PGS Heritage (Pty) Ltd was appointed by Trans African Concessions to undertake a Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) for the proposed development of the Karino Interchange, located east of Mbombela, in Mbombela Local Municipality, Ehlanzeni District Muncipality, Mpumalanga Province.

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 to assess the impact of the proposed development on these identified heritage sites. The HIA aims to inform the developers to manage 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 of 1999 (Act 25 of 1999) (NHRA).

1.2 Specialist Qualifications

This HIA was compiled by PGS Heritage (Pty) Ltd. The staff at PGS Heritage (Pty) Ltd. has a combined experience of nearly 70 years in the heritage consulting industry and have extensive experience in managing HIA processes. PGS will only undertake heritage assessment work where the staff has the relevant expertise and experience to undertake that work competently.

Polke Birkholtz, the project manager and author, is registered with the Association of Southern African Professional Archaeologists (ASAPA) as a Professional Archaeologist and is also accredited with the CRM Section of the same association. He has 18 years of experience in the heritage assessment and management field and holds a B.A. (cum laude) from the University of Pretoria specialising in Archaeology, Anthropology and History and a B.A. (Hons.) in Archaeology (cum laude) from the same institution.

Mauritz Naude is an architectural historian and conservationist. He assists heritage practitioners as private consultant in the assessment of historic buildings and sites, is a contract lecturer at the Departments of Architecture, Visual Arts and Building Sciences (University of Pretoria) and is a research fellow at the Department of Architecture (Tshwane University of Technology). He is also a contract lecturer for the course on Environmental Law at the Centre for Environmental Management (CEM – University of the Northwest). He has more than 35 years experience in the curation and

HIA – PROPOSED KARINO INTERCHANGE 8 JUNE 2017 Page 1 of 124

conservation of historic buildings. He holds degrees in Archaeology, Art History (Hons), a post graduate diploma in Museology, a MA-Architecture in conservation (WITS) and is currently completing his PHd at the Department of Architecture and Landscape Architecture (University of Pretoria). He is the author of 42 peer reviewed articles and an equal number of popular papers on various topics relating to architectural history, vernacular architecture and building technology.

1.3 Assumptions and Limitations

The following assumptions and limitations to this study exist:

• 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 area. Various factors account for this, including the subterranean nature of some archaeological sites, as well as the density of vegetation cover found in some areas. 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 applies to graves and cemeteries as well. In the event that any graves or burial places are located during the development, the procedures and requirements pertaining to graves and burials will apply as set out below.

• The study area and development footprints assessed for the purposes of this report were derived from a development layout plan provided by the client in pdf format. For the purposes of the fieldwork, this development layout plan was positioned on Google Earth by using its overlay function.

• The far western, far northern and far eastern components of the study area were not assessed on foot. In terms of the former, the reasons for this are the dense vegetation and high fences found south of the highway which restricted access. North of the highway, where access was easier, the construction of the N4 had disturbed most of these areas located close to the highway. The far north-eastern section of the study area is located in the

HIA – PROPOSED KARINO INTERCHANGE 8 JUNE 2017 Page 2 of 124

floodplain of the Crocodile River and is covered by very dense vegetation. The far eastern end of the study area was not covered on foot as for the most part these areas comprised citrus orchards. All these sections of the study area were assessed by vehicle from the road.

1.4 Legislative Context

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

i. National Environmental Management Act (NEMA) Act 107 of 1998 ii. National Heritage Resources Act (NHRA) Act 25 of 1999 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.

i. GNR 982 (Government Gazette 38282, 14 December 2014) promulgated under the National Environmental Management Act (NEMA) Act 107 of 1998 a. Basic Assessment Report(BAR) – Regulations 19 and 23 b. Environmental Scoping Report (ESR) – Regulation 21 c. Environmental Impacts Assessment (EIA) – Regulation 23 d. Environmental Management Programme (EMPr) – Regulations 19 and 23 ii. National Heritage Resources Act (NHRA) Act 25 of 1999 a. Protection of Heritage Resources – Sections 34 to 36; and b. Heritage Resources Management – Section 38 iii. Minerals and Petroleum Resources Development Act (MPRDA) Act 28 of 2002 a. Section 39(3)

The NHRA stipulates that cultural heritage resources may not be disturbed without authorisation 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 (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

HIA – PROPOSED KARINO INTERCHANGE 8 JUNE 2017 Page 3 of 124

requirements and EIA rating criteria, the regulations of SAHRA and ASAPA have also been incorporated to ensure that a comprehensive and legally compatible HIA report is compiled.

1.5 Terminology and Abbreviations

Archaeological resources

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 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

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.These may include:

i. construction, alteration, demolition, removal or change in use of a place or a structure at a place;

HIA – PROPOSED KARINO INTERCHANGE 8 JUNE 2017 Page 4 of 124

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

Early Stone Age

The archaeology of the Stone Age, dating to between roughly 700 000 and 2 500 000 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, and fossils as defined by the National Heritage Resources Act 25 of 1999).

Heritage Resources

This means any place or object of cultural significance

Holocene

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

Later Stone Age

The archaeology of the last 20 000 years, associated with fully modern people.

HIA – PROPOSED KARINO INTERCHANGE 8 JUNE 2017 Page 5 of 124

Late Iron Age

The archaeology of the last 1000 years up to the 1800s, associated with ironworking and farming activities such as herding and agriculture.

Middle Stone Age

The archaeology of the Stone Age, dating to between 20 000-300 000 years ago, associated with early modern humans.

Palaeontology

The study of 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 of any site which contains such fossilised remains or trace.

Study Area

For the purposes of this report, the term study area refers to the area that is defined in Section 2.1 of this report. This portion of land encloses all the development footprints associated with the proposed interchange, but does not represent the actual development footprints which are located within this overall area.

Development Footprint Areas

The development footprint areas represent the actual development areas such as roads, enbankments, loop roads and link roads. These were all provided by way of a development footprint map provided by the client.

Table 2- Abbreviations

ABBREVIATION DESCRIPTION

AIA Archaeological Impact Assessment

HIA – PROPOSED KARINO INTERCHANGE 8 JUNE 2017 Page 6 of 124

ASAPA Association of South African Professional Archaeologists

CRM Cultural Resources Management

DEA Department of Environmental Affairs

EAP Environmental Assessment Practitioner

ECO Environmental Control Officer

EIA Environmental Impact Assessment / Early Iron Age

EMPr Environmental Management Programme Report

ESA Early Stone Age

GPS Global Positioning System

HIA Heritage Impact Assessment

HIR Heritage Impact Report

HSR Heritage Scoping Report

I&AP Interested & Affected Party

LSA Later Stone Age

LIA Late Iron Age

MIA Middle Iron Age

MSA Middle Stone Age

NEMA National Environmental Management Act

NHRA National Heritage Resources Act

PHRA Provincial Heritage Resources Authority

PIA Palaeontological Impact Assessment

PSSA Palaeontological Society of South Africa

SAHRA South African Heritage Resources Agency

SAHRIS South African Heritage Resources Information System

Refer to Appendix A for further discussion on heritage management and legislative matters.

HIA – PROPOSED KARINO INTERCHANGE 8 JUNE 2017 Page 7 of 124

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

HIA – PROPOSED KARINO INTERCHANGE 8 JUNE 2017 Page 8 of 124

2 TECHNICAL DETAILS OF THE PROJECT 2.1 Site Location and Description

Coordinates Northernmost point: Easternmost point: S 25° 28' 11.85" S 25° 28' 26.86" E 31° 05' 36.67" E 31° 06' 13.20"

Southernmost point: Westernmost point: S 25° 28' 28.91" S 25° 28' 11.61" E 31° 05' 36.74" E 31° 05' 01.21"

Location The proposed development is situated at Karino, and is located 11.8km east of Mbombela, within the Mbombela Local Municipality of the Ehlanzeni District Municipality, Mpumalanga Province.

Property Portions of the farms The Union Farm 130 JU, Karino Farm 134 JU and Kia Ora 134 JU. A small section on the western end of the proposed development extends into the farm South African Prudential Citrus Estate 131 JU.

Topographic Map 2531AC White River

Study Area Extent The study area enclosing the development footprints assessed for this study, is approximately 29 hectares in extent.

Description Refer Chapter 4.

HIA – PROPOSED KARINO INTERCHANGE 8 JUNE 2017 Page 9 of 124

context..

Google Earth depiction of the study area within its regional regional its within area study the of depiction Earth Google

2 Figure Figure

HIA – PROPOSED KARINO INTERCHANGE 8 JUNE 2017 Page 10 of 124

Google Earth depiction of the study area within its immediate surroundings. its immediate within area study the of depiction Earth Google

3 Figure Figure

HIA – PROPOSED KARINO INTERCHANGE 8 JUNE 2017 Page 11 of 124

2.2 Technical Project Description

The content of this section is based on a development plan obtained from the client, Ms. Carla David of Trans African Concessions (TRAC).

2.2.1 Project Overview

Trans African Concessions (TRAC) intends developing the Karino Interchange to replace the existing junction of the N4 highway with the R538 tar road to White River. This interchange will be a grade separated interchange.

The proposed development is illustrated on the development layout plan below. As can be seen, the development will include the following components:

• Ramp A will be constructed to allow east-bound traffic on the N4 highway to turn off the highway and drive into the R538 White River road and join the north-bound traffic on this R538 road. • Ramp B will be constructed to allow traffic driving south on the R538 White River road, to turn off this road and drive by way of a slipway into the the N4 highway and join the east- bound traffic on the highway. • Ramp C will be constructed to allow west-bound traffic on the N4 to turn off the highway and turn right into the R538 to White River and join the north-bound traffic on this R538 road. • Loop H will be constructed to allow south-bound traffic on the R538 White River road to pass over the highway before turning left into this loop and eventually join the west-bound traffic on the N4 by way of a slipway. • A Link Road will be built between Ramp C and the N4 Highway.

HIA – PROPOSED KARINO INTERCHANGE 8 JUNE 2017 Page 12 of 124

Layout plan for the proposed development. This plan was supplied by the client. the by was supplied plan This development. proposed the for plan Layout

4 Figure Figure

HIA – PROPOSED KARINO INTERCHANGE 8 JUNE 2017 Page 13 of 124

3 ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY

3.1 Methodology for Assessing Heritage Site Significance

The HIA process consisted of three steps:

Step I – Desktop Study: An archival, archaeological and historical background study was undertaken using available sources as well as visits to the National Archives in Pretoria and the Transnet Heritage Library in Johannesburrg. This was augmented by an assessment of historic aerial photographs, which allowed for the historic layering of the study area. Previous archaeological and heritage studies from the study area and surroundings were also accessed using the South African Heritage Resources Information System (SAHRIS) of the South African Heritage Resources Agency (SAHRA).

Step II – Physical Survey: Intensive walkthroughs of the areas not containing any buildings were undertaken by one archaeologist (Polke Birkholtz). Those areas containing buildings, including the section comprising the railway buildings as well as sections of the study area located south of the N4, were all assessed by a fieldwork team comprising one archaeologist (Polke Birkholtz) and the project architectural historian (Mauritz Naudé). The fieldwork was undertaken on Monday, 8 May and 9 May 2017. The fieldwork was aimed at locating and documenting sites falling within the proposed project areas.

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

The significance of heritage sites was based on five 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

HIA – PROPOSED KARINO INTERCHANGE 8 JUNE 2017 Page 14 of 124

• the 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 position D - Preserve site, or extensive data collection and mapping of the site; and E - Preserve site

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 (see Table 3).

Table 3: Site significance classification standards as prescribed by SAHRA

FIELD RATING GRADE SIGNIFICANCE RECOMMENDED 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 Conservation; Mitigation not advised Local Significance (LS) Grade 3B High Mitigation (Part of site should be retained) Generally Protected A (GP.A) - High/Medium Mitigation before destruction Generally Protected B (GP.B) - Medium Recording before destruction Generally Protected C (GP.C) - Low Destruction

HIA – PROPOSED KARINO INTERCHANGE 8 JUNE 2017 Page 15 of 124

3.2 Methodology for Impact Assessment

In order to ensure uniformity, a standard impact assessment methodology has been utilised so that a wide range of impacts can be compared. 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 4.

Table 4: Quantitative rating and equivalent descriptors for the impact assessment criteria RATING SIGNIFICANCE EXTENT SCALE TEMPORAL SCALE 1 VERY LOW Isolated site/ proposed corridor 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.

Significance Assessment

The 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 an area affected by atmospheric pollution may be extremely large (1000 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

HIA – PROPOSED KARINO INTERCHANGE 8 JUNE 2017 Page 16 of 124

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 5 below.

Table 5: 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 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.

HIA – PROPOSED KARINO INTERCHANGE 8 JUNE 2017 Page 17 of 124

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 the table below.

Table 6: Description of the Spatial 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 possible impacts, and will be felt at a regional scale (District Municipality to Provincial Level). The impact will affect an area up to 50 km from the proposed site. 3 Local The impact will affect an area up to 5 km from the proposed site. 2 Study Area The impact will affect an area not exceeding the boundary of the study area. 1 Isolated Sites / The impact will affect an area no bigger than the site. proposed site

Temporal/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 or duration scale is rated according to criteria set out in Table 7.

Table 7: 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 the project. 4 Long-term The environmental impact identified will operate beyond the life of operation of the project. 5 Permanent The environmental impact will be permanent.

HIA – PROPOSED KARINO INTERCHANGE 8 JUNE 2017 Page 18 of 124

Degree of Probability

The probability, or likelihood, of an impact occurring will be described as shown in Table 8 below.

Table 8: 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

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 9. The level of detail for specialist studies is determined according to the degree of certainty required for decision-making. The impacts are discussed in terms of affected parties or environmental components.

Table 9: 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.

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

HIA – PROPOSED KARINO INTERCHANGE 8 JUNE 2017 Page 19 of 124

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 below:

Table 10: Example of Rating Scale IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE SPATIAL TEMPORAL PROBABILITY RATING SCALE SCALE Low Local Medium Term Could Happen Low Impact on 2 3 3 3 1.6 heritage sites

Note: The significance, spatial and temporal scales are added to give a total of 8, which is divided by 3 to give a criterion 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.

The impact risk is classified according to 5 classes as described in the table below.

Table 11: 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.

HIA – PROPOSED KARINO INTERCHANGE 8 JUNE 2017 Page 20 of 124

4 CURRENT STATUS QUO

The study area forms part of an area known vernacularly as Karino, and is located on both sides of the N4 highway and also incorporates the existing interchange of the R538 from White River with the N4 highway. The components of the study area situated north of the N4 highway comprises unitilised overgrown land with a small section used as an informal fruit market. Furthermore, one small section of the study area north of the highway is entirely made up of four railway houses and represents a residential area associated with the Karino Station. The station itself is located outside of the study area, and its north-eastern end. South of the highway, the study area can be described as consisting of citrus orchards with associated buildings and instrastructure. Other features located south of the highway include a restaurant, shop as well as a fenced-off staff village for a citrus farm which includes a clubhouse and swimming pool.

The description of the study area provided above, makes it clear that significant components of the study area had been disturbed. As a result, very little undisturbed vegetation remains. Sections of the study area situated north of the highway can be described as densely overgrown by thickets, trees and and bushes. South of the highway, the vegetation can be described as citrus orchards interposed by trees, lawns and gardens associated with the farm dwellings. Gardens and trees were also observed at the railway houses north of the highway. Pockets of dense reeds were also observed along streams, including a stream named Karino. Two very large fig trees were observed within the study area.

In terms of topography, the study area has a reasonably gentle slope down towards the Crocodile River, which passes the study area on its northern end. A prominent granite hill is located immediately south-west of the study area, and as a result the study includes the lower slopes of this hill. Further to the south more granite hills are located. Immediately south of the highway, near the centre of the study area, the farm-related staff village is located on a low hill associated with dome- like granite boulders with a small outcrop of densely overgrown cluster of granite boulders.

A railway line cuts through a small section along the northern end study area, with a modern concrete overpass allowing the existing interchange from White River bridge across the railway line. This railway line was originally built as the famous Eastern Line between Pretoria and Lourenço Marques (present-day Maputo), but as been extended, electrified and modernised over the years.

HIA – PROPOSED KARINO INTERCHANGE 8 JUNE 2017 Page 21 of 124

Figure 5 - General view of a section of the study area with the N4 highway between Mbombela and Komatipoort at its centre. This photograph was taken toward the east.

Figure 6 – Another view of the study area, showing the highway crossing over the Karino Stream.

HIA – PROPOSED KARINO INTERCHANGE 8 JUNE 2017 Page 22 of 124

Figure 7 – Citrus orchards typically found along the section of the study area located south of the highway. The prominent granite hill located south-west of the study area can be seen in the back.

Figure 8 – Citrus orchards and buildings located south of the highway.

HIA – PROPOSED KARINO INTERCHANGE 8 JUNE 2017 Page 23 of 124

Figure 9 – Planted trees, lawns and a modern swimming pool forming part of a farm staff village located south of the highway.

Figure 10 – Dense vegetation found within the sections of the study area north of the highway.

HIA – PROPOSED KARINO INTERCHANGE 8 JUNE 2017 Page 24 of 124

Figure 11 – Informal fruit traders north of the highway.

Figure 12 – Section of the railway line with a modern concrete bridge forming part of the study area’s northern end. Photograph taken in a western direction.

HIA – PROPOSED KARINO INTERCHANGE 8 JUNE 2017 Page 25 of 124

Figure 13 – This fig tree was found on the pocket of granite boulders found near the staff village located south of the highway.

Figure 14 – Another large fig tree located within the study area to the south of the highway.

HIA – PROPOSED KARINO INTERCHANGE 8 JUNE 2017 Page 26 of 124

5 DESKTOP STUDY FINDINGS

5.1 Archaeological and Historical Overview of the Study Area and Surroundings

5.1.1 Stone Age

The South African Stone Age is the longest archaeologically-identified phase identified in human history and lasted for millions of years. Very little is known about the Stone Age archaeology of the study area and its immediate surroundings.

Early Stone Age

The Early Stone Age (ESA) dates to between 2.5 million and 250 000 years ago. It represents the first and oldest phase identified in South Africa’s archaeological history and comprises two technological phases. The earliest of these technological phases is known as Oldowan, which is associated with crude flakes and hammer stones and dates to approximately two million years ago. The second technological phase in the Early Stone Age of Southern Africa is known as the Acheulian and comprises more refined and better made stone artefacts such as the cleaver and bifacial handaxe. The Acheulian phase dates back to approximately 1.5 million years ago.

No Early Stone Age sites are known from the study area and its immediate surroundings. Bornman (1979) indicates that Early Stone Age lithics had often been observed at what is presently known as the Lowveld Botanical Gardens as well as the Institute for Tropical and Subtropical Crops at Mbombela, some 11.6 km west of the present study area.

Figure 15

Acheulian hand-axe found on the banks of the Crocodile River near present-day Mbombela (Bornman, 1979:39).

HIA – PROPOSED KARINO INTERCHANGE 8 JUNE 2017 Page 27 of 124

Middle Stone Age

The Middle Stone Age (MSA) dates to between 250 000 to 40 000 years BP. MSA dates of around 250 000 BP originate from sites such as Leopards Kopje in Zambia, while the late Pleistocene (125 000 BP) yields a number of important dated sites associated with modern humans (Deacon & Deacon, 1999). The MSA is characterised by flake and blade industries, the first use of grindstones, wood and bone artefacts, personal ornaments, use of red ochre, circular hearths and a hunting and gathering lifestyle.

No Middle Stone Age sites are known from the study area and its immediate surroundings. Bornman (1979:40) indicates that Middle Stone Age lithics are “…common in the Lowveld Botanical Gardens and all along the banks of the Crocodile River.”

Later Stone Age

The Later Stone Age (LSA) dates to the period between 40 000 years ago and the historic period. The Later Stone Age is the third phase identified in South Africa’s Stone Age history. This phase in human history is associated with an abundance of very small stone artefacts or microliths as well as rock paintings and engravings.

A number of Later Stone Age sites, including rock art sites, are known from the general surroundings of the study area. For example, an archaeological survey of the Bongani Nature Reserve revealed at least 100 rock art sites (Hampson et.al. 2002), which appear to be associated with granite outcrops and boulders characterising the surrounding landscape. The Bongani Nature Reserve is located roughly 19.1 km east by north-east of the present study area.

Another Later Stone Age rock art site from the surrounding landscape is at Rocky’s Drift, situated between White River and Mbombela. The site comprises a panel depicting a herd of elephants (Bornman, 1979). Rocky’s Drift is located 13.7 km north-west of the present study area.

According to Murray and Elzabé Schoonraad (in Barnard, 1975), rock art sites are well known in the Mbombela area. They mention the existence of four known sites on the Crocodile Valley Estates as well as other sites on Valley Farm and Tipperary. These latter two farms are located immediately

HIA – PROPOSED KARINO INTERCHANGE 8 JUNE 2017 Page 28 of 124

north-west and east of the farms on which the present study area is located.

It is therefore clear that the study area is located within a landscape where Later Stone Age rock art sites are often located.

Figure 16

Examples of rock art found at the Bongani Nature Reserve (Hampson et. al. 2002:17) (Hampson, 2016).

5.1.2 Iron Age

The arrival of early farming communities during the first millenium, heralded in the start of the Iron Age for South Africa. The Iron Age is that period in South Africa’s archaeological history associated with pre-colonial farming communities who practiced cultivation and pastoralist farming activites, metal working, cultural customs such as lobola and whose settlement layouts show the tangible representation of the significance of cattle (known as the Central Cattle Pattern) (Huffman, 2007).

The wider surroundings of the study area is known for only two of the three phases identified within the Iron Age of southern Africa, namely the Early Iron Age and Later Iron Age. These will be discussed below.

HIA – PROPOSED KARINO INTERCHANGE 8 JUNE 2017 Page 29 of 124

Early Iron Age

In South Africa, the Early Iron Age dates commenced in AD 200 (Huffman, 2007) and represents the first arrival and settlement of farming communities. The Early Iron Age in southern Africa is characterised by a number of attributes. These include semi-permanent settlements (Korsman & Van der Ryst, 1999) that Soper (1971) suggests consisted of houses built from mud and wattle. The subsistence economy seems to have been represented by agriculture and pastoralism, with hunting and gathering activities still playing an important supportive role (Van der Merwe, 1980; Korsman & Van der Ryst, 1999). A specific ceramic tradition can also be associated with the Early Iron Age (Soper, 1971; Korsman & Van der Ryst, 1999). Important, as well, is the ability to work with metals, whether it be smelting or smithing (Soper, 1971; Van der Merwe, 1980; Klapwijk & Huffman, 1996; Korsman & Van der Ryst, 1999). The mining of metal-bearing ore also took place during this period (Korsman & Van der Ryst, 1999).

In his comprehensive book on the Iron Age of South Africa, Professor Tom Huffman suggests that the study area is located within the known distribution area of only one Early Iron Age facies, namely the Mzonjani facies of the Kwale Branch of the Urewe Tradition which is dated to between AD 450 and AD 750 (Huffman, 2007).

No Early Iron Age sites are known from within the study area. The nearest sites, both associated with this Mzonjani facies, are located at Riverside (12.1 km west by north-west of the study area) and Plaston (14.4 km to the north-west). Both these archaeological sites are located close to rivers, and both were accidentially uncovered during construction work. At Plaston, excavations undertaken by T.M. Evers revealed ceramics, red ochre and a piece of granite on which seven grooves had been made (Evers, 1977). Road construction at the Mpumalanga government offices uncovered the central area of a Mzonjani site at Riverside, including at least one cattle kraal containing several storage pits. Two of these storage pits had been smeared with cattle dung, indicating that these pits were made for the storage of grain (Huffman, 2007).

According to Esterhuizen & Smith (n.d.), there is evidence suggesting that the Early Iron Age continued in the Lowveld regions of Mpumalanga until the fifteenth century, however, on the escarpment and highveld it ended around AD 1100 (Esterhuizen & Smith, n.d.).

HIA – PROPOSED KARINO INTERCHANGE 8 JUNE 2017 Page 30 of 124

Figure 17 – Examples of ceramics recovered from the Mzonjani site at Plaston (Evers, 1977:177).

Late Iron Age

The Late Iron Age commenced in AD 1300 and represents a phase in the Iron Age history of southern African that is closely associated with stonewalled settlements. Archaeologists used the onset of the Historic Period as the termination of the Late Iron Age. As a result, the Late Iron Age is often dated up to c. 1840.

HIA – PROPOSED KARINO INTERCHANGE 8 JUNE 2017 Page 31 of 124

Based on the maps published by Huffman (2007), the only Late Iron Age association with the study area was the Maguga facies of the Kalundu Tradition. This facies is tentatively dated to the period between AD 1200 and AD 1450. No sites of this facies are known from the study area or its surroundings.

More information is known about the latter stages of the Late Iron Age. For example, Bergh (1999) indicates that essentially two Black communities were resident in the wider vicinity of present-day Mbombela and the study area during the beginning of the 19th century. These groups comprised the Eastern Sotho (Pai and Pulana) as well as the Swazi. While the Pai and Pulana are shown to the north of the Crocodile River and Mbombela, the Swazi is shown southeast of the study area. Myburgh (1949) states that all available oral traditions indicate that at one point the Crocodile River valley was occupied by Sotho-speakers including the Pai (Mbayi). The Swazi consequently expanded northwards from their lands and “…forced the local inhabitants out, or massacred and absorbed them.” (Myburgh, 1949:11).

5.1.3 Historic Period

The early Historical Period within the study area and surroundings was characterised by the first arrival of white people to this area. The first arrivals would almost certainly have been travellers, traders, missionaries, hunters and fortune seekers. However, with time, this initial trickle was replaced by a flood of white immigrants during the 1830s, when a mass migration of roughly 2 540 Afrikaner families (comprising approximately 12 000 individuals) from the frontier zone of the Cape Colony to the interior of Southern Africa took place. The people who took part in this Great Trek were later to be known as Voortrekkers (Visagie, 2011).

The Great Trek

During 1836, the first Voortrekkers crossed over the Vaal River and established themselves in a largely central area north of the river, where in 1839 the town of Potchefstroom was established. During the winter of 1844, Voortrekker leader Andries Hendrik Potgieter travelled to Lourenço Marques to engage the Portuguese governor on possible Voortrekker settlement in present day Mpumalanga. An agreement was reached between the two parties, which stated that the Voortrekkers could establish themselves four days’ travel from the east coast in an area between

HIA – PROPOSED KARINO INTERCHANGE 8 JUNE 2017 Page 32 of 124

south latitudes 10° and 26°. Potgieter led his followers from the surroundings of Potchefstroom to this new area and established the first Voortrekker settlement in the eastern parts of the country at Andries-Ohrigstad on 30 July 1845 (Bergh, 1999).

Although some Voortrekker farms were established as far south as the Crocodile River, it is clear that the early Voortrekker history occurred some distance away from the present study area. For example, the town of Andries-Ohrigstad was located some 93.4 km to the north-west. However, the arrival of permananet white farmers to these parts, brought them in direct contact, and conflict, with the Swazi further to the south-east. Over the ensuing decades a number of treaties were signed between the Voortrekkers and Swazi to define a boundary between the two nations, often with great detriment to the Swazi. The first of these was signed in July 1846, and designated the Crocodile River as the boundary between the two nations. See for example Bonner (1983).

Expansion of the Swazi State

The Swazi expansion into the districts of Carolina and Barberton took place during the successive reigns of Swazi kings Sobhuza I (Somhlolo) (ca 1815 - 1839) and Mswati II (ca 1840 – 1868). For example, during the early 1830s, Sobhuza had established a royal village at Ezulwini from where he extended his sphere of influence to the Komati River in the north and the Dlomodlomo Mountains (north of Badplaas) in the west. When Mswati II succeeded to the Swazi throne, he continued with the expansionist programme of his father (Sobhuza I) into areas presently falling within the Carolina and Barberton districts. He encountered and defeated various Sotho groups. Mswati II eventually also managed to defeat the Pedi of Sekwati who was forced to accept the Swazi king’s authority. As a way of ensuring that they remained subjugated, and to provide protection against attack, Mswati II established three large military posts along the Little Crocodile River. These settlements were named Mekemeke, Mjindini and Mbhuleni and the king placed one of his wives (inkhosikati) as well as a ndvuna (governor) in each. Mekemeke was located between present-day Barberton and Komatipoort above the village of Louw’s Creek, and Mswati II installed his inkhosikati Lanyandza as chieftainnes of the military post, with the first indvuna appointed at Mekemeke named Mhlahlo Vilakati. Vilakati was later replaced by Luhosho Ginindza (Matsebula, 1988). Myburgh (1956) agrees that all three military outposts outlined before existed, his research has shown that the Mbhuleni settlement was established shortly after the death of Sobhuza I in 1839 while the other two settlements were only established approximately 25 years later in c. 1864.

HIA – PROPOSED KARINO INTERCHANGE 8 JUNE 2017 Page 33 of 124

At a distance of roughly 25 km to the south-east, Mekemeke was the closest of the three military outposts to the present study area.

Expansion of Swazi Chiefdoms

During the second half of the nineteenth century, a number of Swazi groups moved out of Swaziland and established themselves in the general surroundings of present day Mbombela. These included three groups falling under the Swazi royal family, namely Msogwaba Nkosi, Dantshi Nkosi and Bhevula Nkosi. These three Nkosi groups, as well as a fourth group under Chief Sibhulo Khumalo, will be briefly discussed below:

• After the death of his father Sishila near Lydenburg, Chief Msogwaba Nkosi moved with his followers to various parts near present day Mbombela, including Plaston, Alkmaar, Vischspruit and the southern portions of the Crocodile River. The nearest of these settlements to the present study area appears to have been Plaston, located 13.6 km north by north-west of the study area.

• Chief Dantshi Nkosi and his followers were expelled from Swaziland as a result of a dispute between him and his brother Mancibane regarding their father’s death. They initially settled at Barberton, but during the late nineteenth century migrated to the Mbombela area.

• In 1849, Chief Bevhula Nkosi fled with his father Somcuba from Swaziland and settled at Lydenburg. Between 1853 and 1855, King Mswati pursued Somcuba and defeated him. Chief Bevhula Nkosi, with his half-brothers Msuthu, Sobiyana and Gungunyana sought refuge with the Pedi of King Sekhukhune near present day Steelpoort. Growing tension between Msuthu and Sekhukhune by the end of the nineteenth century forced Bhevula to move with his followers to the northern end of the Crocodile River in proximity to the present-day towns of White River and Mbombela.

• Chief Sibhulo Khumalo’s father, Thayisa, fled Swaziland with his followers in c. 1879. This followed on the deaths of his half-sister Sisele, the senior wife of King Mswati, as well as her son with the king, Ludvonga. Thayisa Khumalo first settled at Barberton and then moved to the area between the present-day towns of White River and Mbombela. After his death, Sibhulo Khumalo became chief (Makhura, 2007).

HIA – PROPOSED KARINO INTERCHANGE 8 JUNE 2017 Page 34 of 124

The Expulsion of the Eastern Sotho

According to Makhura (2007), the so-called Eastern Sotho (including the Pai, Pulana and Kutswe) expanded from the 17th century onwards into large areas of western and northern Swaziland as well as into the districts of Carolina, Barberton and Waterval Boven “…and, at a later stage, the Nelspruit, White River, Lydenburg, Pilgrim’s Rest, Graskop, and Noka ya Lesaba (Sabie River) districts.”

These three Sotho groups will be briefly discussed below.

• One oral history suggests that the Pai originated from what is presently known as Lesotho. From here, in or during the 17th century, they skirted around Swaziland and appear to have established themselves somewhere within modern Swaziland on a hill known as Mbayi. During the late 18th and early 19th centuries the Pai were forced northward by the expansion of the Swazi state.

• The Pulana appears to have originated from the Caledon River, and moved into the wider surroundings at the same time as the Pai. The stone settlements of the Pulana in the present- day Carolina and Barberton districts were called Shakwaneng (near the present day towns of Waterval Boven and Badplaas) and Motšhiteng respectively. Other Pulana settlements such as Phageng (Mpakeni), Morung (Graskop) and Seruke (Pilgrim’s Rest) were occupied later as a result of the northern expansion of the Swazi state in the 19th century. A settlement by the name of Mpakeni is located 14.3 km east by south-east of the present study area.

• The Kutswe originated from the Kwena near modern Thaba ‘Nchu during the late 16th and early 17th centuries. They travelled for some distance in a north-easterly direction and settled in what is today known as northern Swaziland. Here they came in contact with the Pai. The northward expansion of the Swazi state during the 19th century also pushed the Kutswe further north. They are known to have settled in the area between modern Mbombela and White River, with the river valley of the Kutswe (Gutshwa), a tributary of the Nsikazi River, a known settlement area during this time (Makhura, 2007). The closest point along this river to the present study area, is located 20.1 km to the north-east.

The continued northward expansion of the Swazi state under Mswati II into the areas occupied by the Pai, Pulana and Kutswe, led to conflict and had a very detrimental effect on the Eastern Sotho

HIA – PROPOSED KARINO INTERCHANGE 8 JUNE 2017 Page 35 of 124

groups. In the words of Delius (1983:29) “…the Pai, Pulana and Kutswe groups…lived near shelter sites, often fortified caves, in almost constant fear of raids and had been stripped of, or had abandoned attempts to keep stock.” The internal fragmentations of especially the Pai and Pulana further led to their deterioration. For example, during this period of external threats, the Pai living in present day Mbombela and White River, split into three groups under Jacob Mdluli, Mhwayi Mbuyane and Dingane Mhaule (Makhura, 2007). The Eastern Sotho groups also fought back against the Swazi onslaught, with the most noteworthy of these Sotho successes against the Swazi the hills known as Three Sisters near Louw’s Creek (Myburgh, 1949). Remembered as one of the last strongholds of the Pai, these hills saw a significant battle in c. 1860 during which the Pai defenders under Lesisi “…rained down rocks and spears on their Swazi enemies…” (Makhura, 2007:118). The battle resulted in a rare, though certainly not lasting, defeat for the Swazi, who returned later and destroyed the settlement (Makhura, 2007). The farm Three Sisters is located 26.3 km south-east of the present study area.

Winter Grazing

During the latter half of the 19th century, white farmers with farms on the highveld used the Lowveld, including the areas surrounding Mbombela, for winter grazing. With diseases such as Malaria and Tsetse always prevalent in these parts, the visitors rarely stayed in the Lowveld throughout the year and preferred to bring their herds of sheep during the winter months only. In his book, I Have Reaped My Mealies, the famous local farmer Hugh Lanion Hall (1939) relates how surprised the farmers were when they realised that Hall was planning to stay on his Lowveld farm throughout the year. “Well, good-bye, Hall, we’ll find your grave next year” was often said to him during his initial years of residence in the Lowveld (Hall, 1939:141).

Eventually, many of the farmers would return to the same winter grazing area each year. One such a group of farmers comprised the Nel brothers, namely Gert, Louis and Andries Nel who from arpproximately 1870 returned on an annual basis to the same spot along the banks of the Crocodile River where the town of Mbombela still stands today.

When a station was built here during the construction of the Eastern Line, it was named Nelspruit in their honour. The Nel brothers also gave the town of Nelspruit (Mbombela) its name (Bornman, 1979).

HIA – PROPOSED KARINO INTERCHANGE 8 JUNE 2017 Page 36 of 124

Figure 18 – The Nel brothers in whose honour Nelspruit was named. From left to right: Gert, Louis and Andries (Bornman, 1979:46).

Discovery of Gold

In 1873 gold was discovered in payable amounts at Pilgrim’s Rest and Mac Mac (Bornman, 1979). Closer to the study area, gold was also discovered at Three Sisters by August Robert (French Bob) in 1885 and 1886, whereas David Louw discovered alluvial gold in a stream west of Three Sisters during this same time (www.sahistory.org.za). Incidentally, the stream in question was named Louw’s Creek in his honour. These discoveries were made roughly 25 km south-east of the present study area.

The gold discoveries at especially Pilgrim’s Rest and Mac Mac in 1873 resulted in a gold rush which brought fortune seekers and prospectors from across the world to these parts. However, the shortest route to the newly discovered gold fields was across the dreaded Lowveld from Lourenço Marques. This route through regions infected by tsetse and malaria had to be undertaken by horse, wagon or by foot and crossed over both the Lebombo and Drakensberg mountains (Bornman, 1979).

As the gold rush towns such as Pilgrim’s Rest expanded, an increasing need arose for goods, food and equipment to be transported between here and the coast. With no railway line yet in existence, this dangerous task fell to transport riders such as Sir Percy Fitzpatrick, whose famous book Jock of Bushveld records the experiences of him and his dog during this time.

Although a number of early wagon roads existed, none of these appear to have been located in proximity to the present study area.

HIA – PROPOSED KARINO INTERCHANGE 8 JUNE 2017 Page 37 of 124

Figure 19 – This early map is dated to the period between 1884 and 1892 and clearly shows that two main wagon road routes existed at the time. The one route crossed the Crocodile River west of Mbombela, from where it ran in a north-eastern direction to the Lebombo Mountains. The second route followed the Crocodile River (east of the area depicted here) before turning to the south-west along the Kaap River all the way to Barberton and beyond. With the red arrow indicating the approximate position of the study area, it is clear that both these routes were located some distance from the study area (National Archives, Maps, S. 2/6).

HIA – PROPOSED KARINO INTERCHANGE 8 JUNE 2017 Page 38 of 124

The Eastern Line

Since the Great Trek of 1838, the Voortrekkers had been interested in obtaining a gateway to the sea as a means of entertaining economic trade and contact with the outside world free of British restrictions and regulations.

Although a number of initial attempts were made to survey and construct a railway to Lourenço Marques, these were all fraught with financial and political problems.

After becoming State President, Paul Kruger became a strong driving force behind the whole concept of a railway line to Delagoa Bay. One of the big developments toward the construction of the railway line was the establishment on 21 June 1887 of the Nederlandsche Zuid-Afrikaansche Spoorweg Maatschappij (N.Z.A.S.M.).

The survey work for the railway line proved a considerable undertaking, and in 1888 small parties consisting of engineers, supervisors and black assistants traveled into the Lowveld to undertake the work.

Although construction work was hampered by disputes between the N.Z.A.S.M. and the contractors, Van Hattum & Co, the line between the Portuguese border and Crcodile Poort was completed in April 1892. The section between Crocodile Poort and Nelspruit, which passed the present study area, was completed on 20 June 1892. Incidentally, Van Hattum & Co. departed from the project after the completion of 105 kilometers (Bornman, 1979) (De Jong, Van der Waal & Heydenrych, 1988).

The official opening of the Eastern Line took place a few years later in July 1895. At its completion, the railway line had 24 railway stations. No stations were built in proximity to the study area at the time, with the Karino Station clearly not yet built. The two closest stations to the study area at the time were Nelspruit to the west and Crocodile Poort to the east (De Jong, Van der Waal & Heydenrych, 1988).

HIA – PROPOSED KARINO INTERCHANGE 8 JUNE 2017 Page 39 of 124

Figure 20 – Contemporary photograph depicting the construction of the Eastern Line through Crocodile Poort (Bornman, 1979:48).

Karino Station

From the previous section it is clear that Karino Station was not erected as part of the construction for the original Eastern Line during the 1890s.

In a letter written by Sir T.R. Price, the General Manager of the Central South African Railways, and dated March 1904, names are proposed for eleven additional sidings along the Eastern Line between Komatipoort and Waterval Onder. One of these additional sidings is Karino, which is a name indicated in the letter to be derived from “…bush growing there in abundance…” (Transnet Heritage Library).

This letter represents the earliest indication of a station or siding named Karino, and clearly shows that the Karino Station, and any associated dwellings, would have been constructed after this date.

HIA – PROPOSED KARINO INTERCHANGE 8 JUNE 2017 Page 40 of 124

Figure 21 – Copy of the letter written by Sir T.R. Price, the General Manager of the Central South African Railways, and dated March 1904, which proposes names for eleven additional sidings along the Eastern Line. The fourth name from the top is Karino (Transnet Heritage Library).

HIA – PROPOSED KARINO INTERCHANGE 8 JUNE 2017 Page 41 of 124

The above-mentioned letter represents the only indication that the name Karino may be derived from a vernacular name for plants growing in this area. Another, seemingly more plausible explanation for the origins of the name Karino, is that the Italians working on the construction of the Eastern Line named this general area Karino, which means ‘beautiful’ or ‘pleasant’ in Italian (Delmar, 2010). Incidentally, the name Karino was changed during the 1960s to Carino by the place names commission. This caused significant issues to the local farmers with regard to post and rail items as well as telephone exchanges in that the new spelling of the name was often confused with placed such as Carolina and Calvinia. An objection to the spelling change was lodged by the Nelspruit Farmers Association and the spelling of the name was reverted back to Karino (Transnet Heritage Library).

Figure 22 – These two photographs of road signs near the study area show the change in spelling of the name Karino to Carino during the 1960s. After the lodging of an objection by local farmers, the spelling of the name was changed back to Karino (The Star, 17 July 1972).

According to an extract from Weekly Notice dated 15 December 1911, “Karino, eastern main line, has now been opened for passenger (sic), parcels, luggage, and small consignments of goods…” (Transnet Heritage Library). By 14 March 1913, a dead-end had been provided at Karino Station and “…traffic in truck loads… could be dealth with (Transnet Heritage Library). From this extract it is evident that work on the Karino Siding had progressed to such an extent, that it was open to both passengers and certain goods.

HIA – PROPOSED KARINO INTERCHANGE 8 JUNE 2017 Page 42 of 124

The Private Working Time-Book of the Eastern Transvaal System of the South African Railways and Harbours dated November 1930, indicates that Karino Station was a completely functioning station by this time. A pen inscription made in the book on 13 February 1931, indicates that the station was open from Monday to Saturday from 4h30 am to 9h00 pm (Transnet Heritage Library).

Farms from the Study Area

An examination of the available cartographic material indicates that by the early twentieth century, the study area was still located in a landscape that had remained unsurveyed, with the nearest proclaimed farms located at present-day Mbombela (National Archives, Maps, 3/512 & 3/566). A few years after the South African War, a number of these unsurveyed parts were divided into lots and leased out by government to private indivdiuals. In this way, a number of lots, known collectively as Karino Farm, were leased to Patrick Bernard Curry and Walter Lenton on 24 November 1910. The lease agreement was signed for period of five years, and did not allow for the purchase of the property. Subsequently, Curry and Lenton requested permission to purchase the farm. This permission was granted, and during July 1920 Curry and Lenton purchased the farm Karino 273 from government for an amount of £405. 17. 6 (National Archives, URU, 299, 3052). Similarly, lots collectively known as The Union Farm were leased to George Lawrence Baker and John Edward Francis Lantman on 20 April 1911. This lease was ceded to George Lawrence Baker and Claude Henry Domville on 7 September 1914. It is not presently known whether Baker and Domville also purchased the property (National Archives, URU, 301, 3136).

No further information with regards to Messrs. Curry, Lenton, Baker, Lantman and Domville could be found.

HIA – PROPOSED KARINO INTERCHANGE 8 JUNE 2017 Page 43 of 124

Figure 23 – A section of the map titled Plan of the Mining Rights District of Barberton compiled on 1 December 1905 by the Registrar of Mining Rights, Duncan Stuart, and Chief Draughtsman, Frank H. Luckin. The position of the study area is marked. According to the legend appearing on the map, the study area was Government Proclaimed Ground and fell within Section D of the Barberton District. It is clear from this depiction that the study area did not yet form part of any surveyed or proclaimed farms, with the nearest proclaimed farm located in proximity to modern Mbombela.

HIA – PROPOSED KARINO INTERCHANGE 8 JUNE 2017 Page 44 of 124

5.2 Historic Aerial Photographs

Two aerial photographs of the study area were obtained from the Chief Directorate: National Geo- Spatial Information in Cape Town. These two aerial photographs were taken in the 1936 and 1959. As a result, they provide a valuable sequence in the history of the study area.

5.2.1 Aerial Photograph taken in 1936

The figure below depicts a section of the aerial photograph that was taken on 2 June 1936 (NGI, Aerial Photographs, 110_14_29121). The following features could be identified on this aerial photograph within the present study area:

• Feature 1

The road between Nelspruit (Mbombela) and Crocodile Poort is shown passing through the study area. No evidence for this road could be found during the fieldwork. It can be assumed that sections of this older road would have been destroyed by later road development and the establishment of farming orchards and industry in this landscape.

• Feature 2

The ruin of a house, associated with three huts, is depicted here. No evidence for these structures could be identified during the fieldwork.

• Feature 3

A small section of the railway line originally built during the 1890s is shown crossing over the study area. Although the railway line still crosses through a section of the study area, it was expanded, electrified and modernised over time.

• Feature 4

A canal or water furrow is shown crossing over a section of the study area. Significant road

HIA – PROPOSED KARINO INTERCHANGE 8 JUNE 2017 Page 45 of 124

construction here during the relatively recent past would have destroyed any sign of this canal or water furrow from within the present study area.

• Feature 5

A black homestead, comprising two huts as well as a possible cooking hut, is depicted here. No evidence for these structures could be located during the fieldwork.

• Feature 6

Two of the four railway houses still located within the study area, are shown on this 1936 image. These two railway houses are listed in this report as Buildings 1 and 3. The associated brick outbuildings (Buildings 2 & 4) still found on site, are also depicted on this image.

• Feature 7

A cluster of three buildings is depicted here. One of these is a large structure and may have been a packing shed associated with citrus farming. The N4 highway was later built through this area. No evidence for any of these buildings could be identified during the fieldwork.

The following general observations can be made:

• Evidence for citrus farming activities can be seen throughout the surrounding landscape, with a section of a citrus orchard also shown within the study area.

• The interchange and road over the Crocodile River and railway line partially located within the present study area, is not depicted on this aerial photograph. At the time, the only road crossing over the Crocodile River in this area was a sand road which passed over the river by way of a bridge, from where the road skirted around the Karino Station to connect with the old road between Nelspruit (present day Mbombela) and Crocodile Poort on the eastern side of the station.

• Buildings associated with Karino Station are shown on both sides of the railway line.

HIA – PROPOSED KARINO INTERCHANGE 8 JUNE 2017 Page 46 of 124

Feature 4 Feature

Feature 3 Feature

Feature 2 Feature

Feature 1 Feature

Figure 24 – The western end of the study area as depicted on the 1936 aerial photograph is shown. Detailed views of the identified features are shown. The study area boundaries are depicted in red.

HIA – PROPOSED KARINO INTERCHANGE 8 JUNE 2017 Page 47 of 124

Feature 7 Feature

Feature 6 Feature

Feature 5 Feature

Figure 25 – The eastern end of the study area as depicted on the 1936 aerial photograph is shown. Detailed views of the identified features are shown. The study area boundaries are depicted in red.

HIA – PROPOSED KARINO INTERCHANGE 8 JUNE 2017 Page 48 of 124

5.2.2 Aerial Photograph taken in 1959

The figure below depicts a section of the aerial photograph that was taken in 1959 (NGI, Aerial Photographs, 427_06_0000).

The following features could be identified on this aerial photograph within the present study area:

• Feature 1

The old road between Nelspruit (present day Mbombela) and Crocodile Poort had evidently been replaced with a new tar road. It is interesting to note that the route followed by this tar road is very similar to the N4 highway today. A number of black homesteads are also shown between this new road and the railway line. None of these features homsteads could be identified during the present fieldwork.

• Feature 2

A cluster of buildings and structures are shown here, including a swimming pool, two rectangular buildings as well as a small group of what appears to be huts. During the fieldwork, the swimming pool could still be identified within the present study area.

• Feature 3

A house is depicted here. This house is partially located within the present study area, and is included in this report as Building 9.

• Feature 4

A house is depicted here. This house was identified during the fieldwork and is included in this report as Building 8. It is worth noting that the building depicted on the 1959 aerial photograph was much smaller than the current building located here. This may be due to modifications and alterations of the original core over time, or alternatively that the building was still under construction in 1959.

HIA – PROPOSED KARINO INTERCHANGE 8 JUNE 2017 Page 49 of 124

• Feature 5

A small section of the railway line originally built during the 1890s is shown crossing over the study area. Although the railway line still crosses through a section of the study area, it was expanded, electrified and modernised over time.

• Feature 6

A canal or water furrow is shown crossing over a section of the study area. Significant road construction here during the relatively recent past would have destroyed any sign of this canal or water furrow from within the present study area.

• Feature 7

All four the railway houses still located within the study area, are shown on this 1959 image. These four railway houses are listed in this report as Building 1, Building 3, Building 5 and Building 7. The associated outbuildings (Building 2, Building 4 and Building 6) still found on site, are also depicted on this image.

• Feature 8

A cluster of buildings is depicted here. One of these is a large structure and may have been a packing shed associated with citrus farming. The N4 highway was later built through this area. No evidence for any of these buildings could be identified during the fieldwork.

The following general observations can be made:

• Evidence for citrus farming activities can be seen throughout the surrounding landscape, with two sections of the study area used by this time as citrus orchards.

• The interchange and road over the Crocodile River and railway line partially located within the present study area, is not depicted on this aerial photograph.

• Buildings associated with Karino Station are shown on both sides of the railway line.

HIA – PROPOSED KARINO INTERCHANGE 8 JUNE 2017 Page 50 of 124

Feature 4 Feature

Feature 3 Feature

Feature 2 Feature

Feature 1 Feature

Figure 26 – The western end of the study area as depicted on the 1959 aerial photograph is shown. Detailed views of the identified features are shown. The study area boundaries are depicted in red.

HIA – PROPOSED KARINO INTERCHANGE 8 JUNE 2017 Page 51 of 124

Feature 8 Feature

Feature 7 Feature

Feature 6 Feature

Feature 5 Feature

Figure 27 – The eastern end of the study area as depicted on the 1959 aerial photograph is shown. Detailed views of the identified features are shown. The study area boundaries are depicted in red.

HIA – PROPOSED KARINO INTERCHANGE 8 JUNE 2017 Page 52 of 124

5.3 Previous Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) Reports from the Study Area and Surroundings

The South African Heritage Resources Agency Information System (SAHRIS) lists a number of previous archaeological and heritage studies from the surroundings of the present study area. None of these previous studies assessed the present study area. These known archaeological and heritage studies are as follows:

• Cilliers, JP. 2005a. Archaeological Survey on Erven 3613 and 3614 on Portion 22 of the Farm Shandon 194 JU, Nelspruit Extension 35

• Cilliers, JP. 2005b. Archaeological Survey of the Central Waste Disposal Site, Tekwane, Mbombela Municipality on Portion 5 of Farm Tekwane 573 JU

• Cilliers, JP. 2006. Heritage Impact Assessment and Archaeological Survey for the Karino Urban Development on Portion 7, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 26, 44, and 73 of the Farm Goedehoop 128 JU, Portion 23 of the Farm Broedershoek 129 JU, Mbombela

• Gaigher, S. 2011. Phase 1 Heritage Impact Assessment for the Proposed Karino Industrial Park Development, Mbombela.

• Cilliers, JP. 2012. Phase 1 Archaeological Impact Assessment on Portions 1, 3, 5 and 16 of the farm Tipperary 135 JU, Portion 4 of Portion 5 of the farm Duma 201 JU and Portion 3 of the farm Langgewacht 202 JU near Karino, Mpumalanga Province.

• Van Wyk Rowe, C. 2014. Phase 1 Archaeological / Heritage Impact Assessment for Proposed Reservoir, Bulk Sewer and Bulk Water Pipelines, Portion 7 of Tekwane 537JU, Kanyamazane, Mpumalanga Province

Cilliers (2005a) identified two small stone enclosures associated with the Late Iron Age and Cilliers (2006) identified 19 heritage sites within the proposed Karino Estate, comprising 12 cemeteries, six buildings and one Late Iron Age site. Gaigher (2011) identified the foundation remains of a farmstead as well as buildings associated with the Karino Station. Cilliers (2012) identified a historic water furrow and associated structures.

No archaeological or heritage sites were identified during the other studies (Cilliers, 2005b) (Van Wyk Rowe, 2014).

HIA – PROPOSED KARINO INTERCHANGE 8 JUNE 2017 Page 53 of 124

6 FIELDWORK FINDINGS

6.1 Introduction

During the fieldwork, a total of 11 buildings and structures were identified. These 11 buildings represent the only heritage sites identified within the study area. No evidence for archaeological or heritage sites other than these 11 buildings and structures could be found.

The buildings and structures were identified in two separate localities within the overall study area. The configuration and layout of the buildings identified within these two building clusters are illustrated and discussed in Sections 6.1.1 and 6.1.2 below. In Section 6.2, all the buildings identified within these two buildings clusters will be individually discussed.

6.1.1 Karino Railway Station Cluster

A total of seven of the 11 buildings and structures identified within the present study area, are located within this cluster. Situated near the north-eastern end of the study area, this cluster consists of four railway houses (and three outbuildings) associated with the nearby Karino Station. As noted elsewhere, the Karino Station itself is located outside of the study area and was not assessed during this study. The buildings from this cluster were numbered from Building 1 to Buildings 7. The configuration and layout of these seven buildings and structures is illustrated below.

Figure 28 – This image provides the layout and configuration of the seven buildings identified within this cluster. It depicts a diagram drawn by the architectural historian Mauritz Naudé.

HIA – PROPOSED KARINO INTERCHANGE 8 JUNE 2017 Page 54 of 124

Building 7 Building 6 Building 5 Building 4 Building 3 Building 1 Building 2

Figure 29 – Section of the development layout plan showing the proposed footprints in proximity to the cluster of railway houses. The individual buildings numbers used in this report are shown.

6.1.2 Karino Interchange Cluster

A total of four of the 11 buildings and structures identified within the present study area, are located within this cluster. Situated south of the existing interchange, this cluster consists of three dwellings as well as a swimming pool.

The buildings and structures from this cluster were included in this assessment as they are depicted on the 1959 aerial photograph. Their depiction on this aerial photograph means that these buildings and structures are at least 58 years old This said, it cannot be assumed that they are older than 60 years. Closer inspection revealed that these buildings were extensively altered and renovated since their depiction on the 1959 aerial photograph. Some of these buildings are farm buildings and in typical tradition have been altered and adapted to serve the needs of the landowners without the

HIA – PROPOSED KARINO INTERCHANGE 8 JUNE 2017 Page 55 of 124

strict specifications of building municipal regulations. Although small sections of the original buildings still exist and can be reconstructed from the remains of the roof structures, the floor plans have been extended in order to create more rooms. The buildings have also been upgraded and more recent steel frame windows and doors have been added to blend with the later additions. The buildings now reflect building tendencies and architectural vocabularies of the past 15 to 20 years.

None of the buildings from this cluster can be considered of architectural significance and their cultural significance may relate to the age of some parts of each structure – not significant enough to formally protect the buildings

The buildings from this cluster were numbered from Building 8 to Buildings 11. The configuration and layout of these four buildings and structures is illustrated below.

Building 11 Building 10 Building 9 Building 8

Figure 30 – Section of the development layout plan showing the proposed development footprints in proximity to the western buildings. The positions of these buildings are indicated.

HIA – PROPOSED KARINO INTERCHANGE 8 JUNE 2017 Page 56 of 124

Figure 31 – This image provides the layout and configuration of the four buildings identified within this cluster. It depicts a diagram drawn by the architectural historian Mauritz Naudé.

6.2 Track Logs

During the fieldwork, a hand-held GPS device was used to record track logs. These recorded track logs show the routes followed by the fieldwork team on site.

The study area boundaries and recorded track logs are depicted in the figure below.

HIA – PROPOSED KARINO INTERCHANGE 8 JUNE 2017 Page 57 of 124

study area boundary in red and the recorded track logs in white. in logs track recorded the and red in boundary area study

Google Earth depiction of the the of depiction Earth Google

32 Figure Figure

HIA – PROPOSED KARINO INTERCHANGE 8 JUNE 2017 Page 58 of 124

6.3 Buildings identified within the Study Area

6.3.1 Building 1 – Dwelling

General Description

This is one of two examples of a large railways dwelling type occurring on the site. The building is redundant and empty and its windows and doors have been vandalised and removed. It is a single story building but is elevated from the ground with a semi-cellar space underneath – not high enough to walk through. The building has a well-defined plinth of plastered and painted bricks and the core section of the dwelling is constructed with ochre coloured face bricks. It is surrounded with a wide elevated veranda that was later closed with steel frame windows. It is assumed that the original roof was replaced with tiles rendering it a younger appearance. A relative dating for the building according to an assessment of the architectural evidence (built fabric) is 1940-1955.

The veranda renders the core section of the building cooler and protected from direct sun. Older architectural drawings of railway dwellings with similar looking verandas indicate that the verandas were screened with mosquito mesh in order to alleviate the presence of malaria mosquitos during summer. The front façade faces north and the principal entrance and front door are located in this façade which is entered via a wide concrete and face brick staircase.

The dwelling section of the building only forms a small part of the full floor plan as it is surrounded by a veranda along three sides. The veranda dwelling type seems to have originated much earlier in the 20th century - probably originating as a timber frame with corrugated iron walling - and this dwelling is one of the more recent examples and interpretations of the earlier model.

The drawing below indicates what the earlier versions of the veranda dwelling used to look like. The covered veranda was designed with columns serving as supports for the veranda roof and it was specified that the veranda be closed with mosquito mesh. This was a typical dwelling type for hot and humid climates. The building was also elevated from the ground allowing cool breezes to pass underneath.

HIA – PROPOSED KARINO INTERCHANGE 8 JUNE 2017 Page 59 of 124

Figure 33 – General view of the dwelling surrounded by an elevated veranda at Building 1. Photograph by Mauritz Naudé.

Figure 34 – The north eastern elevation of Building 1, indicating its high elevated veranda. Photograph by Mauritz Naudé.

Age of Building

Building 1 is depicted on the 1936 aerial photograph, which means it is at least 81 years old. A building plan for an earlier model was found in the PhD thesis of Jaco Wasserfall (1989). This plan was compiled on 29 April 1913 and depicts the Resident Medical Officer’s veranda house at

HIA – PROPOSED KARINO INTERCHANGE 8 JUNE 2017 Page 60 of 124

Komatipoort. It is therefore clear that the building dates to the period between 1913 and 1936, and as a result is between 104 and 81 years old.

Figure 35 – Early model of the veranda dwelling type and probably the predecessor of the veranda dwelling type present at Karino. This image depicts the Resident Medical Officer’s veranda house at Komatipoort and dates to c. 1913. An outbuilding containing a pail closet, fuel store and servant’s room was located at the rear of the house. The building type is known as South African Transport Services (SATS) P12 and this plan was drawn on 29 April 1913 (Wasserfall, 1989:238).

HIA – PROPOSED KARINO INTERCHANGE 8 JUNE 2017 Page 61 of 124

6.3.2 Building 2 – Outbuilding

General Description

Building 2 comprises a red face brick ablution unit detached from the main dwelling and set approximately 30m east from the dwelling. It is a flat roof structure covered with corrugated iron sheeting and has steel frame windows and doors. On the original building plan dated to 29 April 1913, these ablution blocks were referred to as an outhouse with a pail closet, fuel store and servants room.

Figure 36 – Ablution blocks of building 2. Photograph by Mauritz Naudé.

Age of Building

Building 2 is depicted on the 1936 aerial photograph, which means it is at least 81 years old. Wasserfall (1989) mentions that an outbuilding containing a pail closet, fuel store and servant’s room was depicted on a building plan for an earlier model compiled on 29 April 1913. It is clear that Building 2 dates to between 1913 and 1936, and as a result is between 104 and 81 years old.

HIA – PROPOSED KARINO INTERCHANGE 8 JUNE 2017 Page 62 of 124

6.3.3 Building 3 – Dwelling

General Description

This is the second of two examples of a large dwelling type occurring on the site. The building is redundant and empty and its windows and doors have been vandalized and removed. It is a single story building but is elevated from the ground with a semi-cellar space underneath – not high enough to walk through. The elevation of the entire structure renders the building more imposing. It has a well-defined plinth of blueish face bricks and the core section of the dwelling is constructed with ochre colored face bricks. The tile roof may be a replacement of an earlier corrugated iron roof. The building is surrounded with a wide elevated veranda that was later closed with steel frame windows. The original roof was replaced with tiles rendering the core section of the building with a more contemporary character whilst the veranda rendered the dwelling cooler and protected the core section from direct sun. The front façade faces north and the principal entrance and front door are located in this façade which is entered via a wide concrete and plastered brick staircase.

Figure 37 – Northern elevation of Building 3, elevated by a plinth of blueish face brick walling.

Age of Building

Building 3 is depicted on the 1936 aerial photograph, which means it is at least 81 years old. The building plan of an earlier model compiled in 1913, also applies to this structure. As a result, the building dates to the period between 1913 and 1936, and is therefore between 104 and 81 years old.

HIA – PROPOSED KARINO INTERCHANGE 8 JUNE 2017 Page 63 of 124

6.3.4 Building 4 – Outbuilding

General Description

A plastered brick ablution unit detached from the main dwelling and set approximately 40m east of the dwelling. It is a flat roof structure covered with corrugated iron sheeting and steel frame windows and doors.

Figure 38 – Plastered brick ablution facility- building 4. Photograph by Mauritz Naudé.

Age of Building

Building 2 is depicted on the 1936 aerial photograph, which means it is at least 81 years old. Wasserfall (1989) mentions that an outbuilding containing a pail closet, fuel store and servant’s room was depicted on a building plan for an earlier model compiled on 29 April 1913. It is clear that Building 2 dates to between 1913 and 1936, and as a result is between 104 and 81 years old.

HIA – PROPOSED KARINO INTERCHANGE 8 JUNE 2017 Page 64 of 124

6.3.5 Building 5 – Dwelling

General Description

This is the smallest of the residences on the site. It is a single story dwelling unit with a hipped roof and walls constructed with red face bricks. The red face bricks were left exposed to window lintel height while the remaining section of the upper walls was plastered up to the eaves of the roof.

This is one of the standard dwelling types with three bedrooms, a kitchen, lounge, bathroom and toilet to fit a full family and was commonly referred to as SAR Type Quarters P99. The date of this type is recorded as 1938.

Figure 39 – Northern elevation of Building 5. Photograph by Mauritz Naudé.

Age of Building

Building 5 is not depicted on the 1936 aerial photograph, which means it is younger than 81 years. Its first appearance is on the 1959 aerial photograph. This indicates that the building is older than 58 years. A building plan for this exact building type was found in the PhD thesis of Jaco Wasserfall

HIA – PROPOSED KARINO INTERCHANGE 8 JUNE 2017 Page 65 of 124

(1989:252). This plan identifies the building type as a P99 that was designed and built for “lower grades of employees like station foremen and guards”. The plan was compiled in 1938, which indicates that Building 5 dates to the period between 1938 and 1959, and as a result is between 79 and 58 years old.

Figure 40 – Small dwelling type referred to as SATS Type P99 (Wasserfall, 1989:252). This building type was designed and built for so-called ‘lower grade employees’ such as foremen and guards. The building plan was compiled in 1938.

HIA – PROPOSED KARINO INTERCHANGE 8 JUNE 2017 Page 66 of 124

6.3.6 Building 6 – Outbuilding

General Description

This is a single story, small ablution unit with a flat corrugated iron roof constructed with red face bricks serving the needs of the small red face brick dwelling (Building 5). It is completely detached from the dwelling and constructed on the property boundary directly next to the N4 road reserve

Figure 41 – Southern elevation of the ablution complex at Building 6. Photograph by Mauritz Naudé.

Age of Building

Building 6 is not depicted on the 1936 aerial photograph, which means it is younger than 81 years. Its first appearance is on the 1959 aerial photograph. This indicates that it is older than 58 years.

It seems likely for this building to have been built at the same time as the associated dwelling (Building 5). A building plan for the exact building type found at Building 5 was located in the PhD thesis of Jaco Wasserfall (1989:252). This plan was compiled in 1938.

It seems evdident that Building 6 dates to the period between 1938 and 1959, and as a result is between 79 and 58 years old.

HIA – PROPOSED KARINO INTERCHANGE 8 JUNE 2017 Page 67 of 124

6.3.7 Building 7 – Dwelling

General Description

The structure is a single story dwelling with slightly elevated floors and a plinth. Large ventilation louvres are installed underneath the building to serve suspended timber floors. All the walls are plastered brick and the roof is covered with tiles served by gutters and down pipes. Standard steel frame windows and doors were used with 30-degree ceramic tile window sills. This dwelling type was also part of a catalogue system of dwelling models to be selected according to the status and job description of the official who reside in the dwelling.

Figure 42 – Northern elevation of Building 7. Photograph by Mauritz Naudé.

Age of Building

Building 7 is not depicted on the 1936 aerial photograph, which means it is younger than 81 years. It appears to be depicted on the 1959 aerial photograph. This indicates that it is older than 58 years.

It seems evdident that Building 7 dates to the period between 1936 and 1959, and as a result is between 81 and 58 years old.

HIA – PROPOSED KARINO INTERCHANGE 8 JUNE 2017 Page 68 of 124

6.3.8 Building 8 – Dwelling

General Description

The building currently forms part of the fenced-off staff village on a citrus farm. It is indicated on the 1959 aerial photograph. The exact age of the building is not known and since the aerial photograph was taken it has been extended several times and the entire buildings has been renovated and altered extensively. The changes to the building are of such extent that very little of the original intent of the design has remained except for some sections of the roof structure.

Figure 43 – General view of Building 8. The building is located within the staff village of a citrus farm.

Age of Building

Building 8 as it appears today, is partially depicted on the 1959 aerial photograph. Since that date, the building has been extensively expanded and renovated. A section of the building as it appears today, may be older than 60 years, but this is not certain.

HIA – PROPOSED KARINO INTERCHANGE 8 JUNE 2017 Page 69 of 124

6.3.9 Building 9 – Dwelling

General Description

The building currently forms part of the fenced-off staff village on a citrus farm. It is indicated on the 1959 aerial photograph. The exact age of the building cannot be determined and several extensions have been added to the original core structure. During the process of upgrading and extensions the building was altered to the extent that little of the original intent of the design can be determined.

Age of Building

Building 9 as it appears today, is partially depicted on the 1959 aerial photograph. Since that date, the building has been extensively expanded and renovated. A section of the building as it appears today, may be older than 60 years, but this is not certain.

6.3.10 Building 10 – Dwelling

General Description

The building may be indicated on the 1959 aerial photograph, although this is not certain. The original building may have been used as a dwelling, but has since then has been modified extensively into a guest house facility. As such, it has been extended several times and all detailing have been altered and upgraded.

Age of Building

Building 10 may be depicted on the 1959 aerial photograph, but this in itself is not absolutely certain. If this building is indeed depicted on the 1959 image, it has been extensively expanded and renovated over the ensuing years.

If the building was originally depicted on the 1959 aerial photograph, its function has certainly also been changed from a dwelling-like structure into a guest house type facility of the more recent past.

HIA – PROPOSED KARINO INTERCHANGE 8 JUNE 2017 Page 70 of 124

Figure 44 – North western elevation of the structure at Building 10. Photograph by Mauritz Naudé.

Figure 45 – Eastern elevation of the structure at Building 10. Photograph by Mauritz Naudé.

HIA – PROPOSED KARINO INTERCHANGE 8 JUNE 2017 Page 71 of 124

6.3.11 Building 11 – Pool

General Description

This swimming pool is indicated on the 1959 aerial photograph. It still exists.

Age of Building

Building 11 as it appears today, is depicted on the 1959 aerial photograph. It is possible that the swimming pool depicted here was associated with a dwelling where Building 10 is currently located. It is possible for the swimming pool to be older than 60 years.

6.4 Assessment of the Significance of the Identified Buildings

This section deals with an assessment of the significance of the identified heritage resources in terms of the heritage assessment criteria in Section 6(2) or prescribed in Section 7 and relates to Section 38(3) (b) of the National Heritage Resources Act.

According to the Burra Charter, ‘cultural significance’ means ‘aesthetic, historic, scientific or social value for past, present or future generations’. Cultural significance is a concept which helps in estimating the value of sites and places. These terms and their meaning are not mutually exclusive, for example, architectural style has both historical and aesthetic aspects (Burra Charter, 1999).

The categorization into aesthetic, historic, scientific and social values is one approach to understand the concept of cultural significance (Burra Charter, 1999). However, more precise categories may be used as understanding of a particular place may increase.

For the purposes of this report such categories are used in tandem with the criteria set out by the National Heritage Resources Act.

HIA – PROPOSED KARINO INTERCHANGE 8 JUNE 2017 Page 72 of 124

6.4.1. Criteria of significance in terms of Section 3(3) of the National Heritage Resources Act.

Criteria Significance

1. The importance of the cultural heritage in the community or pattern of Rating South Africa’s history (Historic and political significance)

The small cluster of dwellings cannot be defined as a settlement or a High village as it contains only four dwellings with their outbuildings. This used to be a typical phenomenon along the national railway network in South Africa but the tradition is now discarded and the buildings are becoming redundant.

The farm buildings originated as small dwellings and were later extended Low and extensively altered to accommodate contemporary needs.

2. Possession of uncommon, rare or endangered aspects of South Africa’s Rating natural or cultural heritage (Scientific significance).

This cluster of buildings is similar to other similar looking clusters of railway dwellings that are no more utilized by the railway companies. Endangered Nationwide they are not rare but in this region this cluster is unique. As these buildings are no longer utilised or maintained by the railways, they are in danger of being stripped of materials, vandalized by informal settlers and will become dilapidated and eventually disappear from the landscape.

The farm buildings have been altered and upgraded to suit contemporary Low needs but have lost their original character. They are nor rare or uncommon.

3. Potential to yield information that will contribute to an understanding Rating of South Africa’s natural or cultural heritage (Research/scientific significance)

The settlement and the buildings have no scientific significance but Medium represent the last of their type associated with the history of the railways passing Mbombela.

The architectural character of the various farm buildings is typical of the Low surrounding farm buildings.

4. Importance in demonstrating the principal characteristics of a particular Rating class of South Africa’s natural or cultural places or objects (Scientific significance) High The cluster of buildings represents a certain period in the history of the

HIA – PROPOSED KARINO INTERCHANGE 8 JUNE 2017 Page 73 of 124

South African Railways, that came to an end after 1994 and will never be repeated, restored or become part of the current branding of the South African Railways corporate thinking or business strategy.

Several farmsteads and farm dwellings occur in the vicinity of the Low identified farmstead. They have been upgraded and altered to look the same. If they are demolished several other farm dwellings remain to reflect what these dwellings used to look like.

5. Importance in exhibiting particular aesthetic characteristics valued by a Rating community or cultural group (Aesthetic significance)

None of the buildings can be assessed as unique in the same sense as an architect-designed building – according to an architectural style endorsed High by academic design references. They have all been designed to fit the corporate identity of the former SAR & H and SAR specifications. The buildings were catalogue types and each model in such a typology serves a particular purpose and is associated with the rank and status of the employee who resided in it.

None of the farm buildings reflect an aesthetic that is valued by a Low particular group – the academic and architectural community.

6. Importance in demonstrating a high degree of creative or technical Rating achievement at a particular period (Scientific significance)

All the face brick buildings reflect fine craftsmanship in terms of bricklaying and final finishing of coursework The oldest face brick Medium dwellings were probably preceded by timber frame and corrugated iron clad building of which no examples have remained intact. The current buildings are therefore the last of a second generation building models,

which have also become redundant and will now enter the heritage domain of historic industrial architecture.

All the farm buildings reflect a character of practicality and functionality Low rather than creativity or technical achievement.

7. Strong or special association with a particular community or cultural Rating group for social, cultural or spiritual reasons (Social significance)

None of the buildings is still inhabited by their original owners or High relatives. Its significance lies with the historians, cultural historians and those groups with a special interest in architectural history and general history of the former South African railways.

The farm buildings reflect a certain similarity in style that can be Low considered as an ‘acceptable’ standard or norm for the farming community in the neighborhood. The loss of social cohesion will be of

HIA – PROPOSED KARINO INTERCHANGE 8 JUNE 2017 Page 74 of 124

more significance than the loss of the architectural fabric.

8. Strong or special association with the life and work of a person, group Rating or organization of importance in the history of South Africa (Historic significance) The site and the buildings are associated with the development and High history of the former South African Railways and Harbors (SAR &H), the later South African Railways (SAR) and current Spoornet history. No particular individual is associated with the site or any of the buildings.

None of the buildings have an association with a particular person or Low group other than the surrounding farming community.

9. The significance of the site relating to the history of slavery in South Rating Africa.

Neither the site nor any of the buildings have any association with the Low history of slavery in South Africa.

It does have a long history associated with railway worker’s history in the High former Transvaal and Nelspruit area.

The farm buildings reflect the dwellings of farmers in the region with all Medium their extensions and additions.

6.4.2. Significance criteria in terms of historical, artefactual and spatial significance.

As the criteria set out in the National Heritage Resources Act tend to approach heritage from the level of ‘national’ significance and few heritage sites and features fall within this category, a second set of criteria are used to determine the regional and local significance of heritage sites. Three sub- categories are used to determine this significance:

(a) Historical significance This category determines the social context in which a heritage site and resource need to be assessed. These criteria focus on the history of the ‘place’ in terms of its significance in time and the role they played in a particular community (human context).

(b) Architectural significance The objective of this set of criteria is to assess the artefactual significance of the heritage

HIA – PROPOSED KARINO INTERCHANGE 8 JUNE 2017 Page 75 of 124

resource, its physical condition and meaning as an ‘object’.

(c) Spatial significance Focuses on the context in which the object and place exists and contributed to the landscape, the region and neighborhood.

Historical Significance

These criteria focus on the social context in which a heritage site and resource need to be assessed. These criteria focus on the history of the ‘place’ in terms of its significance in time and the role they played in a particular community.

Criteria Significance

1. Is the site or any building associated with a historical person or group? Rating

The cluster of buildings is not associated with the life and work of an Medium individual but is still associated with the history and development of the

former South African Railways and Harbors (SAR &H) and its more recent history.

The farming buildings are not associated with a significant historical Low person or group.

2. Is the site or any building associated with a historical event? Rating

Neither the site nor the buildings is associated with any outstanding Low historical event.

The farm buildings are not associated with a historical event. Low

3. Is the site or building associated with a religious, economic, social, Rating political or educational activity?

The buildings are associated with the history of the South African Railways and Harbors (SAR&H), who played a significant role in the Medium development of the economy by serving as primary transport entity exporting and importing produce into and out of South Africa through the harbour of Lourenco Marques (now Maputo).

All the farmsteads are associated with the history of citrus farming in the Low

HIA – PROPOSED KARINO INTERCHANGE 8 JUNE 2017 Page 76 of 124

region.

4. Is the site or building of archaeological significance? Rating

Neither the site nor any of the buildings on the site are older than 100 Low years and cannot be classified as place or feature of archaeological significance.

5. Are any of the buildings or structures on the site older than 60 years? Rating

Building 1 – dwelling: older than 60 years See text indicating the

age of each Building 2 – outbuilding: older than 60 years building in adjacent column (left) Building 3 – dwelling: older than 60 years

Building 4 - outbuilding: older than 60 years

Building 5 – dwelling: older than 60 years

Building 6 – outbuilding: not older than 60 years

Building 7 – dwelling: not older than 60 years

Building 8 – dwelling: may be older than 60 years

Building 9 – dwelling: may be older than 60 years

Building 10 – dwelling: may be older than 60 years

Building (structure) 11 – pool: may be older than 60 years

HIA – PROPOSED KARINO INTERCHANGE 8 JUNE 2017 Page 77 of 124

Architectural Significance (artefactual significance)

These criteria focus on the object or artifact (building or structure or both) itself. They relate to the qualitative aspects of the artifact in terms of technology, period and style.

Criteria Significance

1. Are any of the buildings or structures an important example of a Rating building type?

Building 1 – dwelling: the building conforms to a particular category of High dwelling reserved for a specific ranking and professional status of the railways employee.

Building 2 – outbuilding: the building conforms to a particular category of Medium dwelling.

Building 3 – dwelling: the building conforms to a particular category of High dwelling reserved according to the specific level and ranking of the railways employee.

Building 4 - outbuilding: the building conforms to a particular category of Medium dwelling.

Building 5 – dwelling: the building conforms to a particular category of High dwelling reserved according to the level and ranking of the railways employee.

Building 6 – outbuilding: the building conforms to a particular category of Medium ablution facility to support a particular dwelling size and type.

Building 7 – dwelling: the building conforms to a particular category of Low dwelling reserved according to the level and ranking of the railways employee.

Building 8 – dwelling: not an important example of a building type Low

HIA – PROPOSED KARINO INTERCHANGE 8 JUNE 2017 Page 78 of 124

Building 9 – dwelling: not an important example of a building type Low

Building 10 – dwelling: not an important example of a building type Low

Building (structure) 11 – pool: not a significant example of a pool type Low

2. Are any of the buildings outstanding examples of a particular style or Rating period.

None of the buildings conform to any architectural avante-garde architectural style, neither to an academic style movement. The only High stylistic movement that can be associated with these buildings – especially the oldest models – is the Arts and Crafts movement as the buildings reflect exceptional brick masonry.

The buildings were designed by railway engineers and had to comply with the strict rules of functionality, practicality and economic sustainability and with low maintenance budgets in mind. The buildings

therefore reflect their own style; that of the South African Railways and Harbors (SAR&H).

The farm buildings have been upgraded over time and reflect the type of Low alterations and additions normally associated with farm dwellings: lean- to rooms, car ports and verandas added along the warmer elevations.

3. Do any of the buildings contain fine architectural details and reflect Rating exceptional craftsmanship?

All the face brick buildings reflect exceptional brick masonry in terms of Medium variety of brick types and colors used but also the way coursework was executed and details such as arches, bonding and quoining were done.

Figure 46 – Southern elevation of one of the larger dwellings exposing the brick masonry along this façade

HIA – PROPOSED KARINO INTERCHANGE 8 JUNE 2017 Page 79 of 124

Figure 47 – Combination of various brick types used while also reflecting the detail of face brick masonry in the arch above the cellar door

All the farm buildings were altered and upgraded with building materials, Low fixtures and fitting commonly available in hardware stores.

4. Are any of the buildings an example of an industrial, engineering or Rating technological development.

The buildings are all the result of engineering design of dwelling houses for railway staff during the middle part of the 20thcentury. The represent Low engineering design more than architectural design principles. However, none of the buildings are exceptional engineering design structures in the same manner as bridges, dams and steel structures would be and therefore not be compared to such engineering structures.

None of the farm buildings contain exceptional architectural elements Low and aspects considered to be reflecting engineering developments.

5. What is the state of the architectural and structural integrity of the Rating building?

Please note these observations are made from a heritage point of view Medium only, and do not represent any statement on the structural integrity of these buildings from a civil engineering standpoint.

Building 1 – dwelling: Architectural integrity - fair Medium Structural integrity - good

Building 2 – outbuilding: architectural integrity - fair Medium Structural integrity – fair

HIA – PROPOSED KARINO INTERCHANGE 8 JUNE 2017 Page 80 of 124

Building 3 – dwelling: architectural integrity – fair Medium

Structural integrity - good

Building 4 - outbuilding: architectural integrity – fair Medium

Structural integrity – fair

Building 5 – dwelling: architectural integrity – good Medium Structural integrity – good

Building 6 – outbuilding: architectural integrity – fair Medium Structural integrity – fair

Building 7 – dwelling: architectural integrity – very good Medium Structural integrity – very good

Building 8 – dwelling: original architectural integrity – fair Low

Structural integrity – fair

Building 9 – dwelling: original architectural integrity – fair Low

Structural integrity – fair

Building 10 – dwelling: original architectural – poor Low

Structural integrity – fair

Building (structure) 11 – pool: structural integrity – poor Low

6. Is the building’s current and future use in sympathy with its original use Rating (for which the building was designed)?

The future use proposes demolition as these buildings do not form part See comments of the grand master plan of the railways and they are considered in adjacent redundant assets – rather liabilities. column. Rating cannot be The proposed development also does not make provision for the given, only the inclusion and integration of the cluster or any of the dwellings into the risk. new road crossing. This implies that no access routes and roads have

HIA – PROPOSED KARINO INTERCHANGE 8 JUNE 2017 Page 81 of 124

been included in the design to allow any access to these building from The risk to the the new road plan. heritage buildings is All the farm buildings identified are to be demolished. high.

7. Were the alterations done in sympathy with the original design. Rating

Building 1 – dwelling: alterations were sympathetic Sympathetic

Building 2 – outbuilding: alterations were sympathetic Sympathetic

Building 3 – dwelling: alterations were sympathetic Sympathetic

Building 4 - outbuilding: alterations were sympathetic Sympathetic

Building 5 – dwelling: alterations were sympathetic Sympathetic

Building 6 – outbuilding: alterations were sympathetic Sympathetic

Building 7 – dwelling: few alterations have been made to the original Sympathetic building

Building 8 – dwelling: extensive alterations altering the original intent of Unsympathetic the design

Building 9 – dwelling: extensive alterations altering the original intent of Unsympathetic the design

Building 10 – dwelling: extensive alterations altering the original intent of Unsympathetic the design

Building 11 (structure) – pool: unknown alterations No alterations

8. Were the additions and extensions done in sympathy with the original Rating design?

The buildings were not extended mostly altered and renovated with No buildings changes to the interior walling, doors windows, flooring and ceilings and were extended

HIA – PROPOSED KARINO INTERCHANGE 8 JUNE 2017 Page 82 of 124

roofs.

The farm buildings were extensively extended and added onto over the Unsympathetic years. extensions

9. Are any of the buildings or structures the work of a major architect, Rating engineer or builder?

The buildings were designed by company engineers and the buildings See comments define the character and corporate identity of different resident types in adjacent and the status of the official who resided inside them. No single architect column or engineer is associated with the design of the buildings.

None of the farm buildings was designed by a significant architect.

Spatial Significance

Even though each building is evaluated as a single artifact, the site as an entity still needs to be evaluated in terms of its significance in its geographic area. This set of criteria determines the spatial significance.

Criteria Significance

1. Can any building or structure be considered a landmark in the town or Rating city?

The site (tiny railway village) can be considered a landmark along this Medium section of the N4 route. None of the buildings or structures can be considered a landmark on its own.

2. Does any building contribute to the character of the neighborhood? Rating

The four dwellings form part of a unique cluster of buildings with a collective history associated with the history of the railway line at this High point. As the cluster is not located in an urban setting the “neighborhood” is defined by the cluster of buildings alone.

3. Does any building contribute to the character of the square or Rating streetscape?

The buildings do not relate to any urban square or streetscape. Low

HIA – PROPOSED KARINO INTERCHANGE 8 JUNE 2017 Page 83 of 124

4. Do the buildings form part of an important group of buildings? Rating

The group of buildings is related to each other and the collective High association with the history of the railway line adjacent to the site.

6.5 Section 38(3) (c) An assessment of the impact of the development on such heritage resources

The development proposal is for a new interchange to be built to replace the existing interchange linking the N4 highway with the R538 to White River. The proposed new development will not impact directly on the most eastern dwellings (Buildings 1 to 7). The proposed development design does not allow for a private road and off-ramp to any of the dwellings after construction and these buildings will become isolated without any road connection. As a result, the proposal is for these buildings to be demolished.

Figure 48 – Section of the development layout plan showing the proposed development footprints in proximity to the cluster of railway houses.

An assessment of the development layout plan indicated that Building 8 will partially be impacted on by the proposed development of the proposed Loop H Development. Building 9 appears to be located within the road reserve near a link road, but will not be directly impacted upon by the proposed development. This said, some disturbance to the building can be expected. Building 10 as well as the swimming pool at Building 11 will be partially impacted on by the proposed link road.

HIA – PROPOSED KARINO INTERCHANGE 8 JUNE 2017 Page 84 of 124

Building 11 Building 10 Building 9 Building 8

Figure 49 – Section of the development layout plan showing the proposed development footprints in proximity to the western buildings. The positions of these buildings are indicated.

6.6 Section 38(3) (d) An evaluation of the impact of the development on heritage resources relative to the sustainable economic benefits to be derived from the development

The proposed development assessed for this study comprises the construction of a new interchange at Karino. This new interchange will replace the existing T-junction (with stop street), which links the road from White River to the N4 highway.

It is understood that several motor vehicle accidents causing the death of several individuals have happened at road juncture. The proposed interchange is envisaged to provide a safer way for traffic to be regulated, and in particular a safer way for the traffic using the White River road to access the N4 highway at Karino. In this regard, the socio-economic benefits of the proposed development is clearly evident.

HIA – PROPOSED KARINO INTERCHANGE 8 JUNE 2017 Page 85 of 124

6.7 Section 38(3) (e) The results of consultation with the communities affected by the proposed development and other interested parties regarding the impact of the development on heritage resources.

No public participation process has been followed and no interviews were held with interested and affected parties.

6.8 Section 38(3)(f) If heritage resources will be adversely affected by the proposed development the consideration of alternatives.

The existing cluster of buildings near the former Karino Station is already isolated but also landlocked into a narrow strip of land between the N4 and the railway line. The introduction of a new interchange about 200m west of the site will exacerbate this situation. The new upgrading of the crossing would result in the widening of the N4 road, impacting directly on the width of the road corridor and the two dwellings at the western end of the cluster. If these dwellings are demolished only two dwellings will remain.

The critical number of dwellings to create a viable residential cluster will be too little to ensure some qualitative living space and ample security to sustain two dwellings.

It can be predicted with some certainty that the preservation of the two larger dwellings for conservation purposes will eventually conclude with demolition, vandalisation and finally the complete loss of the buildings.

6.9 Section 38(3)(g) ..plans for mitigation of any adverse effects during and after the completion of the proposed development.

Because of the impact of the proposed development on the historic railway buildings it is proposed that they are thoroughly recorded with photographic recording and as-built architectural drawings within 4 months after submission of this report if not sooner. Any application for demolition and alteration permits must be supported by the evidence of such recordings.

HIA – PROPOSED KARINO INTERCHANGE 8 JUNE 2017 Page 86 of 124

7 ASSESSMENT OF IMPACT OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ON IDENTIFIED HERITAGE SITES

7.1 Risk Calculation for the Impact of the Proposed Development on Building 1

In this section the impact of the proposed development on Building 1 will be assessed. The building forms part of the cluster of railway houses on the eastern end of the study area. They are not expected to be directly impacted upon by the proposed development. However, the existing cluster of buildings is already isolated but also landlocked into a narrow strip of land between the N4 and the railway line. The introduction of a new interchange about 200m west of the site will exacerbate this situation. The new interchange would result in the widening of the N4 road, bringing the road much closer to the buildings and also cutting any access roads off. The proposed development design does not allow for a private road and off-ramp to any of the dwellings after construction and these buildings will become isolated without any road connection. It can be predicted with some certainty that the preservation of these dwellings for conservation within these circumstances, will eventually result in the deterioration, vandalisation and finally the complete loss of these buildings.

The impact risk calculation outlined below will be based on these factors.

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

(4+ 4 + 4) 3 Impact Risk = X 3 5

IMPACT RISK = 2.4

Table 12: Risk Calculation for the Development Impact on Building 1

IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE SPATIAL SCALE TEMPORAL SCALE PROBABILITY RATING

Medium/High Regional Long Term Could Happen Medium

Impact on 4 4 4 3 2.4 Building 1

This calculation has revealed that the impact risk of the proposed development on Building 1 falls within Impact Class 3, which represents a Moderate Impact Risk. Mitigation would be required.

HIA – PROPOSED KARINO INTERCHANGE 8 JUNE 2017 Page 87 of 124

7.2 Risk Calculation for the Impact of the Proposed Development on Building 2

In this section the impact of the proposed development on Building 2 will be assessed. The building forms part of the cluster of railway houses on the eastern end of the study area. They are not expected to be directly impacted upon by the proposed development. However, the existing cluster of buildings is already isolated but also landlocked into a narrow strip of land between the N4 and the railway line. The introduction of a new interchange about 200m west of the site will exacerbate this situation. The new interchange would result in the widening of the N4 road, bringing the road much closer to the buildings and also cutting any access roads off. The proposed development design does not allow for a private road and off-ramp to any of the dwellings after construction and these buildings will become isolated without any road connection. It can be predicted with some certainty that the preservation of these buildings for conservation within these circumstances, will eventually result in the deterioration, vandalisation and finally the complete loss of these buildings.

The impact risk calculation outlined below will be based on these factors.

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

(3 + 4 + 4) 3 Impact Risk = X 3 5

IMPACT RISK = 2.2

Table 13: Risk Calculation for the Development Impact on Building 2

IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE SPATIAL SCALE TEMPORAL SCALE PROBABILITY RATING

Medium Regional Long Term Could Happen Moderate

Impact on 3 4 4 3 2.2 Building 2

This calculation has revealed that the impact risk of the proposed development on Building 2 falls within Impact Class 3, which represents a Moderate Impact Risk. Mitigation would be required.

HIA – PROPOSED KARINO INTERCHANGE 8 JUNE 2017 Page 88 of 124

7.3 Risk Calculation for the Impact of the Proposed Development on Building 3

In this section the impact of the proposed development on Building 3 will be assessed. The building forms part of the cluster of railway houses on the eastern end of the study area. They are not expected to be directly impacted upon by the proposed development. However, the existing cluster of buildings is already isolated but also landlocked into a narrow strip of land between the N4 and the railway line. The introduction of a new interchange about 200m west of the site will exacerbate this situation. The new interchange would result in the widening of the N4 road, bringing the road much closer to the buildings and also cutting any access roads off. The proposed development design does not allow for a private road and off-ramp to any of the dwellings after construction and these buildings will become isolated without any road connection. It can be predicted with some certainty that the preservation of these dwellings for conservation within these circumstances, will eventually result in the deterioration, vandalisation and finally the complete loss of these buildings.

The impact risk calculation outlined below will be based on these factors.

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

(4+ 4 + 4) 3 Impact Risk = X 3 5

IMPACT RISK = 2.4

Table 14: Risk Calculation for the Development Impact on Building 3

IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE SPATIAL SCALE TEMPORAL SCALE PROBABILITY RATING

Medium/High Regional Long Term Could Happen Medium

Impact on 4 4 4 3 2.4 Building 3

This calculation has revealed that the impact risk of the proposed development on Building 3 falls within Impact Class 3, which represents a Moderate Impact Risk. Mitigation would be required.

HIA – PROPOSED KARINO INTERCHANGE 8 JUNE 2017 Page 89 of 124

7.4 Risk Calculation for the Impact of the Proposed Development on Building 4

In this section the impact of the proposed development on Building 4 will be assessed. The building forms part of the cluster of railway houses on the eastern end of the study area. They are not expected to be directly impacted upon by the proposed development. However, the existing cluster of buildings is already isolated but also landlocked into a narrow strip of land between the N4 and the railway line. The introduction of a new interchange about 200m west of the site will exacerbate this situation. The new interchange would result in the widening of the N4 road, bringing the road much closer to the buildings and also cutting any access roads off. The proposed development design does not allow for a private road and off-ramp to any of the dwellings after construction and these buildings will become isolated without any road connection. It can be predicted with some certainty that the preservation of these buildings for conservation within these circumstances, will eventually result in the deterioration, vandalisation and finally the complete loss of these buildings.

The impact risk calculation outlined below will be based on these factors.

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

(3 + 4 + 4) 3 Impact Risk = X 3 5

IMPACT RISK = 2.2

Table 15: Risk Calculation for the Development Impact on Building 4

IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE SPATIAL SCALE TEMPORAL SCALE PROBABILITY RATING

Medium Regional Long Term Could Happen Moderate

Impact on 3 4 4 3 2.2 Building 4

This calculation has revealed that the impact risk of the proposed development on Building 4 falls within Impact Class 3, which represents a Moderate Impact Risk. Mitigation would be required.

HIA – PROPOSED KARINO INTERCHANGE 8 JUNE 2017 Page 90 of 124

7.5 Risk Calculation for the Impact of the Proposed Development on Building 5

In this section the impact of the proposed development on Building 5 will be assessed. The building forms part of the cluster of railway houses on the eastern end of the study area. They are not expected to be directly impacted upon by the proposed development. However, the existing cluster of buildings is already isolated but also landlocked into a narrow strip of land between the N4 and the railway line. The introduction of a new interchange about 200m west of the site will exacerbate this situation. The new interchange would result in the widening of the N4 road, bringing the road much closer to the buildings and also cutting any access roads off. The proposed development design does not allow for a private road and off-ramp to any of the dwellings after construction and these buildings will become isolated without any road connection. It can be predicted with some certainty that the preservation of these dwellings for conservation within these circumstances, will eventually result in the deterioration, vandalisation and finally the complete loss of these buildings.

The impact risk calculation outlined below will be based on these factors.

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

(3 + 4 + 4) 3 Impact Risk = X 3 5

IMPACT RISK = 2.2

Table 16: Risk Calculation for the Development Impact on Building 5

IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE SPATIAL SCALE TEMPORAL SCALE PROBABILITY RATING

Medium Regional Long Term Could Happen Moderate

Impact on 3 4 4 3 2.2 Building 5

This calculation has revealed that the impact risk of the proposed development on Building 5 falls within Impact Class 3, which represents a Moderate Impact Risk. Mitigation would be required.

HIA – PROPOSED KARINO INTERCHANGE 8 JUNE 2017 Page 91 of 124

7.6 Risk Calculation for the Impact of the Proposed Development on Building 6

In this section the impact of the proposed development on Building 6 will be assessed. The building forms part of the cluster of railway houses on the eastern end of the study area. They are not expected to be directly impacted upon by the proposed development. However, the existing cluster of buildings is already isolated but also landlocked into a narrow strip of land between the N4 and the railway line. The introduction of a new interchange about 200m west of the site will exacerbate this situation. The new interchange would result in the widening of the N4 road, bringing the road much closer to the buildings and also cutting any access roads off. The proposed development design does not allow for a private road and off-ramp to any of the dwellings after construction and these buildings will become isolated without any road connection. It can be predicted with some certainty that the preservation of these buildings for conservation within these circumstances, will eventually result in the deterioration, vandalisation and finally the complete loss of these buildings.

The impact risk calculation outlined below will be based on these factors.

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

(2 + 3 + 4) 3 Impact Risk = X 3 5

IMPACT RISK = 1.8

Table 17: Risk Calculation for the Development Impact on Building 6

IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE SPATIAL SCALE TEMPORAL SCALE PROBABILITY RATING

Low Local Long Term Could Happen Low

Impact on 2 3 4 3 1.8 Building 6

This calculation has revealed that the impact risk of the proposed development on Building 6 falls within Impact Class 2, which represents a Low Impact Risk. Mitigation would be required.

HIA – PROPOSED KARINO INTERCHANGE 8 JUNE 2017 Page 92 of 124

7.7 Risk Calculation for the Impact of the Proposed Development on Building 7

In this section the impact of the proposed development on Building 7 will be assessed. The building forms part of the cluster of railway houses on the eastern end of the study area. They are not expected to be directly impacted upon by the proposed development. However, the existing cluster of buildings is already isolated but also landlocked into a narrow strip of land between the N4 and the railway line. The introduction of a new interchange about 200m west of the site will exacerbate this situation. The new interchange would result in the widening of the N4 road, bringing the road much closer to the buildings and also cutting any access roads off. The proposed development design does not allow for a private road and off-ramp to any of the dwellings after construction and these buildings will become isolated without any road connection. It can be predicted with some certainty that the preservation of these buildings for conservation within these circumstances, will eventually result in the deterioration, vandalisation and finally the complete loss of these buildings.

The impact risk calculation outlined below will be based on these factors.

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

(2 + 3 + 4) 3 Impact Risk = X 3 5

IMPACT RISK = 1.8

Table 18: Risk Calculation for the Development Impact on Building 7

IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE SPATIAL SCALE TEMPORAL SCALE PROBABILITY RATING

Low Local Long Term Could Happen Low

Impact on 2 3 4 3 1.8 Building 7

This calculation has revealed that the impact risk of the proposed development on Building 7 falls within Impact Class 3, which represents a Low Impact Risk. Mitigation would be required.

HIA – PROPOSED KARINO INTERCHANGE 8 JUNE 2017 Page 93 of 124

7.8 Risk Calculation for the Impact of the Proposed Development on Building 8

In this section the impact of the proposed development on Building 8 will be assessed. A section of this building will be impacted upon by the construction of proposed Loop H, which forms part of the overall interchange development. A section of the building is depicted on the 1959 aerial photograph, but the house has been extensively renovated and altered over the years.

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

(2 + 2 + 4) 4 Impact Risk = X 3 5

IMPACT RISK = 2.13

Table 19: Risk Calculation for the Development Impact on Building 8

IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE SPATIAL SCALE TEMPORAL SCALE PROBABILITY RATING

Low Study Area Long Term Very Likely Moderate

Impact on 2 2 4 4 2.13 Building 8

This calculation has revealed that the impact risk of the proposed development on Building 8 falls within Impact Class 3, which represents a Moderate Impact Risk. Mitigation would be required.

7.9 Risk Calculation for the Impact of the Proposed Development on Building 9

In this section the impact of the proposed development on Building 9 will be assessed. This building may be impacted upon by the proposed development, especially the proposed Link Road.

A section of the building is depicted on the 1959 aerial photograph, but the house has been extensively renovated and altered over the years.

HIA – PROPOSED KARINO INTERCHANGE 8 JUNE 2017 Page 94 of 124

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

(2 + 2 + 4) 3 Impact Risk = X 3 5

IMPACT RISK = 1.60

Table 20: Risk Calculation for the Development Impact on Building 9

IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE SPATIAL SCALE TEMPORAL SCALE PROBABILITY RATING

Low Study Area Long Term Could Happen Low

Impact on 2 2 4 3 1.6 Building 9

This calculation has revealed that the impact risk of the proposed development on Building 9 falls within Impact Class 2, which represents a Low Impact Risk. No mitigation would be required.

7.10 Risk Calculation for the Impact of the Proposed Development on Building 10

In this section the impact of the proposed development on Building 10 will be assessed. A section of this building will be impacted upon by the construction of proposed Loop H, which forms part of the overall interchange development. A section of the building may be depicted on the 1959 aerial photograph, but the building has been extensively renovated and altered over the years.

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

(2 + 2 + 4) 3 Impact Risk = X 3 5

IMPACT RISK = 2.13

HIA – PROPOSED KARINO INTERCHANGE 8 JUNE 2017 Page 95 of 124

Table 21: Risk Calculation for the Development Impact on Building 10

IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE SPATIAL TEMPORAL SCALE PROBABILITY RATING SCALE

Low Study Area Long Term Very Likely Moderate

Impact on 2 2 4 4 2.13 Building 10

This calculation has revealed that the impact risk of the proposed development on Building 10 falls within Impact Class 3, which represents a Moderate Impact Risk. Mitigation would be required.

7.11 Risk Calculation for the Impact of the Proposed Development on Building 11

The impact of the proposed development on Building 11 will be assessed here. This building, which comprises a swimming pool, may be impacted upon by the proposed development of the proposed Link Road. The pool is depicted on the 1959 aerial photograph, and may be older than 60 years.

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

(2 + 2 + 4) 3 Impact Risk = X 3 5

IMPACT RISK = 1.60

Table 22: Risk Calculation for the Development Impact on Building 11

IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE SPATIAL SCALE TEMPORAL SCALE PROBABILITY RATING

Low Study Area Long Term Could Happen Low

Impact on 2 2 4 3 1.6 Building 11

This calculation has revealed that the impact risk of the proposed development on Building 11 falls within Impact Class 2, which represents a Low Impact Risk. No mitigation would be required.

HIA – PROPOSED KARINO INTERCHANGE 8 JUNE 2017 Page 96 of 124

8 REQUIRED MITIGATION MEASURES

8.1 Introduction

In this chapter, required mitigation measures for each of the buildings affected by the proposed development will be outlined.

8.2 Required Mitigation Measures for the Railway Buildings

The buildings included in this section, comprise all the buildings forming part of the cluster of railway houses. These are Building 1, Building 2, Building 3, Building 4, Building 5, Building 6 and Building 7. The following mitigation measures would be required for these buildings:

• Drafting a site plan with the footprints of all the buildings.

• All the buildings must be photographically recorded and described.

• All the buildings must be recorded with as-built drawings: (a) floor plans; (b) elevations; (c) sections (d) and compiled into a report.

• If any buildings will be reused, a set of color drawings as an overlay on top of the existing building drawings indicating the position and nature of repair and renovation work.

• Indication of any public participation process: (a) copies of advertisements in local papers; (b) photographs of site notices on fences and (c) copies of any comments and letters from interested and affected parties.

8.3 Required Mitigation Measures for the Farm Buildings

The buildings included in this section, comprise all the buildings located on the western end of the study area and include two farm houses associated with a staff village on a citrus farm (Building 8 & Building 9), a building which appears to have been converted into a guest house (Building 10) as well as a swimming pool (Building 11). The following mitigation measures would be required for Building

HIA – PROPOSED KARINO INTERCHANGE 8 JUNE 2017 Page 97 of 124

8, Building 9 and Building 10:

• All the buildings must be photographically recorded and described.

• Indication of any public participation process: (a) copies of advertisements in local papers; (b) photographs of site notices on fences and (c) copies of any comments and letters from interested and affected parties.

No mitigation measures would be required for the swimming pool (Building 11).

8.4 Required General Mitigation Measures

The following general mitigation measures are required:

• An archaeological watching brief must be implemented during the construction phase. This watching brief is aimed at monitoring the construction and excavation work for any subterranean archaeological deposits and features which may be exposed during these development activities.

HIA – PROPOSED KARINO INTERCHANGE 8 JUNE 2017 Page 98 of 124

9 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

PGS Heritage (Pty) Ltd was appointed by Trans African Concessions to undertake a Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) for the proposed development of the Karino Interchange, located east of Mbombela, in Mbombela Local Municipality, Ehlanzeni District Muncipality, Mpumalanga Province.

An archival and historical desktop study was undertaken to provide a historic framework for the project area and surrounding landscape. This was augmented by a study of available historical aerial photographs and an assessment of previous archaeological and heritage studies completed for the area. The desktop study revealed that the surroundings of the study area is characterised by a long and significant history, whereas previous archaeological and heritage studies from this area have revealed a number of archaeological and heritage sites including cemeteries, Late Iron Age stonewalled sites and historic sites such as buildings and old water furrows.

Sections of the fieldwork was undertaken by a team comprising one archaeologist (Polke Birkholtz), whereas those sections associated with buildings were assessed by a fieldwork team comprising one archaeologist (Polke Birkholtz) and one architectural historian (Mauritz Naudé). The fieldwork resulted in the identification of 11 heritage sites, which are all buildings and structures. These were numbered from Building 1 to Building 11. No archaeological sites or features were identified within the study area during the fieldwork.

Seven of the buildings identified during the fieldwork (Buildings 1 to 7), form part of a cluster of railway houses associated with the Karino Station. The station itself is located on the opposite side of the railway line and outside of the study area boundaries. As a way of dating the older buildings from this cluster, and especially as a way to establish a terminus post quem for these buildings, the Transnet Heritage Library as well as a thesis on the railway houses of South Africa (Wasserfall, 1989) was accessed for information. In the end, the documentary evidence suggested that the oldest buildings from the cluster of railway houses dates to the period between 1913 and 1936. The field assessment by the project architectural historian (Mauritz Naudé), suggested a construction date nearer to the latter than the former date for the oldest railway dwellings from the study area.

The table below provides an overview of all the identified heritage sites. The building numbers, brief description, significance and coordinates are provided in the table. The final column indicates

HIA – PROPOSED KARINO INTERCHANGE 8 JUNE 2017 Page 99 of 124

whether any mitigation would be required.

Table 23: Summarised List of Heritage Sites Identified during the Fieldwork

Site Description Significance S E Mitigation Building 1 Dwelling Medium/High S 25° 28' 22.52" E 31° 06' 00.04" See Section 8. Building 2 Outbuilding Medium S 25° 28' 22.82" E 31° 06' 00.72" See Section 8. Building 3 Dwelling Medium/High S 25° 28' 22.45" E 31° 05' 57.87" See Section 8. Building 4 Outbuilding Medium S 25° 28' 22.73" E 31° 05' 57.08" See Section 8. Building 5 Dwelling Medium S 25° 28' 22.34" E 31° 05' 55.83” See Section 8. Building 6 Outbuilding Low S 25° 28' 22.65" E 31° 05' 55.12" See Section 8. Building 7 Dwelling Low S 25° 28' 22.23" E 31° 05' 54.20" See Section 8. Building 8 Dwelling Low S 25°28' 25.65" E 31° 05' 33.66" See Section 8. Building 9 Dwelling Low S 25° 28' 27.50" E 31° 05' 30.81" See Section 8. Building 10 Dwelling / Low S 25° 28' 25.34" E 31° 05' 27.23" See Section 8. Guest House Building 11 Swimming Low S 25° 28' 24.42" E 31° 05' 27.25" No mitigation. Pool

The impact of the proposed development on the located heritage sites was assessed, and it was established that the proposed development will have a Low Impact Risk on Building 6, Building 7, Building 9 and Building 11. The proposed development will have a Moderate Impact Risk on Building 1, Building 2, Building 3, Building 4, Building 5, Building 8 and Building 10.

The following mitigation measures are required for the seven buildings forming part of the cluster of railway dwellings (Buildings 1 to 7):

• Drafting a site plan with the footprints of all the buildings.

• All the buildings must be photographically recorded and described.

• All the buildings must be recorded with as-built drawings: (a) floor plans; (b) elevations; (c) sections (d) and compiled into a report.

• If any buildings will be reused, a set of color drawings as an overlay on top of the existing

HIA – PROPOSED KARINO INTERCHANGE 8 JUNE 2017 Page 100 of 124

building drawings indicating the position and nature of repair and renovation work.

• Indication of any public participation process: (a) copies of advertisements in local papers; (b) photographs of site notices on fences and (c) copies of any comments and letters from interested and affected parties.

The following mitigation measures are required for the two buildings forming part of the staff village of a citrus farm (Buildings 8 & 9) as well as a guest house building (Building 10):

• All the buildings must be photographically recorded and described.

• Indication of any public participation process: (a) copies of advertisements in local papers; (b) photographs of site notices on fences and (c) copies of any comments and letters from interested and affected parties.

No mitigation measures would be required for the swimming pool (Building 11).

The following general mitigation measures are required:

• An archaeological watching brief must be implemented during the construction phase. This watching brief is aimed at monitoring the construction and excavation work for any subterranean archaeological deposits and features which may be exposed during these development activities.

On the condition that the recommendations made in this report are adhered to, and that the boundaries of the footprint areas do not change, no heritage reasons can be given for the development not to continue.

HIA – PROPOSED KARINO INTERCHANGE 8 JUNE 2017 Page 101 of 124

10 PREPARERS

This Heritage Impact Assessment was written by the following preparers:

• Polke Birkholtz – Project Manager / Archaeologist / Author • Mauritz Naudé – Architectural Historian / Co-Author

HIA – PROPOSED KARINO INTERCHANGE 8 JUNE 2017 Page 102 of 124

11 REFERENCES

Published References

Bergh, J.S. (ed.). 1999. Geskiedenis Atlas van Suid-Afrika: Die Vier Noordelike Provinsies. J.L. van Schaik. Pretoria.

Bulpin, T.V. 1989. Lost Trails of the Transvaal. Southern Book Publishers.

Erasmus, B.J. 2004. On Route in South Africa. Jonathan Ball Publishers, Johannesburg.

Gluckstein, S.M. n.d. The South African Year-book, Volumes 1903-1904. A. Bywater, London.

Huffman, T.N. 2007. Handbook to the Iron Age: The archaeology of Pre-Colonial Farming Societies in Southern Africa. University of KwaZulu-Natal Press, Scottsville.

Lang, J. 1995. Power Base: Coal Mining in the Life of South Africa. Jonathan Ball Publishers, Johannesburg.

Mason, R. 1962. Prehistory of the Transvaal. Witwatersrand University Press, Johannesburg.

Preller, G.S. 1904. Onze Krijgs-Officieren: Album van Portretten met Levens-Schetsen der Transvaalse Generaals en Kommandanten. Volksstem, Pretoria.

Rhodesian Mining Journal, 1960.

South African Mining and Engineering Journal, 1982.

South African Mining Yearbook, 1941/2. The South African Mining Journal Syndicate, Johannesburg.

Van der Westhuizen, G. & E. Van der Westhuizen, 2000. Guide to the Anglo Boer War in the Eastern Transvaal. Transo Press, Roodepoort.

Visagie, J.C. 2011. Voortrekkerstamouers: 1835 – 1845. Protea Boekhuis, Pretoria.

Unpublished References

Birkholtz, P.D., Salomon, A., Steyn, H. & W. Fourie. 2000. Phase 1 Archaeological Survey of the Impunzi Division of Duiker Mining, Witbank/Ogies Area. An unpublished report by CRM Africa and Matakoma. SAHRIS MAP ID_01164.

HIA – PROPOSED KARINO INTERCHANGE 8 JUNE 2017 Page 103 of 124

Birkholtz, P.D. & J. Kitto. 2013. Heritage Impact Assessment for the proposed ADDCAR Project. An unpublished report by PGS Heritage & Grave Relocation Consultants. SAHRIS Case Number 2261.

Birkholtz, P.D. 2015. Heritage Impact Assessment for the Proposed Rerouting of a Section of the Hendrina-Kriel Transmission Line. An unpublished report by PGS Heritage.

Fourie, W. 2012. Heritage Impact Assessment for the proposed Atcom East Colliery Extension. An unpublished report by PGS Heritage & Grave Relocation Consultants. SAHRIS Case Number 2261.

Higgitt, N. 2013. Heritage Statement for the Atcom and Tweefontein Dragline Relocation Project. An unpublished report by Digby Wells. SAHRIS Case Number 3020.

Pistorius, J. 2004. A Heritage Impact Assessment Study for the proposed Douglas Colliery. An unpublished report. SAHRIS MAP ID_01153.

Van Schalkwyk, J.A. 2001. A Survey of Cultural Resources for the Kriel Colliery Haul Road, Mpumalanga Province. An unpublished report on file at SAHRA as: 2001-SAHRA-0007.

Van Vollenhoven, A. & A. Pelser. 2008. A Report on a Cultural Resources Survey on the Farms Kleinkopje 15 IS and Steenkoolspruit 18 IS. An unpublished report by Archaetnos. SAHRIS MAP ID_02179.

Archival References

3/559 CJC, 28, 30394 CJC, 1145, 1159 RAK, 3082 SAS, 762, RG122/25/1

Historic Topographic Maps

The historic topographic maps used in this report were obtained from the Directorate: National Geo-spatial Information of the Department of Rural Development & Land Reform, Cape Town.

Google Earth

All the aerial depictions used in this report are from Google Earth.

HIA – PROPOSED KARINO INTERCHANGE 8 JUNE 2017 Page 104 of 124

Internet References

www.emalahleni.co.za www.mk.org.za www.mpumalanga.com www.sahistory.org.za www.sites.google.com/site/soulorailway

HIA – PROPOSED KARINO INTERCHANGE 8 JUNE 2017 Page 105 of 124

Appendix A LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS – TERMINOLOGY AND ASSESSMENT CRITERIA

HIA – PROPOSED KARINO INTERCHANGE 8 JUNE 2017 Page 106 of 124

General principles In areas where there has not yet been a systematic survey to identify conservation worthy places, a permit is required to alter or demolish any structure older than 60 years. This will apply until a survey has been done and identified heritage resources are formally protected.

Archaeological and palaeontological sites, materials, and meteorites are the source of our understanding of the evolution of the earth, life on earth and the history of people. In terms of the heritage legislation, permits are required to damage, destroy, alter, or disturb them. Furthermore, individuals who already possess heritage material, are required to register it. The management of heritage resources is integrated with environmental resources and this means that, before development takes place, heritage resources are assessed and, if necessary, rescued.

In addition to the formal protection of culturally significant graves, all graves which are older than 60 years and are not located in a cemetery (such as ancestral graves in rural areas), are protected. The legislation also protects the interests of communities that have an interest in the graves: they should be consulted before any disturbance takes place. The graves of victims of conflict and those associated with the liberation struggle are to be identified, cared for, protected and memorials erected in their honour.

Anyone who intends to undertake a development must notify the heritage resources authority and, if there is reason to believe that heritage resources will be affected, an impact assessment report must be compiled at the construction company’s cost. Thus, the construction company will be able to proceed without uncertainty about whether work will have to be stopped if an archaeological or heritage resource is discovered.

According to the National Heritage Act (Act 25 of 1999 section 32) it is stated that: An object or collection of objects, or a type of object or a list of objects, whether specific or generic, that is part of the national estate and the export of which SAHRA deems it necessary to control, may be declared a heritage object, including – • Objects recovered from the soil or waters of South Africa, including archaeological and palaeontological objects, meteorites and rare geological specimens; • visual art objects; • military objects; • numismatic objects;

HIA – PROPOSED KARINO INTERCHANGE 8 JUNE 2017 Page 107 of 124

• objects of cultural and historical significance; • objects to which oral traditions are attached and which are associated with living heritage; • objects of scientific or technological interest; • books, records, documents, photographic positives and negatives, graphic material, film or video or sound recordings, excluding those that are public records as defined in section 1 (xiv) of the National Archives of South Africa Act, 1996 ( Act No. 43 of 1996), or in a provincial law pertaining to records or archives; and • any other prescribed category.

Under the National Heritage Resources Act (Act No. 25 of 1999), provisions are made that deal with, and offer protection to, all historic and prehistoric cultural remains, including graves and human remains.

Graves and cemeteries

Graves younger than 60 years fall under Section 2(1) of the Removal of Graves and Dead Bodies Ordinance (Ordinance no. 7 of 1925) as well as the Human Tissues Act (Act 65 of 1983) and are under the jurisdiction of the National Department of Health and the relevant Provincial Department of Health and must be submitted for final approval to the Office of the relevant Provincial Premier. This function is usually delegated to the Provincial MEC for Local Government and Planning, or in some cases the MEC for Housing and Welfare. Authorisation for exhumation and reinternment must also be obtained from the relevant local or regional council where the grave is situated, as well as the relevant local or regional council to where the grave is being relocated. All local and regional provisions, laws and by-laws must also be adhered to. In order to handle and transport human remains, the institution conducting the relocation should be authorised under Section 24 of Act 65 of 1983 (Human Tissues Act).

Graves older than 60 years, but younger than 100 years, fall under Section 36 of Act 25 of 1999 (National Heritage Resources Act) as well as the Human Tissues Act (Act 65 of 1983) and are under the jurisdiction of the South African Heritage Resources Agency (SAHRA). The procedure for Consultation Regarding Burial Grounds and Graves (Section 36(5) of Act 25 of 1999) is applicable to graves older than 60 years that are situated outside a formal cemetery administrated by a local authority. Graves in the category located inside a formal cemetery administrated by a local authority will also require the same authorisation as set out for graves younger than 60 years, over and above SAHRA authorisation.

HIA – PROPOSED KARINO INTERCHANGE 8 JUNE 2017 Page 108 of 124

If the grave is not situated inside a formal cemetery but is to be relocated to one, permission from the local authority is required and all regulations, laws and by-laws set by the cemetery authority must be adhered to.

HIA – PROPOSED KARINO INTERCHANGE 8 JUNE 2017 Page 109 of 124

Appendix B CURRICULUM VITAE

HIA – PROPOSED KARINO INTERCHANGE 8 JUNE 2017 Page 110 of 124

PROFESSIONAL CURRICULUM FOR POLKE DOUSSY BIRKHOLTZ

Name: Polke Doussy Birkholtz

Date & Place of Birth: 9 February 1975 – Klerksdorp, North West Province, South Africa

Place of Tertiary Education & Dates Associated:

Institution: University of Pretoria Qualification: BA (Cum Laude) - Bachelor of Arts Specializing in Archaeology, History & Anthropology Date: 1996

Institution: University of Pretoria Qualification: BA Hons (Cum Laude) - Bachelor of Arts with Honours Degree Specializing in Archaeology Date: 1997

Qualifications:

BA - Degree specialising in Archaeology, History and Anthropology BA Hons - Professional Archaeologist

Memberships:

Association of Southern African Professional Archaeologists (ASAPA) Professional Member of the CRM Section of ASAPA

Overview of Post Graduate Experience:

1997 – 2000 – Member/Archaeologist – Archaeo-Info 2001 – 2003 – Archaeologist/Heritage Specialist – Helio Alliance 2000 – 2008 – Member/Archaeologist/Heritage Specialist – Archaeology Africa 2003 - Present – Director / Archaeologist / Heritage Specialist – PGS Heritage

Languages: English: Speak, Read & Write & Afrikaans: Speak, Read & Write

Total Years’ Experience: 17 Years

Experience Related to the Scope of Work:

• Polke has worked as a HERITAGE SPECIALIST / ARCHAEOLOGIST / HISTORIAN on more than 275 projects, and acted as PROJECT MANAGER on almost all of these projects. His experience include the following:

o Development of New Sedimentation and Flocculation Tanks at Rand Water’s Vereeniging Pumping Station, Vereeniging, Gauteng Province. Heritage Impact Assessment for Greenline.

HIA – PROPOSED KARINO INTERCHANGE 8 JUNE 2017 Page 111 of 124

o EThekwini Northern Aqueduct Project, Durban, KwaZulu-Natal. Heritage Impact Assessment for Strategic Environmental Focus. o Johannesburg Union Observatory, Johannesburg, Gauteng Province. Heritage Inventory for Holm Jordaan. o Development at Rand Water’s Vereeniging Pumping Station, Vereeniging, Gauteng Province. Heritage Impact Assessment for Aurecon. o Comet Ext. 8 Development, Boksburg, Gauteng Province. Phase 2 Heritage Impact Assessment for Urban Dynamics. o Randjesfontein Homestead, Midrand, Gauteng Province. Baseline Heritage Assessment with Nkosinathi Tomose for Johannesburg City Parks. o Rand Leases Ext. 13 Development, Roodepoort, Gauteng Province. Heritage Impact Assessment for Marsh. o Proposed Relocation of the Hillendale Heavy Minerals Plant (HHMP) from Hillendale to Fairbreeze, KwaZulu-Natal. Heritage Impact Assessment for Goslar Environmental. o Portion 80 of the farm Eikenhof 323 IQ, Johannesburg, Gauteng Province. Heritage Inventory for Khare Incorporated. o Comet Ext. 14 Development, Boksburg, Gauteng Province. Heritage Impact Assessment for Marsh. o Rand Steam Laundries, Johannesburg, Gauteng Province. Archival and Historical Study for Impendulo and Imperial Properties. o Mine Waste Solutions, near Klerksdorp, North West Province. Heritage Inventory for AngloGold Ashanti. o Consolidated EIA and EMP for the Kroondal and Marikana Mining Right Areas, North West Province. Heritage Impact Assessment for Aquarius Platinum. o Wilkoppies Shopping Mall, Klerksdorp, North West Province. Heritage Impact Assessment for Centre for Environmental Management. o Proposed Vosloorus Ext. 24, Vosloorus Ext. 41 and Vosloorus Ext. 43 Developments, Ekurhuleni District Municipality, Gauteng Province. Heritage Impact Assessment for Enkanyini Projects. o Proposed Development of Portions 3, 6, 7 and 9 of the farm Olievenhoutbosch 389 JR, City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality, Gauteng Province. Heritage Impact Assessment for Marsh. o Proposed Development of Lotus Gardens Ext. 18 to 27, City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality, Gauteng Province. Heritage Impact Assessment for Pierre Joubert. o Proposed Development of the site of the old Vereeniging Hospital, Vereeniging, Gauteng Province. Heritage Scoping Assessment for Lekwa. o Proposed Demolition of an Old Building, Kroonstad, Free State Province. Phase 2 Heritage Impact Assessment for De Beers Consolidated Mines. o Proposed Development at Westdene Dam, Johannesburg, Gauteng Province. Heritage Impact Assessment for Newtown. o West End, Central Johannesburg, Gauteng Province. Phase 1 Heritage Impact Assessment for the Johannesburg Land Company. o Kathu Supplier Park, Kathu, Northern Cape Province. Heritage Impact Assessment for Synergistics.

HIA – PROPOSED KARINO INTERCHANGE 8 JUNE 2017 Page 112 of 124

o Matlosana 132 kV Line and Substation, Stilfontein, North West Province. Heritage Impact Assessment for Anglo Saxon Group and Eskom. o Marakele National Park, Thabazimbi, Limpopo Province. Cultural Resources Management Plan for SANParks. o Cullinan Diamond Mine, Cullinan, Gauteng Province. Heritage Inventory for Petra Diamonds. o Highveld Mushrooms Project, Pretoria, Gauteng Province. Heritage Impact Assessment for Mills & Otten. o Development at the Reserve Bank Governor’s Residence, Pretoria, Gauteng Province. Archaeological Excavations and Mitigation for the South African Reserve Bank. o Proposed Stones & Stones Recycling Plant, Johannesburg, Gauteng Province. Heritage Scoping Report for KV3. o South East Vertical Shaft Section of ERPM, Boksburg, Gauteng Province. Heritage Scoping Report for East Rand Proprietary Mines. o Proposed Development of the Top Star Mine Dump, Johannesburg, Gauteng Province. Detailed Archival and Historical Study for Matakoma. o Soshanguve Bulk Water Replacement Project, Soshanguve, Gauteng Province. Heritage Impact Assessment for KWP. o Biodiversity, Conservation and Participatory Development Project, Swaziland. Archaeological Component for Africon. o Camdeboo National Park, Graaff-Reinet, Eastern Cape Province. Cultural Resources Management Plan for SANParks. o Main Place, Central Johannesburg, Gauteng Province. Phase 1 Heritage Impact Assessment for the Johannesburg Land Company. o Modderfontein Mine, Springs, Gauteng Province. Detailed Archival and Historical Study for Consolidated Modderfontein Mines. o Proposed New Head Office for the Department of Foreign Affairs, Pretoria, Gauteng Province. Heritage Impact Assessment for Holm Jordaan Group. o Proposed Modification of the Lukasrand Tower, Pretoria, Gauteng Province. Heritage Assessment for IEPM. o Proposed Road between the Noupoort CBD and Kwazamukolo, Northern Cape Province. Heritage Impact Assessment for Gill & Associates. o Proposed Development at the Johannesburg Zoological Gardens, Johannesburg, Gauteng Province. Detailed Archival and Historical Study for Matakoma.

• Polke’s KEY QUALIFICATIONS:

o Project Management o Archaeological and Heritage Management o Archaeological and Heritage Impact Assessment o Archaeological and Heritage Fieldwork o Archival and Historical Research o Report Writing

• Polke’s INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY EXPERIENCE:

HIA – PROPOSED KARINO INTERCHANGE 8 JUNE 2017 Page 113 of 124

o MS Office – Word, Excel, & Powerpoint o Google Earth o Garmin Mapsource o Adobe Photoshop o Corel Draw

I, Polke Doussy Birkholtz, hereby confirm that the above information contained in my CV is true and correct.

______5 January 2016 PD Birkholtz Date

HIA – PROPOSED KARINO INTERCHANGE 8 JUNE 2017 Page 114 of 124

CV: MAURITZ NAUDÉ (2015)

Qualifications

BA - Archaeology (Pretoria) BA – Hons Art History (Pretoria) Post Graduate Diploma - Museology (Pretoria) MA - Architecture – Conservation (WITS) D. Phil – Dept Architecture and Landscape Architecture (Pretoria) current - to be completed.

Professional Experience

1) CURATOR AND CONSERVATOR

2011-2015 – Senior Conservationist and Curator for buildings and structures: Architecture. Ditsong: National Museum of Cultural History.

1980-1983 – Curator Botshabelo Mission Station and South Ndebele Open Air Museum (Middelburg – Mpumalanga Province)

2) RESEARCHER

1990-2009 - Senior researcher - National Cultural History Museum, Pretoria (Heritage Resources Management: conservation of architecture and the built environment)

1984-1990 – Researcher – National Cultural History Museum, Pretoria (Heritage sites and historic buildings)

1977-1979– Research assistant – Department of Archaeology (University of Pretoria)

3) LECTURER

2015 - Part time lecturer – History of the Environment, Dept Engineering, Built Environment and Information Technology, University of Pretoria

2011-2013 – Part time lecturer – BA Honors (Museum Sciences), Heritage and museum development. Dept of Historical and Heritage studies, Univ of Pretoria

HIA – PROPOSED KARINO INTERCHANGE 8 JUNE 2017 Page 115 of 124

1996-2015 - Part time lecturer – Post Graduate Diploma Museology: Module 1: Conservation of architecture; Module 2: Research in the Museum. Dept of Historical and Heritage Studies, Univ Pretoria.

2002-2015 - Part time lecturer - Environmental Law (Heritage legislation) Centre for Environmental Management (CEM), University of the North West (Potchefstroom campus)

2004-2010 - Part time lecturer - Dept of Architecture, Tshwane University of Technology (Conservation and Theory of Design)

2008-2009 – Guest lecturer – Architectural history and the assessment of buildings, Dept of Art History, Visual Arts and Musicology, UNISA.

External examiner and co-study leader

2014 - MA thesis: The cultural significance of the church of the Vow (Pietermaritzburg). Dept of Historical and heritage studies, University of Pretoria.

4) EXPERT CONSULTANT: CONSERVATION OF BUILDINGS AND HISTORIC SITES

1995-2015 - Consultant - Assessment of historic sites and buildings

2000-2006 - Member of Heritage task group: Mapungubwe National Park (World Heritage Site)

2004-2009 – Member of South African Champion Trees Committee (National Committee – Dept of Water Affairs and Forestry).

2007 -2015 – Editorial Committee ‘South African Journal for Art History’ (Accredited Journal).

Heritage assessment projects in past twelve (12) years

2015 – Heritage assessment of Caledonian Sport grounds. Arcadia, Pretoria 2015 – Public participation process for proposed new buildings and alterations to former Government Garage, Pretoria 2015 – Heritage assessment of old farmstead on the farm Der Brochen in Steelpoort Valley 2015 – Heritage assessment of redundant Detonators Campus at Modderfontein Dynamite factory, Midrand 2015 – Public participation process for renovations on Grootkerk Bosman Street Pretoria. 2015 – Inventorying and assessment of heritage sites and monuments within the Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Council region

2014 – Urban heritage sensitivity study Salvokop 2014 –Architectural heritage assessment Government Garage buildings and campus 2014 – Mitigation of design and reuse of a portion of the Government Garage site for Government printing Services 2014 - Heritage assessment of farmstead and buildings on the farm Honingkrantz Postmasburg (Northern Cape Province) 2014 – Architectural assessment of dwellings in Lunnon Street Hatfield (Pretoria) 2014 – Heritage assessment and rehabilitation guidelines for reuse of semi-detached dwellings Oak Avenue Cullinan (Petra Diamonds)

HIA – PROPOSED KARINO INTERCHANGE 8 JUNE 2017 Page 116 of 124

2014 – Heritage assessment of Grootkerk (Bosman Street), Pretoria 2014 – Recording of old farm dwellings on the farm Steenkoolspruit (Witbank district) Mpumalanga Province 2014 – Heritage Assessment of historic farmstead and buildings on the farm Zwartkoppies (Pretoria)

2013 – Architectural assessment of historic buildings at redundant Durban Roodepoort Deep mine village (Roodepoort) 2013 – Heritage assessment of historic farmstead on the farm Mooifontein, Witbank district (Mpumalanga Province). 2013 – Heritage assessment of old farmstead - Kuruman small holdings, (Northern Cape Province) 2013 – Urban heritage sensitivity study – for proposed new Rapid Bus Transit route from Kempton Park to Thembisa (Gauteng Province). 2013 – Heritage assessment of TOLAB site and building, Pretoria City centre 2013 - Heritage assessment of old farmsteads on the farm Steenkoolspruit, Witbank district (Mpumalanga Province) 2013 – Heritage assessment of historic Bakker Pharmacy building, Modimolle (Limpopo Province) 2013 – Heritage assessment of historic mine building at Voorspoed diamond mine Kroonstad (Freestate Province) 2013 – Architectural recording of historic mine building at Voorspoed diamond mine Kroonstad (Freestate Province) 2013 – Heritage assessment of all buildings at Trans-Oranje School for the Deaf, Pretoria (Gauteng Province).

2012 – Assessment of historic buildings on former Durban Roodepoort Deep mining village 2012 – Mitigation measures for re-use of buildings on site for former Rand Leases mining village (Boksburg) 2012 – Heritage assessment of Benoni City Hall 2012 – Heritage assessment of buildings at Rustenburg Prison 2012 – Heritage assessment of buildings at Lichtenburg Prison 2012 – Assessment of old black mine workers compound of Rand Leases Mine - Boksburg 2012 – Assessment of historic farm dwellings on the farm Steenkoolspruit – Witbank district 2012 – Assessment of historic dwellings in Pretorius Street Hatfield 2012 – Assessment of historic dwellings in Flowers street Capital Park 2012 – Assessment of historic Aviation and navigation centre Bapsfontein 2012 – Assessment of farm dwellings of the historic Borchards family Levubu (Limpopo Province) 2012 – Assessment of historic industrial shed Olifantsfontein (Gauteng) 2012 – Assessment of historic Wesfort Leprosy Hospital site 2012 – Rehabilitation guidelines for proposed maintenance and restoration work on Kruger House 2012 – Assessment of historic Vereeniging Hospital – Vereeniging (Gauteng) 2012 – Assessment of historic buildings along proposed BRT route in the city centre and Sunnyside 2012 – Assessment of historic dwellings in Kotze Street, Sunnyside 2012 – Drafting a CMP framework for historic Rand Water pumping station and boiler facility,Vereeniging

2011 – Heritage assessment of alterations to eastern façade of Pretoria Station Building

HIA – PROPOSED KARINO INTERCHANGE 8 JUNE 2017 Page 117 of 124

2011 – Assessment of dwelling of former Director of SA Mint, Waterkloof, Pretoria 2011 – Heritage assessment of buildings at Cullinan mine (Petra Diamonds) 2011 – Assessment of old dwellings for proposed Eastwoods Mall – Arcadia 2011 – Conservation Management Policy framework: Pioneer Museum 2011 – Conservation Management Policy framework: Sammy Marks Museum 2011 – Conservation Management Policy framework: Willem Prinsloo Agricultural Museum 2011 – Conservation Management Policy framework: National Museum of Cultural History 2011 – Conservation Management Policy framework: Kruger Museum 2011 – Assessment of historic stone field post buildings Machadodorp Mpumalanga 2011 – Architectural recording of farm houses on proposed site for new Kusile Power Station Witbank

2010 – Assessment of site proposed for Department of Statistics new Head Offices, Salvokop, Pretoria. 2010 – Assessment of historic buildings on former property of ERPM Mine Boksburg 2010 - Assessment of historic buildings on redundant ERPM Eastern Shaft site, Boksburg 2010 – Assessment of decommissioned filtering dams Rand Water Board Vereenging 2010 - Assessment of historic turbine buildings, Rand water Board Vereenging 2010 – Assessment of industrial buildings and structures of Cullinan Mine 2010 – Assessment of old dwellings Park and Eastwood Streets Arcadia, Pretoria. 2010 – Assessment and mitigation of old farm dwelling Northam, Northwest Province.

2009 – Assessment of industrial buildings and structures on the farm Wilge River (Cullinan Mine) 2009 – Assessment of married quarters housing complex Rand Leases Mining (Roodepoort) 2009 – Assessment of old magistrates Court Building Naboomspruit (Limpopo Province) 2009 – Assessment of old Police Station building Bolubedu – Tzaneen. 2009 – Assessment of old magistrates Court Building Dzanani (Limpopo Province) 2009 – Assessment old magistrates Court building Shilvavusiku (Limpopo Province) 2009 – Assessment of farm buildings on the farm Goedehoop Middelburg district 2009 – Assessment of old dwellings in Brooklyn and Arcadia 2009- Assessment of old dwelling Pomona, Kempton Park (Gauteng) 2009 – Assessment of proposed development plan for Hendrik Potgieter Street development (Klerksdorp) 2009 – Recording of three old dwellings as part of the Westridge mall development (Klerksdorp) 2009 – Assessment of Post Office buildings – Menlyn Park (Pretoria) 2009 – Assessment of Mutual Park shopping mall - Rosebank (Johannesburg) 2009 – Assessment of old dwellings in Krugersdorp 2009 - Assessment of site for proposed Westridge Mall development (Klerksdorp)

2008 – Recording of old buildings for proposed Ngwenya River Lodge (Brits) 2008 – Recording of old buildings for proposed Pollak Park development (Springs) 2008 – Conservation management plan for the re-use of old buildings as part of the Pollak Park development (Springs) 2008 – Recording of old dwelling on the farm Leitrim – Heilbron 2008 – Assessment of archaeological sites on the farm Zwartkoppies (Pretoria) 2008 – Proposed mitigation of site of the former 2008 – Conservation management plan for Berea Sport Club buildings as part of the proposed new Land Affairs Head Offices 2008 – Conservation Management Plan for historic Goudkoppie site Klerksdorp 2008 – Assessment of old hangers and sheds at the Medical and Pharmaceutical Depot of the South African Department of Defense, Pretoria.

2007 – Assessment of 1902 -Wanooka House, (Park Town Johannesburg)

HIA – PROPOSED KARINO INTERCHANGE 8 JUNE 2017 Page 118 of 124

2007 – Assessment of 1914 dwelling (Houghton, Johannesburg) 2007 – Assessment of 1902 workers compounds Cinderella Mine (Benoni, Gauteng) 2007 – Assessment of remains of mining structures Randfontein mine (Randfontein) 2007 – Assessment of 1930 dwellings (Hatfield, Pretoria) 2007 – Drafting of an interface document for integrated management plan (ISM) for Union Buildings (Pretoria) 2007 – Assessment of buildings at the Johannesburg Observatory 2007 – Assessment of single quarters housing complex Rand Leases Mining Co 2007 – Assessment of historic Magistrates Court (Rustenburg, North West Province) 2007 – Heritage sensitivity study of University of Pretoria campuses 2007 – Assessment of buildings (Klerksdorp) 2007 - Assessment of buildings and structures Bob van Reenen Sport Stadium (Klerksdorp). 2007 – Assessment of dwelling (Ruimsig, Krugersdorp) 2007 – Sensitivity study Kopanong Precint - City Centre of Johannebsurg 2007 – Assessment of old farmstead Hartebeestpoort (Akasia). 2007 – Assessment of buildings Berea Park Sports Grounds (Pretoria)

2006 – Urban Heritage sensitivity study for Precincts 1,2,3,4,5,6, and 7 for Pretoria Strategic Development Framework (SDF) 2006 – Characterisation of Precincts 1,2,3,4,5,6 and 7 for Pretoria Strategic Development Framework (SDF) 2006 - Assessment of buildings Oeverzicht Sunnyside (Pretoria). 2006 – Assessment of Springkell Hospital Modderfontein Dynamite Factory, Midrand. 2006 - Heritage assessment of Pretoria Jewish Synagogue 2006 - Assessment of buildings Ferreirasdorp (Johannesburg City Centre) 2006 – Assessment of buildings Marshallstown, (Johannesburg City Centre).

2005 – Research and text for exhibition on the history of Church Square 2005 – Recording of remains of workers housing Rooigrond Brits 2005 – Assessment of farm buildings Ngwehya River, (Brits) 2005 – Assessment of 1886 outbuildings and dwellings on the farm Zwartkoppies (Pretoria) 2005 – Assessment of 1935 buildings Rand Airport (Germiston).

2004 - Recording of archaeological remains in proposed development area on farm Brakfontein (Centurion). 2004 - Site inventories of three sites proposed for the new head offices of the Department of Foreign Affairs (Pretoria) 2004 - Heritage impact assessment of the proposed “Lalela” Freedom of speech platform on Church Square (Pretoria). 2004 – Assessment of farm buildings and structures Vredefort Dome World Heritage Site.

2003 - Preliminary Heritage Impact Assessment of the proposed Casa Giovanetti executive apartments in Niew Muckleneuk (Pretoria). 2003 Assessment of National Heritage Site Klerksvly in the Golden Gate National Park. 2003 - Archaeological phase 1 assessment for proposed upgrade of road D2900 Siyabuswa. 2003 - Heritage Assessment of site proposed for KFC development Polokwane (Limpopo Province) 2003 - Mitigation of archaeological sites. St Lucia National Park (World Heritage Site) 2003 - Reconstruction and restoration of historic dwelling in Aoub River (Kgalagadi Transfrontier Park). Client: SANParks 2003 - Heritage Impact Assessment Phase 2 Gautrain Speed Rail Client : Bohlweki Environmental Consulting

HIA – PROPOSED KARINO INTERCHANGE 8 JUNE 2017 Page 119 of 124

2003 - Assessment of dwelling house in Otto Street (Krugersdorp) 2003 - Assessment of old buildings in proposed residential area of Devland 33, (Soweto). Client: Helio Alliance

2002 - Heritage assessment in the proposed road corridor for route K97 (Bon Accord). 2002 - Heritage impact assessment in area proposed for development at ESCOM head offices (Witbank). 2002 - Heritage assessment in the proposed interchange of routes K57 and Atlas road (Kempton Park). 2002 - Desk study on historic features in area proposed for Department of Environment Affairs and tourism new head offices (Pretoria). 2002 - Heritage Impact Assessment Phase 1 Gautrain Speed Rail. 2002 - Assessment of remains of structures in proposed new residential area (Kathlehong). 2002 - Heritage impact assessment in proposed road corridor K111 (Kempton Park). 2002 - Heritage impact assessment in Proposed road corridor Atlas Road (Kempton Park). 2002 - Heritage impact assessment for EMP for proposed development of Municipal stone quarry, (Bon Accord). 2002 - Assessment of structures in proposed development area of Brakfontein (Centurion). 2002 - Recordings of historic farmstead of the farm Brakfontein (Centurion). 2002. Assessment of all old buildings and farmsteads in proposed Vhembe Dongola Transfrontier Park (World Heritage Site). 2002. Recording of old farmsteads (Witbank). 2002 Assessment of old Modderfontein Mine workers compound, Brakpan East. 2002. Assessment of dwelling houses in Luipaardsvlei, (Krugersdorp). 2002 - Heritage assessment in proposed road corridor for re-alignment of Jochemus Street (Moreleta Park, Pretoria). 2002 - Heritage assessment in area proposed for Zwartland residential development (Centurion). 2002 - Assessment of historic structures and buildings on Zwartkops Country Club for proposed new residential development (Zwartkops).

5) PUBLICATIONS Accredited Journals

2014 – Bellman hangars, structures of scale and functionality. South African Journal of Art History.

2010 – Circular structures and buildings associated with vernacular farm architecture and folk engineering. South African Journal for Art History.

2010 – A typology for ‘waenhuise’ in the vernacular farm architecture of the trans-Vaal River region. South African Journal for Art History.

2009 – The selective use of slate in vernacular farm buildings and structures north of the Vaal River. SA Journal of Art History (Vol: 24, nr2)

2007 – A legacy of rondavels and rondavel houses in the northern interior of South Africa. SA Journal of Art History.

2004 – A legacy of timber frame sheds and shelters in the trans-Vaal River region. SA Journal for Art History

HIA – PROPOSED KARINO INTERCHANGE 8 JUNE 2017 Page 120 of 124

2004 – Oral evidence on the construction of vernacular farm dwellings in the Waterberg (Limpopo Province). SA Journal of Cultural History.

2002 – Erich Mayer’s depiction of the vernacular hut and multiple hut building tradition. SA Journal for Art History

2000 – Vernacular stone buildings and structures on farmsteads in the southern districts of the Mpumalanga Province. SA Journal for Cultural History.

Published Peer Reviewed Articles

2013 – Manufacturing of iron and related metal products in South Africa during the Second World War (1939-1945). Research Journal Ditsong National Museum of Cultural History (Vol 8).

2013 – Towards sustainable design and sympathetic site development; the new KPMG campus annex (Parktown, Johannesburg). Research Journal Ditsong National Museum of Cultural History (Vol 8).

2012 – Supporting outbuildings on farmsteads north of the Vaal River. Research Journal Ditsong National Museum of Cultural History (Vol 7).

2012 – The animal housing complex, a lesser building on the Hartebeestpoort farmstead. Research Journal Ditsong National Museum of Cultural History (Vol 7).

2011 – Indigenous wood types north of the Vaal River used for construction and as timber in vernacular buildings during the period 1840-1940. Research Journal (Vol 6). Pretoria: Ditsong National Museum of Cultural History.

2011 – The use of dolerite at a remote stock kraal field post on the farm Rietvlei in the Machadodorp district (Mpumalanga Province). Research Journal (Vol 6). Pretoria: Ditsong National Museum of Cultural History.

2010 – Shelter and place making: from ‘association’ to ‘construction’. Research Journal (Vol 5). Pretoria: Ditsong National Museum of Cultural History.

2010 – The ‘presence’ of a Highveld farm house. Research Journal (Vol 5). Pretoria: Ditsong National Museum of Cultural History.

2010 – Matching, scratching and patching materials. The Green Building Handbook, South Africa, the essential guide (Vol. 3) CSIR: Section Building Environment.

2009 – Building technology associated with the construction of early frontier dwellings; the example of the Hartebeestpoort dwelling (Pretoria). Research Journal (Vol 4). Pretoria: Ditsong National Museum of Cultural History.

2009 – Prominent entrepreneurs and businessmen associated with the first hundred years of the economic history of Pretoria. Research Journal (Vol 4). Pretoria: Ditsong National Museum of Cultural History.

HIA – PROPOSED KARINO INTERCHANGE 8 JUNE 2017 Page 121 of 124

2008 – Oral evidence on aspects of folk life during the first hundred years (1840-1940) of frontier settlement in the Waterberg (Limpopo Province). Research Journal (Vol 3). Pretoria: National Cultural History Museum .

2008 – Engineering structures and buildings associated with the history of industry in Gauteng and its environs. Research Journal (Vol 3), Pretoria: National Cultural History Museum.

2007 – Silverton Tannery and other early industries in Pretoria. Research Journal (Vol 2). Pretoria: National Cultural History Museum.

2007 – The architectural significance of the Pioneer House in Silverton (Pretoria). Research Journal (Vol 2). Pretoria: National Cultural History Museum.

2006 – Conservation of the built heritage – unpacked. Research Journal (Vol 1). Pretoria: National Cultural History Museum.

2006 – Urban conservation and sustainability: facing complexities and exploring different approaches (Vol 1). Research Journal. Pretoria: National Cultural History Museum.

2005 – Beyond the frontier history of the Vredefort Dome area. Reimhold, W. U. and Gibson R.L. (Eds) Meteorite impact, the danger from space and South Africa’s mega impact, the Vredefort structure. Johannesburg: Chris van Rensburg Publishers.

2004 – Historic landscape characterization (HLC) as an essential objective for layering of the rural landscape. Research by the National Cultural History Museum (Vol 13). Pretoria: National Cultural History Museum.

2003 – Aspects of architectural conservation for the museologist. Chapter 1: Museums and architecture – a shift to variety and place making. Chapter 3: The museologist and architectural research. Chapter 4: The museologist and the conservation of architecture. Chapter 5: Museums and the presentation of architecture. Chapter 6: Oral evidence on the historic buildings and structures on the Klerksvly farmstead in the former Qwa-Qwa National Park. Chapter 7: Architectural significance of the 1886 homestead on the farm Zwartkoppies (Pretoria).

2002 – Assessing the feature or the whole: the Lalela - Freedom of Speech Platform on Church Square, Pretoria.

2000 – Cultural heritage and the environmental impact assessment process. Research by the National Cultural History Museum. Pretoria: National Cultural History Museum

1999 – The construction of homesteads, shelters and other structures of survival associated with the Anglo Boer War. Research by the National Cultural History Museum. Pretoria: National Cultural History Museum

1998 – Oral evidence of vernacular buildings and structures on farmsteads in the Waterberg (Northern Province). Research by the National Cultural History Museum. Pretoria: National Cultural History Museum

HIA – PROPOSED KARINO INTERCHANGE 8 JUNE 2017 Page 122 of 124

Appendix C Coordinates for Identified Heritage Sites

HIA – PROPOSED KARINO INTERCHANGE 8 JUNE 2017 Page 123 of 124

SITE NUMBER SOUTH EAST

Building 1 S 25° 28' 22.52" E 31° 06' 00.04"

Building 2 S 25° 28' 22.82" E 31° 06' 00.72"

Building 3 S 25° 28' 22.45" E 31° 05' 57.87"

Building 4 S 25° 28' 22.73" E 31° 05' 57.08"

Building 5 S 25° 28' 22.34" E 31° 05' 55.83”

Building 6 S 25° 28' 22.65" E 31° 05' 55.12"

Building 7 S 25° 28' 22.23" E 31° 05' 54.20"

Building 8 S 25°28' 25.65" E 31° 05' 33.66"

Building 9 S 25° 28' 27.50" E 31° 05' 30.81"

Building 10 S 25° 28' 25.34" E 31° 05' 27.23"

Building 11 S 25° 28' 24.42" E 31° 05' 27.25"

HIA – PROPOSED KARINO INTERCHANGE 8 JUNE 2017 Page 124 of 124