REPORT 02041 V Louw Wepener HIA.Pdf

Home , Louw Wepener, Springfontein, Thaba Bosiu, Wepener

Archaetnos Culture & Cultural Resource Consultants BK 98 09854/23

A REPORT ON A HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOR THE ALTERATIONS TO THE LOUW WEPENER MEMORIAL, BETHULIE, FREE STATE PROVINCE

For:

The Federation of Afrikaans Cultural Organisations (FAK) e-mail: Chrisna Nel - [email protected]

REPORT: AE02041V

By:

Prof. A.C. van Vollenhoven (L. Akad. S.A.)

Accredited member of ASAPA Accredited member of SASCH

12 November 2020

Archaetnos P.O. Box 55 GROENKLOOF 0027 Tel: 083 2916104 Fax: 086 520 4173 E-mail: [email protected]

Member: AC van Vollenhoven BA, BA (Hons), DTO, NDM, MA (Archaeology) [UP], MA (Culture History) [US], DPhil (Archaeology) [UP], Man Dip [TUT], DPhil (History) [US]

©Copyright Archaetnos The information contained in this report is the sole intellectual property of Archaetnos CC. It may only be used for the purposes it was commissioned for by the client.

DISCLAIMER:

Although all possible care is taken to identify all sites of cultural importance during the survey of study areas, the nature of archaeological and historical sites is as such that it always is possible that hidden or subterranean sites could be overlooked during the study. Archaetnos and its personnel will not be held liable for such oversights or for costs incurred as a result thereof.

Also note that the study and report does not guarantee approval from the relevant heritage body. The report must be an independent opinion of the consultant and the responsibility of the consultant ends with submission of the report.

The South African Heritage Resources Agency (SAHRA) or one of its subsidiary bodies needs to comment on this report and clients are advised not to proceed with any action before receiving these.

SUMMARY

Archaetnos cc was appointed by the Federation of Afrikaans Cultural Organisations (FAK) to conduct a heritage impact assessment (HIA) for alterations to the Louw Wepener Monument. The site is located on Portion 1 of the farm Felicia 457 RD, Bethulie, Kopanong Local Municipality, Free State Province. The memorial lies approximately 6 km north-west of the town of Bethulie.

The proposed alterations include the following: • Replacing the bust of Louw Wepener with a 3-D cast replica in order to preserve the original art work off site. The material used will be concrete mixed with a hardened substance (concrete usually has a strength of 20mpa, but this will be much stronger, namely 60-90mpa). It will also be sealed with a concrete sealant. • Information seems to indicate that some of the text on the granite panel of the memorial may be incorrect and the proposal is to rectify this, if needed (see details below). • It furthermore it is proposed to fix the current fence around the monument.

The land owner is the Voortrekkers, an Afrikaans youth and cultural organization. The site is a declared Heritage site. It was declared under the former National Monuments Act (Act 28 of 1969) and under the new legislation, the National Heritage Resources Act (Act 25 of 1999), it thus is a Grade II heritage resource. Thus it was decided to do a Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA).

The applicable social consultation has also been done, consisting of site notices and newspaper advertisements. No comments were received.

It is recommended that:

1. That the bust of Louw Wepener be removed and preserved at Udolpho as proposed above.

2. That it be replaced with a 3-D scanned version on site as per specification provided above.

3. That the information on the monument be left as it is in line with current historical information.1

4. That necessary repairs to the monument be done.

5. That a fence similar to the current one be erected around the site as proposed above.

6. That the original bust may be preserved at Udolpho (Parys) where it will be on display for the general public. (However, it will be taken to Centurion first in order to do the scanning and create the replica.)

1 Research should however continue to get clarity in this regard. 3

7. That the site will be maintained by the community of Bethulie and the FAK will oversee this. This should include placing measurements in place to grant access to visitors when required.

8. The contextual information be added to both the monument and the bust at Udolpho to ensure visitors are informed of the exact nature and history of the site and art work.

9. That a Cultural Heritage Management Plan be drafted for approval by the Free State PHRA, to ensure the sustainable preservation of the monument. The CMP should include issues like access, security and maintenance.

10. That a heritage expert be present on site when any work on the monument is done.

11. That a report on the process of removing, scanning and replacement of the bust and other alterations be tabled to both the Free State PHRA and the Burial Grounds and Graves Unit (BGG) of SAHRA.

12. It is therefore finally recommended that the HIA be approved by the Provincial Heritage Resources Agency of the Free State as well as the BGG Unit of SAHRA.

CONTENTS

Page

SUMMARY ...... 3

CONTENTS ...... 5

1. INTRODUCTION ...... 6

2. TERMS OF REFERENCE ...... 8

3. CONDITIONS AND ASSUMPTIONS ...... 8

4. LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS ...... 9

5. METHODOLOGY ...... 10

6. HISTORICAL CONTEXT ...... 11

7. SITE DESCRIPTIO ...... 19

8. MOTIVATION FOR ALTERATION TO THE MONUMENT ...... 26

9. DESCRIPTION OF IMPACT ON MEMORIAL...... 27

10. HERITAGE SIGNIFICANCE ...... 29

11. HERITAGE ASSESSMENT ...... 31

12. SOCIAL CONSULTATION ...... 32

13. LANDOWNERS CONSENT ...... 36

14. THE WAY FORWARD ...... 36

15. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 36

16. REFERENCES ...... 37

APPENDIX A – DEFENITION OF TERMS ...... 39 APPENDIX B – DEFINITION/ STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE ...... 40 APPENDIX C – SIGNIFICANCE AND FIELD RATING ...... 41 APPENDIX D – PROTECTION OF HERITAGE RESOURCES ...... 42 APPENDIX E – HERITAGE MANAGEMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT PHASES ...... 43

1. INTRODUCTION

The GPS coordinates for the site is: 30˚26’58,96”S; 25˚56’46,84”E.

The land owner is the Voortrekker movement, an Afrikaans youth and cultural organization. The Voortrekkers have agreed to the changes. The site is a declared Heritage site. It was declared under the former National Monuments Act (Act 28 of 1969) and under the new legislation, the National Heritage Resources Act (Act 25 of 1999), it thus is a Grade II heritage resource. Thus it was decided to do a Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA).

Figure 1: Location of Bethulie in the Free State Province.

Figure 2: Location of the site in retion to Bethulie.

Figure 3: Closer view of the site. The cleared area around the memorial is the current fence. 7

2. TERMS OF REFERENCE

The Terms of Reference for the study were to:

1. Do a Heritage Impact Assessment on the site to obtain permission for the proposed alterations.

2. Do the necessary social consultation;

3. Handle comments from Interested and Affected parties (I&AP’s);

4. Assess the significance of the site in terms of its archaeological, historical, scientific, social, religious, aesthetic and tourism value (see Appendix B);

5. Describe the possible impact of the proposed development on these cultural remains, according to a standard set of conventions. This refers to a possible change in character;

6. Recommend suitable mitigation measures to minimize possible negative impacts on the cultural resources by the proposed development;

7. Review applicable legislative requirements.

3. CONDITIONS & ASSUMPTIONS

The following conditions and assumptions have a direct bearing on the survey and the resulting report:

1. Cultural Resources are all non-physical and physical man-made occurrences, as well as natural occurrences associated with human activity (Appendix A). These include all sites, structure and artifacts of importance, either individually or in groups, in the history, architecture and archaeology of human (cultural) development. Graves and cemeteries are included in this.

2. The significance of the sites, structures and artifacts is determined by means of their historical, social, aesthetic, technological and scientific value in relation to their uniqueness, condition of preservation and research potential. These aspects as a collective refers to the character of a site. The various aspects are not mutually exclusive, and the evaluation of any site is done with reference to any number of these aspects.

3. Cultural significance is site-specific and relates to the content and context of the site. Sites regarded as having low cultural significance have already been recorded in full and require no further mitigation. Sites with medium cultural significance may or may not require mitigation depending on other factors such as the significance of impact on

the site. Sites with a high cultural significance require further mitigation (see Appendix C).

4. The latitude and longitude of any archaeological or historical site or feature, is to be treated as sensitive information by the developer and should not be disclosed to members of the public.

5. All recommendations are made with full cognizance of the relevant legislation.

4. LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS

Aspects concerning the conservation of cultural resources are dealt with mainly in two acts. These are the National Heritage Resources Act (Act 25 of 1999) and the National Environmental Management Act (Act 107 of 1998).

4.1 The National Heritage Resources Act

According to the above-mentioned act the following is protected as cultural heritage resources:

a. Archaeological artifacts, structures and sites older than 100 years b. Ethnographic art objects (e.g. prehistoric rock art) and ethnography c. Objects of decorative and visual arts d. Military objects, structures and sites older than 75 years e. Historical objects, structures and sites older than 60 years f. Proclaimed heritage sites g. Grave yards and graves older than 60 years h. Meteorites and fossils i. Objects, structures and sites or scientific or technological value.

The national estate (see Appendix D) includes the following:

a. Places, buildings, structures and equipment of cultural significance b. Places to which oral traditions are attached or which are associated with living heritage c. Historical settlements and townscapes d. Landscapes and features of cultural significance e. Geological sites of scientific or cultural importance f. Archaeological and paleontological importance g. Graves and burial grounds h. Sites of significance relating to the history of slavery i. Movable objects (e.g. archaeological, paleontological, meteorites, geological specimens, military, ethnographic, books etc.)

A Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) is the process to be followed to determine whether any heritage resources are located within the area to be developed as well as the possible impact of the proposed development thereon. An Archaeological Impact Assessment only looks at

9 archaeological resources. The different phases during the HIA process are described in Appendix E. An HIA must be done under the following circumstances:

a. The construction of a linear development (road, wall, power line canal etc.) exceeding 300m in length b. The construction of a bridge or similar structure exceeding 50m in length c. Any development or other activity that will change the character of a site and exceed 5 000m2 or involve three or more existing erven or subdivisions thereof d. Re-zoning of a site exceeding 10 000 m2 e. Any other category provided for in the regulations of SAHRA or a provincial heritage authority

Structures

Section 34 (1) of the mentioned act states that no person may demolish any structure or part thereof which is older than 60 years without a permit issued by the relevant provincial heritage resources authority.

A structure means any building, works, device or other facility made by people and which is fixed to land, and includes any fixtures, fittings and equipment associated therewith.

Alter means any action affecting the structure, appearance or physical properties of a place or object, whether by way of structural or other works, by painting, plastering or the decoration or any other means.

4.2 The National Environmental Management Act

This act (Act 107 of 1998) states that a survey and evaluation of cultural resources must be done in areas where development projects, that will change the face of the environment, will be undertaken. The impact of the development on these resources should be determined and proposals for the mitigation thereof are made.

Environmental management should also take the cultural and social needs of people into account. Any disturbance of landscapes and sites that constitute the nation’s cultural heritage should be avoided as far as possible and where this is not possible the disturbance should be minimized and remedied.

5. METHODOLOGY

5.1 Survey of literature

A survey of literature was undertaken to obtain background information regarding the area. Sources consulted in this regard are indicated in the bibliography.

5.2 Field survey and documentation

The survey was conducted according to generally accepted HIA practices and the minimum standards used by the archaeological profession. The site was documented in detail, mainly by using photographic methods.

5.3 Evaluation of Heritage sites

The evaluation of heritage sites is done by giving a field rating of each (see Appendix C) using the following criteria:

• The unique nature of a site • The integrity of the archaeological deposit • The wider historic, archaeological and geographic context of the site • The location of the site in relation to other similar sites or features • The depth of the archaeological deposit (when it can be determined or is known) • The preservation condition of the site • Uniqueness of the site and • Potential to answer present research questions.

6. HISTORICAL CONTEXT

Firstly a broad background of the history of the area is given. This is done in order to place the site within context and to obtain an idea of what can be expected once one starts with construction on site. It needs to be realized that the entire site is a heritage resource and that the chances of finding additional heritage resources are slim, due to the site being extensively researched in the past.

6.1 Stone Age

The Stone Age is the period in human history when lithic material was mainly used to produce tools (Coertze & Coertze 1996: 293). In South Africa the Stone Age can be divided in three periods. It is, however, important to note that dates are relative and only provide a broad framework for interpretation. The division for the Stone Age according to Korsman & Meyer (1999: 93-94) is as follows:

Early Stone Age (ESA) 2 million – 150 000 years ago Middle Stone Age (MSA) 150 000 – 30 000 years ago Late Stone Age (LSA) 40 000 years ago – 1850 - A.D.

Examples of stone tools from the vicinity of Bethulie can be seen in the local museum proving the presence of Stone Age people here. The San name for the area is Kóukóo. It is also known that rock art sites have been recorded around the town of Bethulie (Venter n.d.a: 3-4). These were made by the San people during the Late Stone Age.

6.2 Iron Age

The Iron Age is the name given to the period of human history when metal was mainly used to produce metal artifacts (Coertze & Coertze 1996: 346). In South Africa it can be divided in two separate phases according to Van der Ryst & Meyer (1999: 96-98), namely:

Early Iron Age (EIA) 200 – 1000 A.D. Late Iron Age (LIA) 1000 – 1850 A.D.

Huffman (2007: xiii) however, indicates that a Middle Iron Age should be included. His dates, which now seem to be widely accepted in archaeological circles, are:

Early Iron Age (EIA) 250 – 900 A.D. Middle Iron Age (MIA) 900 – 1300 A.D. Late Iron Age (LIA) 1300 – 1840 A.D.

He however does not indicate any Iron Age occurrence close to the town of Bethulie. A study done by Maggs (1976) also does not show any Iron Age sites here. This indicates that Iron Age people probably did net settle here in the past, but may have utilized it for grazing purposes. The settling of the Tlhaping, who is an Iron Age group and did settle here, rather falls within recent historical times (see later).

6.3 Historical Age

The historical age started with the first recorded oral histories in the area. It includes the moving into the area of people that were able to read and write. This era is sometimes called the Colonial era or the recent past.

Due to factors such as population growth and a decrease in mortality rates, more people inhabited the country during the recent historical past. Therefore and because less time has passed, much more cultural heritage resources from this era have been left on the landscape. It is important to note that all cultural resources older than 60 years are potentially regarded as part of the heritage and that detailed studies are needed in order to determine whether these indeed have cultural significance. Factors to be considered include aesthetic, scientific, cultural and religious value of such resources.

The first known visit by white people to the area was in 1777 when RJ Gordon reached the river and named it the Orange River. In 1803 the party of JW Jansens also reached the river (Schoeman 2003: 154). White farmers called Trekboere, started utilizing the grazing around Bethulie since 1809 (Venter n.d.a: 3), although the only received permission to do so in 1825 (Schoeman 2003: 155). They however did not settle here. The area was then settled by the Tlhaping. They were an indigenous group, which are of Tswana descent and moved here from the Transvaal area between 1826 and 1828 (Venter n.d.b: 2).

The Colesberg/ Phillipolis area was already visited by early travelers as early as 1823 when the expedition of Cowan and Donovan passed here. This was followed by the parties of Bain and Biddulph in 1826 and that of Scoon and McLuchie in 1827. The first early traveler who visited the area around Bethulie was the expedition of Dr. Andrew Smith in 1835. He was followed by WC Harris who passed through during 1836. In 1838 Ludwig Krebs also travelled through here (Bergh 1999: 12-13).

The London Missionary Society established a mission station at Bethulie in 1828 in order to work with the San (Schoeman 2003: 156). They left in 1833. The Paris Misssion Society now sent JP Pellissier to work here under the Tlhaping (Pellissier 1956: 161). His house, which was built in 1835, is still standing and is used as a museum today. He also named the place Bethulie, meaning ‘House of God’ (Venter n.d.a: 2-4).

During the Great Trek the party of the Voortrekker leader AH Potgieter also moved through the area (Venter n.d.a: 3). White farmers only settled in the study area since approximately 1860 (Venter n.d.a: 4).

The town of Bethulie was established in 1863 with the name of Heidelberg. Before that the place was known as Moordenaarspoort (1827), Bushman School (1828), Caledon Mission (1833), Verheullpolis (1834) and Bethulie (1835). The name was finally again changed to Bethulie in 1872 (Venter n.d.a: 4).

The town featured during the Basotho Wars (see below). It also saw action during the Anglo- Boer War (1899-1902). These were during the Battle of Stormberg on 10 December 1899, the British advance into the Free State and the Battle at Wabrug on 10 March 1900. Some British fortifications were erected at the town and a concentration camp for Boer women and children were established here (Venter n.d.a: 5-6).

6.4 The Basotho Wars (1858-1868)

The conflict between the Basotho people and white farmers in what is now the Free State/ Lesotho area, consisted of three wars (1858-1868). The purpose of these three wars was the maintenance of territorial rights in the area between the Caledon and Orange Rivers; from present day Wepener to Zastron, and the area north of the Caledon River, which includes present day Harrismith and the area further westwards.

The Basotho wars were preceded by the mass migration of several Nguni groups. This migration occurred during the reign of the Zulu King Shaka, who conquered several Nguni groups, which were absorbed into the Zulu kingdom. Other Nguni tribes fled and settled in other areas during this time, which is known as the Mfecane period.

In 1818, King Moshoeshoe, who was the son of the chief of the Bakotela branch of the Koena/Kwena (Crocodile) clan, gained power over smaller fugitive and displaced clans. In 1820, Moshoeshoe became chief of a larger unit of Southern Sotho groups, who had fallen under his centralized authority due to competition for resources, which was intensified by a drought. This competition for resources caused these larger groups to seek protection from other marauding groups, and Moshoeshoe and his people retreated to the mountain fortress of Thaba Bosiu in 1824. Moshoeshoe gave assistance to his defeated enemies by giving them land, which led to the establishment of the Basotho nation.

In the late 1820s, a group of Kora (a group of Khoikhoi settlers also known as the Korana) and Dutch speaking people of mixed descent arrived in the vicinity of Moshoeshoe's kingdom. As they were mounted on horseback and armed with guns, the Basotho retreated. This also led to Moshoeshoe deciding to arm his people and give them horses.

The arrival of white settlers in the area, due to the Great Trek, was initially useful to Moshoeshoe, as the settlers created a buffer between the Basotho and the Kora. These people, known as Boers, crossed the Orange River from the Cape Colony in the mid-1820s. Although these settlers allegedly asked for his permission to settle there, Moshoeshoe's view was that he only had lent it to them. However, in 1845 a treaty was signed, which recognised the settlement of Boers in the area. Unfortunately no boundaries were drawn between the area of the Boers and Moshoeshoe's kingdom. This dispute led to inevitable border clashes and a discernible boundary became necessary.

The British, who then controlled the area between the Orange and Vaal Rivers (the Orange River Sovereignty) eventually proclaimed the Warden line (after Major Warden). This line divided territory between British territory and the Basotho under Moshoeshoe, and stretched from Cornetspruit and the Orange River through Vechtkop to Jammerbergdrift on the Caledon. The Warden line caused much resentment, as the fertile Caledon River Valley served as a vital area in terms of agriculture for both the British and the Basotho. This border line was therefore not acceptable to Moshoeshoe, and hostility followed, which led to conflict between the Basotho and the British, who were defeated by Moshoeshoe at the battle of Viervoet in 1851. In this year Moshoeshoe also offered Andries Pretorius an alliance against the British in the sovereignty.

As punishment to the Basotho, Sir George Cathcart then brought troops to the Mohokane River, and Moshoeshoe was ordered to pay a fine. When he did not pay the fine in full, a battle broke out on the Berea Plateau in 1852, where the British suffered heavy losses due to the armed Basotho cavalry. This sealed the fate of the sovereignty, even though Cathcart was initially in favour of withdrawal. By 1854 the cost of maintaining the sovereignty became too much for the British and they therefore handed over the territory to the Boers through the signing of the Sand River Convention. The Boers therefore claimed the land beyond the Caledon River, naming it the Republic of the Orange Free State (OFS). This began further conflict over land and undefined boundaries with the Basotho, who regarded themselves as the rightful owners, and who continued to use the land for grazing.

6.4.1 The First Basotho War

Further conflict occurred after JN Boshof, president of the OFS, and Moshoeshoe discussed issues of armed conflict and cattle rustling. However, these discussions only led to Boshof declaring war on the Basotho on 19 March 1858 (also stated as 22 March 1858). The Basotho were formidable opponents, and the Boers suffered substantial losses, as they were unable to penetrate the Basotho mountain stronghold of Thaba Bosigo. This war is also known as the First Basotho War or the War of Senekal.

During this war, the Boers also destroyed many mission stations in the Basotho kingdom, as they blamed them for educating and instilling a sense of pride among the Basotho. These mission stations had been set up by missionaries from the Paris Evangelical Society, who arrived at Thaba Bosigo in 1833. They had helped to unite the Basotho under Moshoeshoe and were the first to write the Sesotho language.

6.4.2 The Second Basotho War (Seqiti War)

After this war an uneasy peace followed. JH Brand, who replaced Boshoff, took initiative and negotiated with Moshoeshoe, who objected that the frontier was not clear. However, hostilities re-surfaced, and President Brand believed that the OFS should use its military superiority against the Basotho. Moshoeshoe had also realized his precarious position, and had applied for British protection from Sir Philip Wodehouse, a new commissioner who had arrived in the Cape in 1861.

The Warden Line had then been reaffirmed, and although the Basotho were given time to withdraw, attacks continued nonetheless. In 1865, the Orange Free State launched the Second Basotho War known in Sesotho as the Seqiti War. The word seqiti refers to the sound made by the new cannon the Boers used to crush the Basotho strongholds, mainly in the present day Free State province. Louw Wepener played an important role during this War (see below).

The Free State army then began to seize cattle and destroy crops, and two attempts were then made to storm Moshoeshoe's stronghold at Thaba Bosigo, where Commandant Wepener was killed (see below). Moshoeshoe was then compelled to accept the peace of Thaba Bosigo on 11 April 1866, due an exhaustion of Basotho food supplies. Moshoeshoe's son Molapo had also allegedly concluded a separate peace treaty.

Moshoeshoe then renewed entreaties for British protection after a short armistice. This was due to the fact that the Free State Government was late in allocating land, the Basotho slowly advanced over the border line, and further tensions mounted. The Free State Government began to raise an armed force, which was aggravated by the murder of two whites in Ladybrand in June 1867.

6.4.3 The Third Basotho War

Brand demanded the hand over of the murderers, but Moshoeshoe stated that he had not agreed to the frontier line of 1866, and therefore the events had not occurred on Free State territory. In July 1867, the third war between the Free State and the Basotho in ten years began, and Boer forces overran Moshoeshoe's land and conquered all the land except the impregnable fortress of Thaba Bosigo.

The Free State forces had achieved great military success, and Moshoeshoe was compelled to ask for British assistance. Basutoland was then annexed on 12 March 1868, after Governor Wodehouse received instructions to negotiate with Moshoeshoe for the recognition of the Basotho as British subjects. On 12 March 1868, the British parliament declared the Basotho Kingdom a British protectorate. The Orange Free State was forced to discontinue the war if it was not to raise trouble with the British Empire.

In February 1869, the boundaries of present day Lesotho (previously Basutoland) were drawn up according to the Convention of Aliwal-North. This convention gave the Conquered Territory to the Free State, and the boundary line was moved further south to Langeberg. No further armed conflict between the Free State and the Basotho took place after this.

As a result, King Moshoeshoe was able to save his kingdom from being overrun by the Boers. King Moshoeshoe died in 1870, after the end of war, and was buried at the summit of Thaba Bosigo (Heydenrych 1986: 143-150; SA History on-line; Wepener 1934: 9-81)

6.5 History of the Louw Wepener Monument at Bethulie2

In 1865 the Second Basotho War broke out. The Republic of the Orange Free State decided to attack Lesotho from three sides (Swart et.al. 1989: 82).

Commandant Lourens Johannes Jacobus (Louw) Wepener (born on 21 July 1812 in Graaff Reinet) was one of the officers of the republic. He was known for his braveness and military tactics. Under his command many of the mountain strongholds of the Basotho were captured. The three forces of the Free State simultaneously arrived at Thaba Bosigo, the main stronghold of Moshoeshoe, king of the Basotho (Swart et.al. 1989: 82).

Before the war, Wepener purchased two farms in the Bethulie district, namely Constantia and Moordenaarspoort (Van Tonder 1977: 163). On 15 August 1865, Wepener and a number of volunteers scaled the mountain. Using only pistols, they captured two defensive positions, but in the process Wepener was fatally wounded. Initially he was buried on site, but his remains and those of two other who died here, were later removed and buried on his farm in the district of Bethulie [Constantia], where the memorial in question was also later erected (Swart et.al. 1989: 82; Van Tonder 1977: 163). Thabo Bosigo (Bosiu) was not captured (Heydenrych 1986: 148).

The event were so inspiring that Grobbelaar and Grobbelaar even wrote a novel about it. It is called ‘Die Nagberg’. Although based on true events, one can however never take everything in a historical novel as correct.

The former Director of Education in the Orange Free State, Dr SH Pellissier, wrote in a letter dated February 24, 1975 from Zeerust, Transvaal (now North West Province), the following: "We lived from 1900 to 1912 on Constantia, Wepener's farm when I heard of the place where he lay buried, but there was nothing that indicated where it was. In 1940 I met an old man who said he was present as a child when Louw Wepener was re-interred at Constantia. I went with him to Bethulie accompanied by the Administrator Hans van Rensburg. The mayor of Bethulie and the school headmaster were also present. The old man pointed to the graves without headstones where Louw Wepener lay . . . After all present were satisfied that it was indeed Louw Wepener, we had them exhumed and re-interred on a hill along the road to Springfontein and a monument erected there. From a sketch sent to me by Gerhard [sic] Moerdyk, AVBOB donated a beautiful monument of blue ironstone to place above the grave. Coert Steynberg sculpted a bronze bust of Louw Wepener and made a relief panel showing how the Boers stormed Thaba Bosigo ... It is a beautiful monument that I had the school children of the Free State erect under my guidance." (Van Tonder 1977: 163).

The site was declared a national monument on 17 October 1986. Under the new legislation (National Heritage Act) it therefore now is regarded as being a Provincial Heritage Site.

2 There also is a Louw Wepener Memorial in the town of Wepener (which was named after him)and at the farm De Nek close to Jamestown where Wepener once resided. 16

6.6 Questioning of historical information

Some issues regarding the narrative around Louw Wepener are being questioned. Some information about Wepener indicates that he was buried together with a young comrade-in- arms, Adam Raubenheimer, killed in action against the Basotho. They were buried on the summit of Thaba Bosigo by Dr Prosper Lautre3 (1818-1893) of the Paris Evangelical Mission Society. Wepener’s son, FDJ Wepener met Moshweshwe (c.1786-1870) in 1866 and was taken to the grave after which he exhumed the remains of his father and gathered them into a bag and took them back to the family farm Constantia (Grobbelaar 1968: 873). The information on the memorial reads as follows:

Hier rus die stoflikke oorskot van Kommandant Louw Wepener (1812-1865) die onverskrokke held van die tweede Basoetoe-oorlog wat sy lewe gegee het op Thaba Bosigo en sy jeugdige strydmakker Adam Raubenheimer (1840-1865) wat van Oudshoorn aleen te perd gesnel het om die Vrystaters in hul stryd te help.

[Here lies the mortal remains of Commandant Louw Wepener (1812-1865) the undaunted hero of the Second Basotho War who gave his life on Thaba Bosigo and his young comrade Adam Raubenheimer (1840-1865) who came from Oudtshoorn alone on horseback to assist the Free Staters in their struggle]

However, some of this information are now being challenged. Information obtained indicate that three4 of the men that have been killed on that day were buried together, resulting in the skeletal remains being mixed. Therefore all three of them are now buried at the site. The third person was Jacobus Stoltz, an ‘Agterryer’ from Jacobsdal. The second contestation is that Adam Raubenheimer was from Somerset East and not Oudtshoorn. Lastly the rank of Wepener may have been Head-Commandant (Veg-Generaal) (Personal Communication: A Hocking).

Regarding the rank of Wepener, the following: Wepener (1934: 43) indicates that his father (Louw Wepener) was appointed as Head Commandant by President Brand and that the three Head Commandants were equal in rank. He thereafter used the rank Commandant for all three.5 This makes sense as the Free State had a system of having different Commandants in the various districts The Commando Act determined that the rank of Head Commandant was only to be used in war times. JIJ Fick was indeed the commandant appointed as Head Commandant during the Second Basotho War (Personal communication: J van Zyl). It would be very strange if this was not done during this particular war. The fact that these three men were placed in charge of sections of the Free State forces and each probably had other commandants in their sections, may have created the impression that they were all three Head Commandants.

FDJ Wepener’s claim that his father was thus Head Commandant simply is not true. The mention of further people with the rank of Commandant mentioned, e.g. Commandant Wessels and Venter (Wepener 1934: 54) merely indicate that they were from other districts. It is thus easy to have doubt about the rank of Louw Wepener. It is likely that Dick Wepener wanted to

3 According to FDJ Wepener, son of Louw Wepener, it was buried by George Moshweshwe, son of the king. 4 According to E Coetzee 9 people died on that day. Some died in camp of their wound and were therefore not buried on the hill. 5 The three Commandants were Cornelius de Villiers for the north, Jan Fick for the west and Louw Wepener for the south. 17 give his father a higher rank than what really was the case. He does seem to almost over- emphasize the equal rank of the three Head Commandants.

It is easy to indicate that all had an equal rank, as it indeed was the case in times of peace. However, in war time one of these commandants became Head Commandant. Also, Fick, Wepener and De Villiers were placed in charge of the three sections of the Free State forces, creating the impression that they were of equal rank. Even in FDJ Wepener’s book it does seem that Fick was in charge of the Free State forces as he apparently gave orders to Louw Wepener (Wepener 1934: 54).

Although FDJ Wepener makes a point of mentioning the dispute between who actually was in charge and that a Head Commandant needs to be picked, also indicating that there were three Head Commandants (Wepener 1934: 51-52), this seem to be merely an attempt to elevate his father’s rank. It is interesting though that he never calls his father Head Commandant in his book.

This is sufficient proof that Louw Wepener was a Commandant. There is no doubt that Fick was the head Commandant (Grobbelaar mentions this rank as being Commander-General). The rank of Louw Wepener is Commandant (Kommandant) and is thus correct on the memorial.

Another issue to be clarified is that of the term ‘Veg-Generaal’ (Combat-General) although it has been proved that this was not the rank of Wepener. The rank of ‘Veg-Generaal’ was only installed much later, namely during the Anglo-Boer War (1899-1900) and thus it could not have been his rank, or even that of Fick (Personal communication: J van Zyl).

The second issue is that of the place where Adam Raubenheimer came from. Unfortunately, no further information about Raubenheimer could be found and thus there remains a question about his town of origin. Thus, it seems logical for the time being, to leave the information as it is on the memorial.

The third issue is that of the possibility of three people being buried in the Wepener grave. Firstly, to understand the circumstances of the initial burial, it needs to be mentioned that the magistrate of Aliwal North, John Burnett, apparently wrote a letter to the wife of Louw Wepener indicating that he ordered a son of Moshesh, George Moshesh to bury the remains and to hand it over to the family after peace was declared. Dick Wepener indicated that he went to see Burnett and that he was told by the latter that he saw the chest of his father being opened up, apparently for the Basotho warriors to eat so that they can become as heroic as Louw Wepener (Wepener 1934: 66-67). Grobbelaar (1968: 873) confirms the story that Wepener’s heart was given to Basotho warriors to eat. Grobbelaar also does not give any indication that George Moshesh buried the remains. It has been stated above that Dr P Lautre did this, but it is possible that George may have assisted.

Later Wepener (1934: 75-76) explicitly states that his father and Raubenheimer were buried about 12 steps from where his father fell and that George Moshesh indicated the grave to him. He placed the skeletal remains of the two men in a bag and mentions that the running water through the grave (they were buried in an erosion furrow, probably was the reason why no meat was left after such a short time. No mention is made of a third person. Pellissier (see above)

18 who arranged the exhumation and reinternment of the remains at the current site, also do not mention a third person.

However, one has to realise that in those times it was customary to ignore non-whites in any narrative. Thus, it is indeed possible that there may have been three people buried together. The placement of the remains in a bag probably is an indication that it was already impossible to correctly identify some remains. Wepener does however indicate that he recognised his fathers’ skull by his teeth which showed the marks of biting a tobacco pipe.

It therefore is indeed possible that three people were killed and buried together. However, no substantial proof could be found to warrant changing the information on the monument. The only way to obtain undisputed answers may be to exhume the remains and have it investigated by a forensic expert or do DNA tests. However, this is not currently planned.

7. SITE DESCRIPTION

The monument is found on a small hill on the farm Felicia 457, which used to be part of the farm Constantia 525. Portion1, on which the memorial is situated is a servitude belonging to the Voortrekkers (Figure 4). The memorial is made from blue granite stones with a niche holding the bronze bust of Wepener (Figure 5-8). Below the bust is the inscription, engraved in granite (Figure 9). A relief panel is found on the western side, depicting the events on 15 August 1865 when Wepener and his commando scaled Thabo Bosigo (Figure 10).

The first concern is the safety of the bust of Louw Wepener made from bronze (Figure 11). Since many monuments have been vandalised lately and this material indeed is valuable it is a big concern that it may be stolen. In fact during a site visit it was clear the bust indeed is somewhat loose and it may be just a question of time for it to be removed illegally.

Indications of someone trying to remove the relief panel was also visible (Figure 12). There also was a emblem of the Voortrekker Movement on the monument, which had been removed illegally (Figure 13).

The fence around the site was severy damaged in a storm (Figure 14). It currently serves no purpose.

Figure 4: Surveyor-General’s plan indicating the servitude (SG 579/1995).

Figure 5: Eastern (front) façade.

Figure 6: Southern façade.

Figure 7: Northern façade.

Figure 8: Western (back) façade.

Figure 9: Inscription on the monument.

Figure 10: Relief panel on back façade.

Figure 11: Bust of Louw Wepener, sculpted by Coert Steynberg.

Figure 12: Damage to the stones around the relief panel.

Figure 13: Holes in the granite where the Voortrekker emblem was fixed to the structure.

Figure 14: Damaged fence around the site.

8. MOTIVATION FOR THE ALTERATIONS TO THE MONUMENT

The reasons for the alterations to the monument are as follows:

• Damage already done to the memorial. • The possibility of a vandalism which has become a valid threat nowadays • Possible incorrect information. • Damage to the fence around the monument.

The monument was erected in 1940 and designed by Gerard Moerdyk, best known for his design of the Voortrekker Monument in Pretoria. The bust was sculpted by Coert Steynberg, one of the best known artists of his time. Therefore the memorial indeed has historical and intrinsic artistic value. Should it be lost it will be irreplacable.

Therefore it is proposed that a 3-D scan of the bust is made and that this will replace the original. The original will be taken to Udolpho, a property of the FAK in the Free State, close to Parys, where it will be preserved together with other historical artefacts. It will be accessible to the public. Since the site of the monument is in a remote location, it is impossible to have someone guarding it permanently.

From the above historical information it is clear that some of the infornation on the monument is incorrect. Changing it would indeed ensure a rectification of this information.

The current fence have been damaged severly and needs to be replaced. The proposal is to replace it with a security a similar fence.

9. DESCRIPTION OF IMPACT ON THE MEMORIAL

There will be no negative impact as everything proposed is aimed at keeping the memorial in tact. Elements to be replaced are done to either safeguard the valuable art work and monument or correct the incorrect information. Therefore the impact will indeed be positive and the site will remain in a better condition than currently.

The bust will be replaced by a 3-D scanned version of the original, made from concrete. It will look exactluy like the original. The latter will be kept safe at Udolpho, where it will be accessible to the public. The information on the plaque will remain unchanged as no sufficient proof could be found to change it.

The site will be protected by a security fence, which is sensitive to the monument and landscape (Figure 15-16). This will be an ordinary four feet high wire fence with metal droppers. This is similar to the current fence. The existing gate will also remain.

Figure 15: Site development plan.

Figure 16: Sketched proposal for the fence and gate around the monument.

10. HERITAGE SIGNIFICANCE

Cultural Heritage Significance is determined in accordance with a set of standards. These are determined by international and national charters and legislation regarding cultural heritage. Five criteria are used being:

• Cultural value • Social value • Historic value • Scientific value • Aesthetic value

These are explained as follows:

Cultural value

• The cultural significance or value of a site is the cultural value it holds for the community, or for sections of the community. • The following values should be used for the assessment of cultural significance: Social, Historic, Scientific and Aesthetic Values.

Social value

• Social value embraces the qualities for which a place has become a focus of spiritual, political, national, or other cultural sentiments to a majority or minority group. • Many traditional sites have such a value, and these may be on a local, provincial or national level. • This may be because the site is accessible and well known, particularly well preserved or scientifically important. • These values are very important and are probably the ‘strongest’ in terms of the conservation of a site. • They apply not only to the finest and best examples of sites. • Have a strong or special association with a particular community or cultural group for social, cultural or spiritual reasons.

Historic value

• Recognizes the contribution a place makes to the achievements of, and to our knowledge of, the past. • A place can be a typical or a well-preserved example of a cultural, group, period of time, or type of human activity, or it can be associated with a particular individual. • Often, a place has a long sequence of historic overlays and this long period of human history gives such places high historic value. • Important in the community or pattern of history or has association with life or work of person, group or organization of importance in history.

Scientific value

• Recognizes the contribution a place makes to the achievements of, and to our knowledge of, the past. • These are features of a place that provide or have a realistic potential to yield knowledge that is not obtainable elsewhere. • The scientific or research value of a place will depend upon the importance of the data involved or its rarity, quality or representativeness and on the degree to which the place may contribute to further substantial information. • Rarity - does it possess uncommon, rare or endangered aspects of natural or cultural heritage. • Representivity – is important in demonstrating the principal characteristics of a particular class of natural or cultural places or object or a range of landscapes or environments characteristic of its class or of human activities (including way of life, philosophy, custom, process, land-use, function, design or technique) in the environment of the nation, province region or locality. • Potential to yield information that will contribute to an understanding of natural or cultural history or is important in demonstrating a high degree of creative or technical achievement of a particular period.

Aesthetic value

• The beauty of design, association or mood that the place possesses. • The demonstration in a place, of a particular design, style, and artistic development of high level or craftsmanship. • This is recognition that a place represents a high point of the creative achievement in its design, its style, artistic development and craftsmanship. • Aesthetic value may sometimes be difficult to measure or quantify. Aesthetic value is therefore subjective, especially when it arises from cultural backgrounds and individual taste. • Important in exhibiting particular aesthetic characteristics valued by a community or cultural group.

11. HERITAGE ASSESSMENT

The National Heritage Resources Act states the following criteria for the classification of heritage resources:

1. The resources must be important to the course of or important in the events of South African history.

2. The resource must be an unusually rare or endangered aspect of South Africa’s natural or cultural heritage.

3. Sites that potentially contain information important for an understanding of South Africa’s natural or cultural heritage.

4. Sites that may be regarded as important due to their ability to demonstrate or depict important features of the natural or cultural environment or objects of a particular group in South Africa.

5. Sites that may be regarded as important because they reveal features to which a particular community or cultural group attach particular aesthetic values. Sites that display a high degree of creative or technological achievement (from a particular period).

6. The resource must be very strongly associated or linked with a particular community with regard to social, cultural or religious aspects.

7. Such sites can also be strongly associated with the work and life of an important person, group or organisation in South African history.

It can be stated that the monument has high cultural significance due to its history, as well as its artistic features. Furthermore it is a grave site, which always has high cultural significance (Table 1).

Table 1: Significance rating: Louw Wepener Monument Criteria: The resources must be important to the course of Yes – the Second Basotho War or important in the events of South African history. The resource must be an unusually rare or Yes – unique monument endangered aspect of South Africa’s natural or cultural heritage. Sites that potentially contain information Yes – information on historical figures, important for an understanding of South Africa’s especially Louw Wepener natural or cultural heritage. Sites that may be regarded as important due to Yes – can be linked to other Afrikaner their ability to demonstrate or depict important monuments features of the natural or cultural environment or objects of a particular group in South Africa. Sites that may be regarded as important because Yes – it is a grave site they reveal features to which a particular community or cultural group attach particular aesthetic values. Sites that display a high degree of creative or Yes – aesthetically pleasing and linked technological achievement (from a particular period of erecting of various Afrikaner period). monuments The resource must be very strongly associated or Yes – designed by Gerard Moerdijk; linked with a particular community with regard to bust by Coert Steynberg, social, cultural or religious aspects. commemorating the hero Louw Wepener Such sites can also be strongly associated with the Yes – as above work and life of an important person, group or organisation in South African history.

12. SOCIAL CONSULTATION

Site notice were placed on the entrance to the property (Figure 17-18). This was done on 25 September 2020 and stayed on site until 30 November 2020. It invites Interested and Affected parties to contact the heritage specialist should they have any heritage related enquiries/ comments.

An advertisement was also placed in the Bloemfontein Courant on Thursday 1 October 2020 (Figure 19). This newspaper is distributed in Bethulie. Again, it invites Interested and Affected parties to contact the heritage specialist should they have any heritage related enquiries. The social consultation ended on 1 November 2020.

No comments were received.

Figure 17: Site notice.

Figure 18: Wording of the site notice. 34

Figure 19: Newspaper notice: Bloemfontein Courant, 1 October 2020.

13. LANDOWNERS CONSENT

The land belongs to the Voortrekker. They have consented to the alterations as discussed above (see letter attached).

14. THE WAY FORWARD

Upon approval from both the Free State PHRA and the BGG Unit of SAHRA, the following process will be followed:

1. The bust will be removed and a 3-D scan made. 2. The scanned replica will be placed in the niche. 3. The original bust will be preserved at Udolpho (Parys) where it will be on display for the general public. However, it will be taken to Centurion first in order to the scanning and create the replica. 4. A short history of the monument and the replacement of the bust by a replica will be provided to give context to visitors. 5. An information plaque contextualizing the alterations will be erected on site. This is important as visitors needs to realise that they are visiting a monument with replica elements. 6. Vandalised parts of the monument will be repaired where necessary. 7. A fence similar to the current one will be erected as per the plans proposed. 8. The site will be maintained by the community of Bethulie and the FAK will oversee this (please see e-mail from Mr A Hocking attached).

15. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

It is concluded that proposed alterations to the monument will not have any negative impact thereon and will ensure to preservation of the valuable bronze bust of Louw Wepener. It will also keep the aesthetic characteristics of the site in tact.

The heritage character of the site will thus remain as it is. The contextualization of the site with relevant information will furthermore enhance the cultural significance thereof and add value to the site.

The following is therefore recommended:

1. That the bust of Louw Wepener be removed and preserved at Udolpho as proposed above.

2. That it be replaced with a 3-D scanned version on site as per specification provided above.

3. That the information on the monument be left as it is in line with current historical information.6

4. That necessary repairs to the monument be done.

5. That a fence similar to the current one be erected around the site as proposed above.

7. That the site will be maintained by the community of Bethulie and the FAK will oversee this. This should include placing measurements in place to grant access to visitors when required.

8. The contextual information be added to both the monument and the bust at Udolpho to ensure visitors are informed of the exact nature and history of the site and art work.

10. That a heritage expert be present on site when any work on the monument is done.

11. That a report on the process of removing, scanning and replacement of the bust and other alterations be tabled to both the Free State PHRA and the Burial Grounds and Graves Unit (BGG) of SAHRA.

12. It is therefore finally recommended that the HIA be approved by the Provincial Heritage Resources Agency of the Free State as well as the BGG Unit of SAHRA.

16. REFERENCES

Bergh, J.S. (ed.). 1999. Geskiedenisatlas van Suid-Afrika. Die vier noordelike provinsies. Pretoria: J.L. van Schaik. Coetzee, E. https://eensgesind.com/louw-wepener-en-die-slag-van-thaba-bosiu/, accessed on 23 September 2020. Coertze, P.J. & Coertze, R.D. 1996. Verklarende vakwoordeboek vir Antropologie en Argeologie. Pretoria: R.D. Coertze. Grobbelaar, J.J.G. 1968. Wepener, Lourens Jacobus (Louw). in De Kock, J.K. (ed.), et.al. Dictionary of South African Biography 1. Pretoria: HSRC. Grobbelaar, J.J.G & Grobbelaar, P.W. 1965. Die Nagberg. Cape Town: Tafelberg).

6 Research should however continue to get clarity in this regard. 37

Heydenrych, D.H. 1986. Die Boererepublieke, 1852-1881. In Cameron, T. & Spies, S.B. (eds.). Nuwe geskiedenis van Suid-Afrika in woord en beeld. Cape Town: Human & Rousseau. https://www.sahistory.org.za/article/basotho-wars-1858-1868, accessed on 18 September 2020. Huffman, T.N. 2007. Handbook to the Iron Age: The Archaeology of Pre-Colonial Farming Societies in Southern Africa. Scotsville: University of KwaZulu-Natal Press. Knudson, S.J. 1978. Culture in retrospect. Chicago: Rand McNally College Publishing Company. Korsman, S.A. & Meyer, A. 1999. Die Steentydperk en rotskuns. Bergh, J.S. (red.). Geskiedenisatlas van Suid-Afrika. Die vier noordelike provinsies. Pretoria: J.L. van Schaik. Maggs, T.M. O’C. 1976. Iron Age communities of the Southern Highveld. Pietermaritzburg: The Natal Museum. Pellissier, S.H. 1956. Jean Pierre Pellissier van Bethulie. Pretoria: J.L. van Schaik Bpk. Republic of South Africa. 2003. National Health Act (Act 61 of 2003). The Government Printer: Pretoria. Republic of South Africa. 1999. National Heritage Resources Act (No 25 of 1999). Pretoria: the Government Printer. Republic of South Africa. 1998. National Environmental Management Act (no 107 of 1998). Pretoria: The Government Printer. Republic of South Africa. 1980. Ordinance on Excavations (Ordinance no. 12 of 1980). The Government Printer: Pretoria. Schoeman, K. 2003. Early white farmers in the Transgariep 1819-1840. Pretoria: Protea Bookhouse. Swart, M.J. (ed.), et.al. Afrikanerbakens. Goodwood: Nasionale Boekdrukkery. Van der Ryst, M.M. & Meyer, A. 1999. Die Ystertydperk. Bergh, J.S. (red.). Geskiedenisatlas van Suid-Afrika. Die vier noordelike provinsies. Pretoria: J.L. van Schaik. Van Tonder, JJ. 1977. Fotobeeld van 300 Monumente, standbeelde en gedenktekens langs die pad van Suid-Afrika. Krugersdorp: JJ van Tonder. Van Zyl, J. Researcher at the War Museum of the Boer Republics, Bloemfontein. Personal Communication, 27 October 2020. Venter, T. n.d.a. Ontdek Bethulie. Brochure. Venter, T. n.d.b. Tlhaping. Research document. Wepener, F.D.J. 1934. Louw Wepener. Die oorloë van die Oranje-Vrystaat met Basoetoland. Pretoria; J.H. de Bussy.

APPENDIX A

DEFINITION OF TERMS:

Site: A large place with extensive structures and related cultural objects. It can also be a large assemblage of cultural artifacts, found on a single location.

Structure: A permanent building found in isolation or which forms a site in conjunction with other structures.

Feature: A coincidental find of movable cultural objects.

Object: Artifact (cultural object).

(Also see Knudson 1978: 20).

APPENDIX B

DEFINITION/ STATEMENT OF HERITAGE SIGNIFICANCE:

Historic value: Important in the community or pattern of history or has an association with the life or work of a person, group or organization of importance in history.

Aesthetic value: Important in exhibiting particular aesthetic characteristics valued by a community or cultural group.

Scientific value: Potential to yield information that will contribute to an understanding of natural or cultural history or is important in demonstrating a high degree of creative or technical achievement of a particular period

Social value: Have a strong or special association with a particular community or cultural group for social, cultural or spiritual reasons.

Rarity: Does it possess uncommon, rare or endangered aspects of natural or cultural heritage.

Representivity: Important in demonstrating the principal characteristics of a particular class of natural or cultural places or object or a range of landscapes or environments characteristic of its class or of human activities (including way of life, philosophy, custom, process, land-use, function, design or technique) in the environment of the nation, province region or locality.

APPENDIX C

SIGNIFICANCE AND FIELD RATING:

Cultural significance:

- Low A cultural object being found out of context, not being part of a site or without any related feature/structure in its surroundings.

- Medium Any site, structure or feature being regarded less important due to a number of factors, such as date and frequency. Also any important object found out of context.

- High Any site, structure or feature regarded as important because of its age or uniqueness. Graves are always categorized as of a high importance. Also any important object found within a specific context.

Heritage significance:

- Grade I Heritage resources with exceptional qualities to the extent that they are of national significance

- Grade II Heritage resources with qualities giving it provincial or regional importance although it may form part of the national estate

- Grade III Other heritage resources of local importance and therefore worthy of conservation

Field ratings:

National Grade I significance should be managed as part of the national estate Provincial Grade II significance should be managed as part of the provincial estate Local Grade IIIA should be included in the heritage register and not be mitigated (high significance) Local Grade IIIB should be included in the heritage register and may be mitigated (high/ medium significance) General protection A (IV A) site should be mitigated before destruction (high/ medium significance) General protection B (IV B) site should be recorded before destruction (medium significance) General protection C (IV C) phase 1 is seen as sufficient recording and it may be demolished (low significance)

APPENDIX D

PROTECTION OF HERITAGE RESOURCES:

Formal protection:

National heritage sites and Provincial heritage sites – grade I and II Protected areas - an area surrounding a heritage site Provisional protection – for a maximum period of two years Heritage registers – listing grades II and III Heritage areas – areas with more than one heritage site included Heritage objects – e.g. archaeological, palaeontological, meteorites, geological specimens, visual art, military, numismatic, books, etc.

General protection:

Objects protected by the laws of foreign states Structures – older than 60 years Archaeology, palaeontology and meteorites Burial grounds and graves Public monuments and memorials

APPENDIX E

HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT PHASES

1. Pre-assessment or scoping phase – establishment of the scope of the project and terms of reference. 2. Baseline assessment – establishment of a broad framework of the potential heritage of an area. 3. Phase I impact assessment – identifying sites, assess their significance, make comments on the impact of the development and makes recommendations for mitigation or conservation. 4. Letter of recommendation for exemption – if there is no likelihood that any sites will be impacted. 5. Phase II mitigation or rescue – planning for the protection of significant sites or sampling through excavation or collection (after receiving a permit) of sites that may be lost. 6. Phase III management plan – for rare cases where sites are so important that development cannot be allowed.