PHASE 1 ARCHAEOLOGICAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
For
The Proposed Kangra Coal T4 Project near Amersfoort,
Mpumalanga
Author ©: Tobias Coetzee, MA (Archaeology) (UP) February 2021
A Phase 1 Archaeological Impact Assessment for the proposed Kangra Coal T4 Project near Amersfoort, Mpumalanga
For: Elemental Sustainability (Pty) Ltd 102 The Meridian 160 AG De Witt Drive Solheim 1401
Report No: KangraCoal_AIA_1504201 Version: 4
Email: [email protected]
I, Tobias Coetzee, declare that –
• I act as the independent specialist; • I am conducting any work and activity relating to the proposed Kangra CoalT4 Project in an objective manner, even if this results in views and findings that are not favourable to the client; • I declare that there are no circumstances that may compromise my objectivity in performing such work; • I have the required expertise in conducting the specialist report and I will comply with legislation, regulations and any guidelines that have relevance to the proposed activity; • I have not, and will not engage in, conflicting interests in the undertaking of the activity; • I undertake to disclose to the applicant and the competent authority all material information in my possession that reasonably has or may have the potential of influencing - any decision to be taken with respect to the application by the competent authority; and - the objectivity of any report, plan or document to be prepared by myself for submission to the competent authority; • All the particulars furnished by me in this declaration are true and correct.
______Date: 26 February 2021
Tobias Coetzee © KangraCoal_AIA_1504201 February 2021 (version 4) 2
List of Abbreviations
AIA – Archaeological Impact Assessment
CMP – Conservation Management Plan
CRM – Cultural Resource Management
EIA – Environmental Impact Assessment
ECO – Environmental Control Officer
ESA – Early Stone Age
GPS – Global Positioning System)
ha – Hectare
km – Kilometre
LSA – Later Stone Age
m – Metre
MASL – Metres Above Sea Level
MEC – Member of the Executive Council
MR – Mining Right
MSA – Middle Stone Age
NEMA - National Environmental Management Act
NHRA – National Heritage Resources Act
SAHRA – South African Heritage Resources Agency
Tobias Coetzee © KangraCoal_AIA_1504201 February 2021 (version 4) 3 NEMA Appendix 6 NEMA Specialist reports Item Page No 1. (1) A specialist report prepared in terms of these Regulations must contain— (a) details of- (i)the specialist who prepared the report; and Cover, 2 (ii)the expertise of that specialist to compile a specialist report including a curriculum vitae; Cover, Appendix B (b) a declaration that the specialist is independent in a form as may be specified by the competent authority; 2 (c) an indication of the scope of, and the purpose for which, the report was prepared; 6 & 12 (cA) an indication of the quality and age of base data used for the specialist report; 29 (cB) a description of existing impacts on the site, cumulative impacts of the proposed development and levels of acceptable change; 18 - 22 (d) the duration, date and season of the site investigation and the relevance of the season to the outcome of the assessment; 29, 41 (e) a description of the methodology adopted in preparing the report or carrying out the specialised process inclusive of equipment and modelling used; 29 (f) details of an assessment of the specific identified sensitivity of the site related to the proposed activity or activities and its associated structures and infrastructure, inclusive of a site plan identifying site alternatives; 67 – 71 (g) an identification of any areas to be avoided, including buffers; 70 – 75 (h) a map superimposing the activity including the associated structures and infrastructure on the environmental sensitivities of the site including areas to be avoided, including buffers; 70, 71 (i) a description of any assumptions made and any uncertainties or gaps in knowledge; 41 (j) a description of the findings and potential implications of such findings on the impact of the proposed activity[, including identified alternatives on the environment]or activities; 44-69 (k) any mitigation measures for inclusion in the EMPr; 72 – 75 (l) any conditions for inclusion in the environmental authorisation; 72 – 75 (m) any monitoring requirements for inclusion in the EMPr or environmental authorisation; 72 – 75 (n) a reasoned opinion— (i)[as to] whether the proposed activity, activities or portions thereof should be authorised 72 – 75 (iA) regarding the acceptability of the proposed activity or activities; and 72 – 75 (ii)if the opinion is that the proposed activity, activities or portions thereof should be authorised, any avoidance, management and mitigation measures that should be included in the EMPr, and where applicable, the closure plan; 72 – 75 (o)a description of any consultation process that was undertaken during the course of preparing the specialist report; 29, 40, 41 Tobias Coetzee © KangraCoal_AIA_1504201 February 2021 (version 4) 4 NEMA Specialist reports Item Page No (p)a summary and copies of any comments received during any consultation process and where applicable all responses thereto; and (q)any other information requested by the competent authority. (2) Where a government notice gazetted by the Minister provides for any protocol or minimum information requirement to be applied to a specialist report, the requirements as indicated in such notice will apply.
Tobias Coetzee © KangraCoal_AIA_1504201 February 2021 (version 4) 5
Executive Summary
The author was appointed by Elemental Sustainability (Pty) Ltd to undertake a Phase 1 AIA (Archaeological Impact Assessment) for the proposed Kangra Coal T4 project intersecting 43 farm portions (listed in Table 1) of the Farms Wachteenbeetje 5 HT, Miscgund 47 HT, Middelpan 44 HT, Grootvallei 43 HT, Spitskop 41 HT, De Paarl 39 HT, Mooihoek 12 HT, Boschbank 11 HT, Langkloof 9 HT, Grootfontein 8 HT, Waterval 7 HT, Rietspruit 6 HT, Naauwhoek 37 HT, Roodepoort 38 HT, Vryheid 42 HT and Beelzebub 13 HT in the Mpumalanga Province. The proposed Kangra Coal T4 project is located close to the southern border of Mpumalanga with KwaZulu-Natal with Retief/Mkhondo 56 km (kilometre) to east, Ermelo 58 km to the north-northwest, Amersfoort 26 km to west- northwest and Wakkerstroom 28 km to the south. The aim of the study is to determine the scope of archaeological resources that could be impacted on by the proposed Kangra Coal T4 project that entails the expansion of underground mining activities, the construction of three surface ventilation shafts and a powerline.
Fifty-one sites were identified on historical aerial and topographical maps and pre-plotted. Fifteen of these sites were visited, seven could not be inspected due to access constraints, while recent aerial imagery indicate that 29 sites were demolished and were therefore not visited. An additional 20 sites were identified and plotted during the survey. Thirteen sites are likely to be impacted by the proposed powerline, while 22 sites might potentially be impacted should vibration or subsistence be caused by the proposed underground mining activities. Sites identified include historical building ruins, intact buildings, stone-walled enclosures and cemeteries
Access constraints caused by ongoing court cases, wet and rainy conditions, and the fact the local population speak Zulu only, resulted in a potential gap in locating burial sites and determining the age of structures and buildings as communication with land owners was limited. All surface impact areas, however, were surveyed.
In the event where impact is caused by the proposed mining development or if impact on buildings or ruins cannot be avoided, all buildings and structures associated with the specific sites must be adequately recorded by a qualified archaeologist and destruction permits be obtained from the relevant heritage authority. It should be noted, however, that the possibility exists that unmarked burials might be associated with stone-walled enclosures.
Demolished historical sites are considered sensitive from a heritage perspective and should be avoided by surface impacts. Subsurface cultural material might exist at these locations and care should therefore be exercised during construction and mining phases.
Tobias Coetzee © KangraCoal_AIA_1504201 February 2021 (version 4) 6
Intact buildings and ruins dating to the Historic Period should be monitored by the mine’s ECO (Environmental Control Officer) on a quarterly basis, as well as pre- and post-blasting. Should any impact be observed, or if impact cannot be avoided, a qualified archaeologist should be contacted to provide the required input to ensure the safeguarding of the sites.
A fenced-off conservation buffer of 30 m (metre) must be established around graves or cemeteries that are at risk of being impacted by the proposed surface development and a qualified archaeologist must compile a Conservation Management Plan (CMP) to ensure the safeguarding of the burial sites. Also, access to the cemeteries/graves must not be refused. Alternatively, the graves may be relocated by a qualified graves relocation unit to a premises earmarked by the local municipality, but will set in motion a substantial process as new legislation will be triggered. These processes, however, must be performed in accordance with the involvement of community leaders and the relatives of the deceased buried at the concerned location.
Graves/cemeteries located a significant distance from the proposed surface development, but within or within close proximity of the underground mining area, need to be monitored by the mine’s ECO.
Due to fewer heritage sites, Option B for the proposed powerline is preferred. Should the route be altered to avoid the affected heritage sites, the recommendations for the nearby sites must be revised.
The identified sites that could not be inspected due to access constraints should be confirmed and recorded via a site visit prior to the commencement of mining activities. Personal communication with the land owners and local population to determine the location of additional burial sites and the age of some of the buildings and structures prior to mining is also recommended.
Should the proposed development expand to any area outside of the proposed surface or underground boundaries, a qualified archaeologist must revise the recommendations made in this report to ensure the safeguarding of heritage sites. Also, should the proposed surface impact areas be changed, a qualified archaeologist must conduct a pedestrian survey on the new area and amend the report accordingly.
Subject to adherence of the recommendations and approval by SAHRA (South African Heritage Resources Agency), the proposed Kangra Coal T4 expansion project as per the indicated demarcations may continue. Should skeletal remains be exposed during development and construction phases, all activities must be suspended and the relevant heritage resources authority contacted (See National Heritage and Resources Act, 25 of 1999 section 36 (6)). Also, should culturally significant material be discovered during the course of the said development, all activities must be suspended pending further investigation by a qualified archaeologist.
Tobias Coetzee © KangraCoal_AIA_1504201 February 2021 (version 4) 7
Table of Contents List of Abbreviations ...... 3 NEMA Appendix 6 ...... 4 Executive Summary ...... 6 1. Project Background ...... 12 1.1 Introduction ...... 12 1.2 Legislation ...... 14 1.2.1 The EIA (Environmental Impact Assessment) and AIA processes ...... 14 1.2.2 Legislation regarding archaeology and heritage sites ...... 15 2. Study Area and Project Description ...... 18 2.1 Location & Physical Environment ...... 18 2.2 Project description...... 21 3. Archaeological Background ...... 26 3.1 The Stone Ages ...... 26 3.2 The Iron Age & Later History...... 27 3.2.2 General history of coal mining on the Highveld ...... 28 4. Methodology ...... 29 4.1 Sources of information ...... 40 4.1.1 Previous Heritage Studies ...... 40 4.2 Limitations ...... 41 5. Archaeological and Historical Remains ...... 44 5.1 Stone Age Remains ...... 44 5.2 Iron Age Farmer Remains ...... 45 5.3 Historical ...... 45 5.4 Contemporary Remains ...... 57 5.5 Graves...... 59 6. Evaluation ...... 64 6.1 Field Ratings ...... 64 7. Statement of Significance & Recommendations ...... 67 7.1 Statement of significance ...... 67 7.2 Recommendations ...... 72 8. Conclusion ...... 75 9. Addendum: Terminology ...... 76 10. References ...... 77 Appendix A: Historical Aerial Photographs and Topographical Maps ...... A Appendix B: Curriculum Vitae ...... a Appendix C: NEMA Risk Assessment Methodology ...... i Appendix D: Monitoring – Heritage ...... I
Tobias Coetzee © KangraCoal_AIA_1504201 February 2021 (version 4) 8
List of Figures Figure 1: Regional and Provincial location of the study area...... 13 Figure 2: Kangra Coal (Pty) Ltd Activities...... 23 Figure 3: Segments of 2009 SA 1: 50 000 2630 CC, CD & 2730 AA, AB indicating the study area...... 24 Figure 4:Proposed layout of the Kangra Coal T4 Project...... 25 Figure 5: Study area with pre-plotted and field-recorded sites on a 2020 aerial backdrop...... 33 Figure 6: Vent shaft 1 towards the west...... 34 Figure 7: Vent shaft 1 towards the east...... 34 Figure 8: Vent shaft 3 towards the west...... 35 Figure 9: Vent shaft 3 towards the east...... 35 Figure 10: Vent shaft 4 towards the north...... 36 Figure 11: Vent shaft 4 towards the south...... 36 Figure 12: Eastern end of the proposed powerline...... 37 Figure 13: Eastern connection point of the proposed powerline...... 37 Figure 14: General environment during the 1st site visit...... 38 Figure 15: General environment during the 2nd site visit...... 38 Figure 16: General environment during the 2nd site visit – proposed powerline next to road...... 39 Figure 17: General environment during the 3rd site visit...... 39 Figure 18: Generally high and dense grass cover during the 1st site visit...... 42 Figure 19: Burnt veldt during the 2nd site visit...... 42 Figure 20: Dense grass cover on the mountain section during the 3rd site visit...... 43 Figure 21: Very wet and marshy conditions during the 3rd site visit...... 43 Figure 22: ESA artefacts from Sterkfontein (Volman 1984)...... 44 Figure 23: MSA artefacts from Howiesons Poort (Volman 1984)...... 44 Figure 24: LSA scrapers (Klein 1984)...... 44 Figure 25: K09 – Demolished structure...... 47 Figure 26: K14 – Demolished structure...... 47 Figure 27: K15 – Demolished building...... 47 Figure 28: K01 –Stone-walling...... 52 Figure 29: K01 – Cement structure...... 52 Figure 30: K05 – Farmhouse...... 52 Figure 31: K05 – Outbuilding...... 52 Figure 32: K06 – Buildings...... 52 Figure 33: K12 – Dilapidated building...... 52 Figure 34: K12 – Building ruins...... 53 Figure 35: K13 – Stone building...... 53
Tobias Coetzee © KangraCoal_AIA_1504201 February 2021 (version 4) 9
Figure 36: K13 – Residence...... 53 Figure 37: K16 – Outbuilding...... 53 Figure 38: K16 – Residence...... 53 Figure 39: K17 – Intact buildings...... 53 Figure 40: K18 – Outbuilding...... 54 Figure 41: K18 – Main residence...... 54 Figure 42: K18 – Rondavels...... 54 Figure 43: K20 – Kraal...... 54 Figure 44: K20 – Animal dip...... 54 Figure 45: K22 – Cement & brick structures...... 54 Figure 46: K22 – Outbuilding...... 55 Figure 47: K50 – Circular stone-walled enclosure...... 55 Figure 48: K50 – Angular stone-walled enclosure...... 55 Figure 49: K50 – Wheel tax plate, 1942...... 55 Figure 50: K51 – Stone-walling...... 55 Figure 51: K57 – Settlement...... 55 Figure 52: K57 – Cemetery...... 56 Figure 53: K60 – Circular stone-walled enclosure...... 56 Figure 54: K61 – Angular stone-walled enclosure...... 56 Figure 55: K62 – Circular stone-walled enclosure...... 56 Figure 56: K63 - Stone-walling...... 56 Figure 57: K64 – Circular stone-walled enclosure...... 56 Figure 58: K69 – Intact historical building...... 57 Figure 59: K26 – Natural rock outcrop...... 58 Figure 60: K54 – Natural rock outcrop...... 58 Figure 61: K65 – Angular ruin...... 58 Figure 62: K66 – Building ruin...... 58 Figure 63: K52 – Stone cairn / possible grave...... 61 Figure 64: K55 – Cemetery...... 61 Figure 65: K55 – close-up of headstone...... 61 Figure 66: K56 – Unfenced cemetery...... 61 Figure 67: K56 – Fenced-off grave...... 61 Figure 68: K56 – Cement surface dressing...... 61 Figure 69: K58 – Unfenced cemetery...... 62 Figure 70: K58 – Formal grave ressings...... 62 Figure 71: K58 – Informal grave dressings...... 62 Figure 72: K59 – Unfenced cemetery...... 62
Tobias Coetzee © KangraCoal_AIA_1504201 February 2021 (version 4) 10
Figure 73: K67 – Cemetery...... 62 Figure 74: K67 – Close-up of headstone...... 62 Figure 75: K68 – Fenced-off cemetery...... 63 Figure 76: K68 – Formal & informal surface dressings...... 63 Figure 77: K68 – Formal surface dressings...... 63 Figure 78: K70 – Potental cemetery...... 63 Figure 79: K71 – Cemetery...... 63 Figure 80: Western sites, buffer zones and sensitive areas indicated on a 2020 aerial backdrop...... 70 Figure 81: Eastern sites, buffer zones and sensitive areas indicated on a 2020 aerial backdrop...... 71 Figure 82: Study area superimposed on a 1939 aerial photograph – eastern section...... B Figure 83: Study area superimposed on a 1939 aerial photograph – northern section...... C Figure 84: Study area superimposed on a 1939 aerial photograph – southern section...... D Figure 85: Study area superimposed on a 1961 aerial photograph – eastern section...... E Figure 86: Study area superimposed on a 1961 aerial photograph – northern section...... F Figure 87: Study area superimposed on a 1961 aerial photograph – southern section...... G Figure 88: Study area superimposed on a 1969 aerial photograph – eastern section...... H Figure 89: Study area superimposed on a 1969 aerial photograph – northern section...... I Figure 90: Study area superimposed on a 1969 aerial photograph – southern section...... J Figure 91: Study area superimposed on a 1969 topographical map...... K Figure 92: Study area superimposed on a 1987 topographical map...... L Figure 93: Study area superimposed on a 2009 topographical map...... M
List of Tables
Table 1: Property name & coordinates ...... 18 Table 2: Proposed development and approximate extents...... 22 Table 3: Site coordinates & description ...... 30 Table 4: Demolished sites not visited...... 45 Table 5: Historical buildings/structures with apparent surface remains - not visited...... 46 Table 6: Demolished historical buildings/structures – visited...... 46 Table 7: Historical buildings/structures with surface remains - visited...... 51 Table 8: Contemporary Remains...... 58 Table 9: Graves/cemeteries located within the demarcated stud area...... 60 Table 10: Field Ratings ...... 64 Table 11: Individual site ratings...... 65
Tobias Coetzee © KangraCoal_AIA_1504201 February 2021 (version 4) 11
1. Project Background 1.1 Introduction Elemental Sustainability (Pty) Ltd appointed the author to undertake a Phase 1 AIA (Archaeological Impact Assessment) for the proposed Kangra Coal T4 project intersecting 43 farm portions (Table 1) of the Farms Wachteenbeetje 5 HT, Miscgund 47 HT, Middelpan 44 HT, Grootvallei 43 HT, Spitskop 41 HT, De Paarl 39 HT, Mooihoek 12 HT, Boschbank 11 HT, Langkloof 9 HT, Grootfontein 8 HT, Waterval 7 HT, Rietspruit 6 HT, Naauwhoek 37 HT, Roodepoort 38 HT, Vryheid 42 HT and Beelzebub 13 HT in the Mpumalanga Province (Figures 1 – 4). The proposed Kangra Coal T4 project is located close to the southern border of Mpumalanga with KwaZulu-Natal with Retief/Mkhondo 56 km to east, Ermelo 58 km to the north-northwest, Amersfoort 26 km to west-northwest and Wakkerstroom 28 km to the south. The purpose of this study is to examine the demarcated areas in order to determine if any archaeological resources of heritage value will be impacted on by the proposed Kangra Coal T4 project, as well as to archaeologically contextualise the general study area. The aim of this report is to provide the developer with information regarding the location of heritage resources on the demarcated areas.
In the following report, I discuss the implication for the mining of coal on the demarcated portions with regard to heritage resources. The development will consist of underground mining methods, the construction of three ventilation shafts and a powerline. The legislation section included serves as a guide towards the effective identification and protection of heritage resources and will apply to any such material unearthed during development and construction phases within the demarcated study area.
Tobias Coetzee © KangraCoal_AIA_1504201 February 2021 (version 4) 12
Figure 1: Regional and Provincial location of the study area.
Tobias Coetzee © KangraCoal_AIA_1504201 February 2021 (version 4) 13
1.2 Legislation The South African Heritage Resources Agency (SAHRA) aims to conserve and control the management, research, alteration and destruction of cultural resources of South Africa and to prosecute if necessary. It is therefore crucially important to adhere to heritage resource legislation contained in the Government Gazette of the Republic of South Africa (Act No.25 of 1999), as many heritage sites are threatened daily by development. Conservation legislation requires an impact assessment report to be submitted for development authorisation that must include an AIA if triggered.
AIAs should be done by qualified professionals with adequate knowledge to (a) identify all heritage resources that might occur in areas of development and (b) make recommendations for protection or mitigation of the impact of the sites.
1.2.1 The EIA (Environmental Impact Assessment) and AIA processes
Phase 1 AIA’s generally involve the identification of sites during a field survey with assessment of their significance, the possible impact that the development might have, and relevant recommendations.
All AIA reports should include:
a. Location of the sites that are found;
b. Short descriptions of the characteristics of each site;
c. Short assessments of how important each site is, indicating which should be conserved and which mitigated;
d. Assessments of the potential impact of the development on the site(s);
e. In some cases a shovel test, to establish the extent of a site, or collection of material, to identify the associations of the site, may be necessary (a pre-arranged SAHRA permit is required); and
f. Recommendations for conservation or mitigation.
This AIA report is intended to inform the client about the legislative protection of heritage resources and their significance and make appropriate recommendations. It is essential to also provide the heritage authority with sufficient information about the sites to enable the authority to assess with confidence:
a. Whether or not it has objections to a development;
b. What the conditions are upon which such development might proceed;
c. Which sites require permits for mitigation or destruction;
Tobias Coetzee © KangraCoal_AIA_1504201 February 2021 (version 4) 14
d. Which sites require mitigation and what this should comprise;
e. Whether sites must be conserved and what alternatives can be proposed to relocate the development in such a way as to conserve other sites; and
f. What measures should or could be put in place to protect the sites which should be conserved.
When a Phase 1 AIA is part of an EIA, wider issues such as public consultation and assessment of the spatial and visual impacts of the development may be undertaken as part of the general study and may not be required from the archaeologist. If, however, the Phase 1 project forms a major component of an AIA it will be necessary to ensure that the study addresses such issues and complies with Section 38 of the National Heritage Resources Act (NHRA).
1.2.2 Legislation regarding archaeology and heritage sites
National Heritage Resource Act No.25 of April 1999
Buildings are among the most enduring features of human occupation, and this definition therefore includes all buildings older than 60 years, modern architecture as well as ruins, fortifications and Farming Community settlements. The Act identifies heritage objects as:
- 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;
- 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;
- any other prescribed category.
With regards to activities and work on archaeological and heritage sites this Act states that:
Tobias Coetzee © KangraCoal_AIA_1504201 February 2021 (version 4) 15
“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.” (34. [1] 1999:58)
and
“No person may, without a permit issued by the responsible heritage resources authority:
(a) destroy, damage, excavate, alter, deface or otherwise disturb any archaeological or palaeontological site or any meteorite;
(b) destroy, damage, excavate, remove from its original position, collect or own any archaeological or palaeontological material or object or any meteorite;
(c) trade in, sell for private gain, export or attempt to export from the Republic any category of archaeological or palaeontological material or object, or any meteorite; or
(d) bring onto or use at an archaeological or palaeontological site any excavation equipment or any equipment which assist in the detection or recovery of metals or archaeological and palaeontological material or objects, or use such equipment for the recovery of meteorites.”(35. [4] 1999:58)
and
“No person may, without a permit issued by SAHRA or a provincial heritage resources authority:
(a) destroy, damage, alter, exhume or remove from its original position or otherwise disturb the grave of a victim of conflict, or any burial ground or part thereof which contains such graves;
(b) destroy, damage, alter, exhume, remove from its original position or otherwise disturb any grave or burial ground older than 60 years which is situated outside a formal cemetery administered by a local authority;
(c) bring onto or use at a burial ground or grave referred to in paragraph (a) or (b) and excavation equipment, or any equipment which assists in the detection or recovery of metals.” (36. [3] 1999:60)
On the development of any area the gazette states that:
“…any person who intends to undertake a development categorised as:
(a) the construction of a road, wall, powerline, pipeline, canal or other similar form of linear development or barrier exceeding 300m in length;
(b) the construction of a bridge or similar structure exceeding 50m in length;
(c) any development or other activity which will change the character of a site-
Tobias Coetzee © KangraCoal_AIA_1504201 February 2021 (version 4) 16
i. exceeding 5000m² in extent; or
ii. involving three or more existing erven or subdivisions thereof; or
iii. involving three or more erven or divisions thereof which have been consolidated within the past five years; or
iv. the costs of which will exceed a sum set in terms of regulations by SAHRA or a provincial heritage resources authority;
(d) the re-zoning of a site exceeding 10000m² in extent; or
(e) any other category of development provided for in regulations by SAHRA or a provincial heritage resources authority, must at the very earliest stages of initiating such a development, notify the responsible heritage resources authority and furnish it with details regarding the location, nature and extent of the proposed development.” (38. [1] 1999:62-64)
and
“The responsible heritage resources authority must specify the information to be provided in a report required in terms of subsection (2)(a): Provided that the following must be included:
(a) The identification and mapping of all heritage resources in the area affected;
(b) an assessment of the significance of such resources in terms of the heritage assessment criteria set out in section 6(2) or prescribed under section 7;
(c) an assessment of the impact of the development on such heritage resources;
(d) an evaluation of the impact of the development on heritage resources relative to the sustainable social and economic benefits to be derived from the development;
(e) the results of consultation with communities affected by the proposed development and other interested parties regarding the impact of the development on heritage resources;
(f) if heritage resources will be adversely affected by the proposed development, the consideration of alternatives; and
(g) plans for mitigation of any adverse effects during and after the completion of the proposed development.” (38. [3] 1999:64)
Human Tissue Act and Ordinance 7 of 1925
Tobias Coetzee © KangraCoal_AIA_1504201 February 2021 (version 4) 17
The Human Tissues Act (65 of 1983) and Ordinance on the Removal of Graves and Dead Bodies (Ordinance 7 of 1925) protects graves younger than 60 years. These fall under the jurisdiction of the National Department of Health and the Provincial Health Departments. Approval for the exhumation and re-burial must be obtained from the relevant Provincial MEC (Member of the Executive Council) as well as the relevant Local Authorities. Graves 60 years or older fall under the jurisdiction of the National Heritage Resources Act as well as the Human Tissues Act, 1983.
2. Study Area and Project Description
2.1 Location & Physical Environment The proposed Kangra Coal T4 project study area is situated between Piet Retief/Mkhondo, Ermelo, Wakkerstroom and Amersfoort. The 43 identified farm portions are listed below:
Table 1: Property name & coordinates
Intersecting Map No Farm Name Portion Lat Lon Parcel Size Activity Reference (ha) Wachteenbeetje 5 1 RE 2730AA -27.058932 30.120401 387.5 UG HT 2 Rietspruit 6 HT 1/6 2730AA -27.052450 30.135556 231.8 UG
3 Waterval 7 HT RE 2730AA -27.032584 30.144265 1021.1 UG 2630CC & 4 Grootfontein 8 HT 4/8 -27.017702 30.187691 911.3 UG 2730AA 5 Langkloof 9 HT RE 2730AA -27.041144 30.169651 491.8 UG
6 Langkloof 9 HT 1/9 2730AA -27.053986 30.166088 495.1 UG
7 Boschbank 11 HT 2/11 2730AA -27.062246 30.234839 135.6 UG Powerline, 8 Mooihoek 12 HT 1/12 2730AA -27.068531 30.207921 1059.3 UG 2730AB & 9 Beelzebub 13 HT 6/13 -27.058571 30.241515 337.4 UG 2730AA 2730AB & 10 Naauwhoek 37 HT 37 -27.098479 30.256916 507.7 Powerline 2730AA 11 Naauwhoek 37 HT 1/37 2730AB -27.099493 30.280394 67.6 Powerline 2730AB & 12 Roodepoort 38 HT 1/38 -27.077704 30.257422 620.3 Powerline 2730AA 2730AB & 13 Roodepoort 38 HT 2/38 -27.090287 30.265614 102.1 Powerline 2730AA 14 Roodepoort 38 HT 3/38 2730AB -27.092821 30.282083 157.4 Powerline Powerline, 15 De Paarl 39 HT 1/39 2730AA -27.091023 30.210597 73.9 UG Tobias Coetzee © KangraCoal_AIA_1504201 February 2021 (version 4) 18
Intersecting Map No Farm Name Portion Lat Lon Parcel Size Activity Reference (ha) Powerline, 16 De Paarl 39 HT 2/39 2730AA -27.096946 30.224958 174.4 UG Powerline, 17 De Paarl 39 HT 3/39 2730AA -27.081275 30.236507 127.5 UG Powerline, 18 De Paarl 39 HT 4/39 2730AA -27.087337 30.217907 74.1 UG, Vent Powerline, 19 De Paarl 39 HT 5/39 2730AA -27.083228 30.223303 21.7 UG 20 De Paarl 39 HT RE/39 2730AA -27.090741 30.237100 206.6 Powerline
21 Spitskop 41 HT 1/41 2730AA -27.103449 30.202831 192.9 UG
22 Spitskop 41 HT 2/41 2730AA -27.107678 30.211941 237.4 UG
23 Spitskop 41 HT 3/41 2730AA -27.102490 30.227297 237.9 UG
24 Vryheid 42 HT 3/42 2730AA -27.098902 30.191380 156.3 UG
25 Grootvallei 43 HT 43 2730AA -27.076362 30.138252 308.7 UG
26 Grootvallei 43 HT 1/43 2730AA -27.080272 30.168174 99.2 UG
27 Grootvallei 43 HT 2/43 2730AA -27.077103 30.162776 40.2 UG Powerline, 28 Grootvallei 43 HT 3/43 2730AA -27.095145 30.163910 235.8 UG, Vent 29 Grootvallei 43 HT 4/43 2730AA -27.088367 30.166218 0.5 UG
30 Grootvallei 43 HT 6/43 2730AA -27.084544 30.148258 83.9 UG
31 Grootvallei 43 HT 7/43 2730AA -27.085477 30.173587 106.6 UG
32 Grootvallei 43 HT 8/43 2730AA -27.088441 30.153849 105.4 UG
33 Grootvallei 43 HT 9/43 2730AA -27.092513 30.137120 85.7 UG
34 Grootvallei 43 HT 10/43 2730AA -27.097443 30.144570 51.9 UG
35 Grootvallei 43 HT 11/43 2730AA -27.096313 30.138954 69.4 UG
36 Grootvallei 43 HT 12/43 2730AA -27.088258 30.166687 0.4 UG
37 Grootvallei 43 HT 13/43 2730AA -27.076832 30.145454 31.1 UG
38 Grootvallei 43 HT 14/43 2730AA -27.071798 30.153987 198.8 UG
39 Grootvallei 43 HT 15/43 2730AA -27.074514 30.165165 36.2 UG Powerline, 40 Grootvallei 43 HT 16/43 2730AA -27.086876 30.181986 276.4 UG
Tobias Coetzee © KangraCoal_AIA_1504201 February 2021 (version 4) 19
Intersecting Map No Farm Name Portion Lat Lon Parcel Size Activity Reference (ha) 41 Grootvallei 43 HT 18/43 2730AA -27.080692 30.154448 62.5 UG
42 Middelpan 44 HT RE 2730AA -27.067504 30.166331 463.9 UG
43 Misgund 47 HT RE 2730AA -27.066737 30.136168 327.9 UG
The closest town to the study area is Amersfoort, located 26 km to the west-northwest. Piet Retief/Mkhondo is located roughly 56 km to the east, Ermelo 58 km to the north-northwest and Wakkerstroom 28 km to the south of the proposed mining project (Figure 1). The study area falls within the Gert Sibande District Municipality and the Dr Pixley Ka Isaka Seme Local Municipality in the Mpumalanga Province. The Mkhondo Local Municipality is located 5 km to the northeast. In terms of vegetation, the study area falls within the Grassland Biome and Mesic Highveld Grassland Bioregion. The majority of the study area falls within Wakkerstroom Montane Grassland, while a small section towards the east falls within Paulpietersburg Moist Grassland. The Grassland Biome covers approximately 28% of South Africa (Mucina & Rutherfords 2006). Wakkerstroom Montane Grassland’s conservation status is considered to be least threatened with a conservation target of 27%. Less than 1% is statutorily protected in the Paardeplaats Nature Reserve. This vegetation unit occurs from the escarpment at Sheepmoor in the north to the area southeast of Utrecht, and from Volksrust in the west to Mandhlangampisi Mountain near Luneburg in the east. Land use pressures from agriculture is considered low and might be attributed to shallower soils and a colder climate. The area is suited to afforestation as well, with 1% under Acacia mearnsii and Eucalyptus plantations. Erosion varies between low and very low.
Paulpietersburg Moist Grassland is associated with the broad surroundings of Piet Retief/Mkhondo, Paulpietersburg and Vryheid and extends westwards to the east of Wakkerstroom. It is also found in the uppermost catchments of the Pongola River. In terms of conservation, Paulpietersburg Moist Grassland is considered vulnerable with a conservation target of 24% with only a small portion statutorily conserved in the Witbad, Vryheid Mountain, Paardeplaats and Pongola Bush Nature Reserves. Roughly one third has already been transformed by plantations or cultivated land and heavy livestock grazing and altered fire regimes have greatly reduced the areas of grasslands of high conservation value. Erosion is considered low and very low (Mucina & Rutherfords 2006).
The average elevation for Wakkerstroom Montane Grassland ranges from 1440 to 2200 MASL (Metres Above Sea Level), while that of Paulpietersburg Moist Grassland ranges from 920 to 1500 MASL (Mucina & Rutherfords 2006). The average elevation of the project area is 1700 MASL and is associated with mountainous terrain and rolling hills.
The study area falls within the summer rainfall region and the average annual rainfall is roughly 954 mm per year.
Tobias Coetzee © KangraCoal_AIA_1504201 February 2021 (version 4) 20
The average annual temperature is 16.1 ºC. The average summer temperature is 19.5 ºC, while the average winter temperature averages 11 ºC (Climate-data.org accessed 17/02/2021).
The study area falls within the C11C Quaternary Catchment that forms part of the Vaal Water Management Area and the W51A & B Quaternary Catchments of the Inkomati -Usuthu Water Management Area. The closest perennial rivers to the study area are the Klein Vaalrivier 3 km to the west of the study area and the Hlelo River 6.5 km to the northeast. The Heys Hope Dam is located 17 km to the northeast. Several non-perennial offshoots and minor dams, however, are found within the study area.
When the surrounding environment is considered, the general study area is associated with crop cultivation and grazing veldt for cattle and sheep with the existing Kangra Coal mining activities occurring approximately 8 km to the northeast. Access to the study area (Figures 3 & 4) is mostly via tertiary dirt roads and local farm roads.
Historical topographical maps (Appendix A) show that in terms of cultivation, the demarcated study area remained relatively unchanged between 1969 and 2009 with a few newly cultivated areas.
2.2 Project description Kangra Coal (Pty) Ltd plans to obtain a mining right for the proposed T4 project intersecting several farm portions of the Farms Wachteenbeetje 5 HT, Miscgund 47 HT, Middelpan 44 HT, Grootvallei 43 HT, Spitskop 41 HT, De Paarl 39 HT, Mooihoek 12 HT, Boschbank 11 HT, Langkloof 9 HT, Grootfontein 8 HT, Waterval 7 HT, Rietspruit 6 HT, Naauwhoek 37 HT, Roodepoort 38 HT, Vryheid 42 HT and Beelzebub 13 HT (Table 1) in the vicinity of Amersfoort in the Mpumalanga Province. The proposed mining right area is approximately 1900 ha (hectare) and is indicated on Figures 2 – 4 . Underground mining methods will be used to extract the coal. The extent of the three proposed ventilation shafts will be approximately 1800 m² in total, while the proposed powerline will be 15 km (Table 2).
The following overview of the project was adapted from the Background Information Document (Elemental Sustainability 2020):
The Kangra Coal T4 Project area is adjacent to the Kangra Coal Kusipongo Mining Right (MR) area (MP30/5/1/2/2/10099MR), which in turn is adjacent to the consolidated Maquasa MR area (MP30/5/1/2/2/133MR). Kangra’s Maquasa East and West operations have been in operation since 1996 and currently produce ~ 2.2 million tonnes of coal per annum (Mtpa) from underground and opencast operations (Figure 2).
The proposed Kangra Coal T4 Project, extends from the south-eastern corner of the Ermelo Coalfield in the north, to the northern parts of the KwaZulu-Natal Coalfield in the south. The Kangra Coal T4 project will entail the underground mining of the Gus seam at a depth of approximately 200 – 300 m below surface. The coal resource
Tobias Coetzee © KangraCoal_AIA_1504201 February 2021 (version 4) 21
was identified during the prospecting activities undertaken to date (MP30/5/1/1/2/535PR and MP30/5/1/1/2/605PR).
The existing infrastructure at the Maquasa operations and the planned infrastructure for the Kusipongo operations will be used for the duration of the T4 project. The only activities that could potentially occur on surface would be the establishment of downcast ventilation shafts and possible access roads (existing tracks will be used where possible) and powerlines to these ventilation shafts. No other surface infrastructure is anticipated for the Kangra Coal T4 project.
It is anticipated that the T4 project will commence with mining in 2028. Access to the underground workings will be through the adjacent Kusipongo MR area (MP30/5/1/2/2/10099MR).
Table 2: Proposed development and approximate extents.
Approximate Development Property Lat Lon surface impact Powerline 1/12, 1/38, 2/38, 3/38, RE/39, 1/39, 15 km -27.09586326 30.28670374 option A 3/39, 4/39, 5/39, 3/43, 16/43 1/12, 1/37, RE/37, 1/38, 2/38, 3/38, Powerline RE/39, 1/39, 2/39, 3/39, 4/39, 5/39, 15 km -27.09586326 30.28670374 option B 3/43, 16/43 Vent shaft 1 4/39 ±600m² -27.08361279 30.21861020 Vent shaft 3 3/43 ±600m² -27.09042137 30.16851807 Vent shaft 4 3/43 ±600m² -27.09345914 30.17290855 Underground See Table 1 ±1900 ha -27.0653260 30.1581030 mining
Tobias Coetzee © KangraCoal_AIA_1504201 February 2021 (version 4) 22
Figure 2: Kangra Coal (Pty) Ltd Activities.
Tobias Coetzee © KangraCoal_AIA_1504201 February 2021 (version 4) 23
Figure 3: Segments of 2009 SA 1: 50 000 2630 CC, CD & 2730 AA, AB indicating the study area.
Tobias Coetzee © KangraCoal_AIA_1504201 February 2021 (version 4) 24
Figure 4:Proposed layout of the Kangra Coal T4 Project.
Tobias Coetzee © KangraCoal_AIA_1504201 February 2021 (version 4) 25
3. Archaeological Background Southern African archaeology is broadly divided into the Early, Middle and Later Stone Ages; Early, Middle and Later Iron Ages; and Historical or Colonial Periods. This section of the report provides a general background to archaeology in South Africa and focuses on more site-specific elements where relevant.
3.1 The Stone Ages The earliest stone tool industry, the Oldowan, was developed by early human ancestors which were the earliest members of the genus Homo, such as Homo habilis, around 2.6 million years ago. It comprises tools such as cobble cores and pebble choppers (Toth & Schick 2007). Archaeologists suggest these stone tools are the earliest direct evidence for culture in southern Africa (Clarke & Kuman 2000). The advent of culture indicates the advent of more cognitively modern hominins (Mitchell 2002: 56, 57)
The Acheulean industry completely replaced the Oldowan industry. The Acheulian industry was first developed by Homo ergaster between 1.8 to 1.65 million years ago and lasted until around 300 000 years ago. Archaeological evidence from this period is also found at Swartkrans, Kromdraai and Sterkfontein. The most typical tools of the ESA (Early Stone Age) are handaxes, cleavers, choppers and spheroids. Although hominins seemingly used handaxes often, scholars disagree about their use. There are no indications of hafting, and some artefacts are far too large for it. Hominins likely used choppers and scrapers for skinning and butchering scavenged animals and often obtained sharp ended sticks for digging up edible roots. Presumably, early humans used wooden spears as early as 5 million years ago to hunt small animals.
Middle Stone Age (MSA) artefacts started appearing about 250 000 years ago and replaced the larger Early Stone Age bifaces, handaxes and cleavers with smaller flake industries consisting of scrapers, points and blades. These artefacts roughly fall in the 40-100 mm size range and were, in some cases, attached to handles, indicating a significant technical advance. The first Homo sapiens species also emerged during this period. Associated sites are Klasies River Mouth, Blombos Cave and Border Cave (Deacon & Deacon 1999).
Although the transition from the Middle Stone Age to the Later Stone Age did not occur simultaneously across the whole of southern Africa, the Later Stone Age ranges from about 20 000 to 2000 years ago. Stone tools from this period are generally smaller, but were used to do the same job as those from previous periods; only in a different, more efficient way. The Later Stone Age (LSA) is associated with: rock art, smaller stone tools (microliths), bows and arrows, bored stones, grooved stones, polished bone tools, earthenware pottery and beads. Examples of Later Stone Age sites are Nelson Bay Cave, Rose Cottage Cave and Boomplaas Cave (Deacon & Deacon 1999).
Tobias Coetzee © KangraCoal_AIA_1504201 February 2021 (version 4) 26
3.2 The Iron Age & Later History The Early Iron Age marks the movement of farming communities into South Africa in the first millennium AD, or around 2500 years ago (Mitchell 2002:259, 260). These groups were agro-pastoralist communities that settled in the vicinity of water in order to provide subsistence for their cattle and crops. Archaeological evidence from Early Iron Age sites is mostly artefacts in the form of ceramic assemblages. The origins and archaeological identities of this period are largely based upon ceramic typologies. Some scholars classify Early Iron Age ceramic traditions into different “streams” or “trends” in pot types and decoration, which emerged over time in southern Africa. These “streams” are identified as the Kwale Branch (east), the Nkope Branch (central) and the Kalundu Branch (west). Early Iron Age ceramics typically display features such as large and prominent inverted rims, large neck areas and fine elaborate decorations. This period continued until the end of the first millennium AD (Mitchell 2002; Huffman 2007). Some well-known Early Iron Age sites include the Lydenburg Heads in Mpumalanga, Happy Rest in the Limpopo Province and Mzonjani in Kwa-Zulu Natal.
The Middle Iron Age roughly stretches from AD 900 to 1300 and marks the origins of the Zimbabwe culture. During this period cattle herding appeared to play an increasingly important role in society. However, it was proved that cattle remained an important source of wealth throughout the Iron Age. An important shift in the Iron Age of southern Africa took place in the Shashe-Limpopo basin during this period, namely the development of class distinction and sacred leadership. The Zimbabwe culture can be divided into three periods based on certain capitals. Mapungubwe, the first period, dates from AD 1220 to 1300, Great Zimbabwe from AD 1300 to 1450, and Khami from AD 1450 to 1820 (Huffman 2007: 361, 362).
The Late Iron Age (LIA) roughly dates from AD 1300 to 1840. It is generally accepted that Great Zimbabwe replaced Mapungubwe. Some characteristics include a greater focus on economic growth and the increased importance of trade. Specialisation in terms of natural resources also started to play a role, as can be seen from the distribution of iron slag which tend to occur only in certain localities compared to a wide distribution during earlier times. It was also during the Late Iron Age that different areas of South Africa were populated, such as the interior of KwaZulu Natal, the Free State, the Gauteng Highveld and the Transkei. Another characteristic is the increased use of stone as building material. Some artefacts associated with this period are knife-blades, hoes, adzes, awls, other metal objects as well as bone tools and grinding stones.
The Historical period mainly deals with Europe’s discovery, settlement and impact on southern Africa. Some topics covered by the Historical period include Dutch settlement in the Western Cape, early mission stations, Voortrekker routes and the Anglo Boer War. This time period also saw the compilation of early maps by missionaries, explorers, military personnel, etc.
Tobias Coetzee © KangraCoal_AIA_1504201 February 2021 (version 4) 27
3.2.2 General history of coal mining on the Highveld Mpumalanga, especially the area between eMalahleni, Middelburg, Bethal, Hendrina, Ermelo and Carolina, is associated with vast coal fields. These coal fields formed between 200 and 300 million years ago from rotten forests in swamps. During this period, Africa was still attached to South America, India and Antarctica as part of the Gondwana supercontinent. By 250 million years ago, the climate changed to dry warm conditions and the swamps in Mpumalanga were replaced by desert-like conditions around 200 million years ago. By 180 million years ago, when the Gondwana supercontinent started to split up, volcanic lava fields covered areas in Mpumalanga (De Wit 2007: 37).
With the rich coal deposits in Mpumalanga, it was only a matter of time before its value was realised and the coal extracted. Coal mining is Mpumalanga’s most important industrial activity and produces about 80% of South Africa’s coal. The earliest coal mining in the area dates to 1868 when farmers extracted coal for personal use in the Middelburg district. Large-scale coal mining around eMalahleni, however, only started after the discovery of gold on the Witwatersrand in 1886. Due to the discovery of coal in the Brakpan and Springs surroundings in 1887 and no railway linking eMalahleni with the Rand, these early eMalahleni coal mines closed down. It was more cost effective to exploit the closer Brakpan and Springs coal deposits than the coal found at eMalahleni (Schirmer 2007: 316).
After the construction of the railway line between the Rand and eMalahleni the deposits were exploited on large scale again. The coal fields, which are about 40 km wide, are concentrated around eMalahleni and run towards Belfast in the east. The first collieries around eMalahleni were Douglas, Transvaal and Delagoa Bay, Witbank and Landau and are of a higher quality compared to the coal found at Brakpan and Springs. During the 1890s some of the coal was exported via Delagoa Bay. In addition, the coal was readily accessible as the deposits occurred at a depth of 100 m or less (Schirmer 2007: 316-317). It should also be noted that the railway line between Pretoria and Lorenço Marques (Maputo) was completed on 2 November 1894 and the connection between eMalahleni and Johannesburg during the 1910s (Heydenrych 1999).
Between 1900 and 1920 many new collieries were established and the coal price dropped. This led to the establishment of the Transvaal Coal Owners’ Association with the main aim to regulate output coal prices. This also acted to counter possible competition. It should also be noted that not all collieries joined this association. The establishment of the Transvaal Coal Owners’ Association had positive as well as negative influences. On the one hand eliminating the competition might have impacted negatively on efficiency and the workers. On the other hand, it is possible that the capacity of coal mines was enhanced and facilitated further development in the industry. One positive point was that the association eased interaction with international buyers. During the 1930s, however, the coal price continued to drop and resulted in mechanisation. This introduced electric coal cutters and eliminated the need for high number of unskilled workers. By 1946 eMalahleni and Middelburg saw the emergence of a modern coal industry. The Transvaal had 34 large collieries that were responsible for 99.7% of the province’s coal (Schirmer 2007: 317-319).
Tobias Coetzee © KangraCoal_AIA_1504201 February 2021 (version 4) 28
Between 1940 and 1960 coal output in the Eastern Transvaal increased from 13 million to 25 million tons. Although industrialisation expanded throughout this time in South Africa and a demand existed for coal both locally and internationally, a steady shift to oil as the dominant form of energy was noted. In light of these developments Anglo American Corporation launched three research programmes in the 1960s. As a result of these programmes the region’s coal mines became export orientated. This trend continued throughout the 1980s. During these times a series of coal-burning power stations around the eastern Highveld coal deposits were constructed (Schirmer 2007: 321).
4. Methodology Due to access constraints (discussed in the Limitations section) archaeological reconnaissance of the study area was conducted during three separate site visits: August 2020, November 2020 and February 2021 (Winter, Spring & Summer). The project area was inspected through a combination of unsystematic pedestrian and vehicular surveys of the area proposed for underground mining and a systematic pedestrian survey of the proposed powerline (Figure 5).
The areas demarcated for surface infrastructure and underground mining were inspected beforehand on Google Earth, historical aerial imagery and topographical maps in order to identify possible heritage remains (Appendix A). Fifty-one sites were identified and pre-plotted (Table 3 & Figure 5), however, 29 sites falling within the area demarcated for underground mining appear to have been demolished completely and were therefore not visited. Of the pre-plotted sites, nine sites could not be inspected due to access and time constraints. Twenty additional sites were identified during the study as a result of the pedestrian survey and personal communication with land owners and residents. It should be noted that the prefixes ‘2730AA’ and ‘2730AB’ are not used when referring to the site names due to the length of the name, but are recorded as such in Tables 3 & 11. The historical topographical datasets dating to 1969 and 1987, as well as the historical aerial photographs dating to 1939, 1961 and 1969 proved useful in terms of providing an indication of the location and age of some of the structures and features associated with the study area. The total area inspected was roughly 1900 ha.
All three proposed ventilation shaft sites (1, 3, 4), were inspected during the 3rd site visit (Figures 6 – 11). Figures 12 & 13 indicate the eastern connection point for the proposed powerline. Site visit 1 consisted off the surveying of the proposed powerline from just east of ventilation shaft 1 via route option A to the end towards the east (Figure 14). Two pre-plotted sites (K18 & K22) were inspected as well. The 2nd site visit was marked by a lack of access to the properties, except Middelpan 44 HT. Due to the lack of access, but good visibility due to recent veldt fires, the sections of the proposed powerline directly next to the road were inspected (Figures 15 & 16). During the 3rd site visit the majority of the environment was characterised by relatively short grass cover (Figure 17). The most of the remaining sites that could be accessed were recorded during the 3rd site visit. It should also
Tobias Coetzee © KangraCoal_AIA_1504201 February 2021 (version 4) 29
be noted that based on the results of the 1st site visit, the option B route for the powerline was proposed and was surveyed during the 3rd site visit as well.
The reconnaissance of the area under investigation served a twofold purpose:
- To obtain an indication of heritage material found in the general area as well as to identify or locate archaeological sites on the areas demarcated for development. This was done in order to establish a heritage context and to supplement background information that would benefit developers through identifying areas that are sensitive from a heritage perspective.
- All archaeological and historical events have spatial definitions in addition to their cultural and chronological context. Where applicable, spatial recording of these definitions were done by means of a handheld GPS (Global Positioning System) during the site visit.
Table 3: Site coordinates & description
Current Name Off. Name Latitude Longitude Description ID Source Visited Status K01 2730AA-K01 -27.086021 30.181568 Building Ruin Aerial 1939 Yes
K02 2730AA-K02 -27.053727 30.140522 Structure Ruin Aerial 1961 No
K03 2730AA-K03 -27.063779 30.231891 Structure Ruin Aerial 1961 No
K04 2730AA-K04 -27.022645 30.187756 Building Intact Aerial 1939 No
K05 2730AA-K05 -27.087080 30.172425 Building Intact Aerial 1939 Yes
K06 2730AA-K06 -27.087582 30.183717 Building Intact Aerial 1961 Yes
K07 2730AA-K07 -27.059708 30.236824 Structure Demolished Aerial 1939 No
K08 2730AA-K08 -27.059333 30.236540 Building Demolished Aerial 1939 No
K09 2730AA-K09 -27.093330 30.145201 Structure Demolished Aerial 1939 Yes
K10 2730AA-K10 -27.036642 30.167961 Building Demolished Aerial 1939 No
K11 2730AA-K11 -27.083175 30.162398 Building Intact Aerial 1939 No
K12 2730AA-K12 -27.088050 30.166503 Building Intact Aerial 1939 Yes
K13 2730AA-K13 -27.066937 30.166969 Building Intact Aerial 1939 Yes
K14 2730AA-K14 -27.066950 30.164524 Structure Demolished Aerial 1939 Yes
K15 2730AA-K15 -27.064945 30.165875 Building Demolished Aerial 1939 Yes
K16 2730AA-K16 -27.092209 30.146504 Building Intact Aerial 1939 Yes
Tobias Coetzee © KangraCoal_AIA_1504201 February 2021 (version 4) 30
Current Name Off. Name Latitude Longitude Description ID Source Visited Status K17 2730AA-K17 -27.091203 30.149279 Building Intact Aerial 1939 Yes
K18 2730AA-K18 -27.090244 30.219140 Building Intact Aerial 1939 Yes
K19 2730AA-K19 -27.054605 30.159087 Building Intact Aerial 1939 No
K20 2730AA-K20 -27.088207 30.170894 Structure Intact Aerial 1939 Yes
K21 2730AA-K21 -27.089063 30.150163 Building Demolished Aerial 1961 No
K22 2730AA-K22 -27.091692 30.218232 Building Intact Aerial 1961 Yes
K23 2730AA-K23 -27.030359 30.179790 Building Ruin Aerial 1961 No
K24 2730AA-K24 -27.045849 30.153000 Structure Demolished Aerial 1961 No
K25 2730AA-K25 -27.086166 30.211454 Building Demolished Aerial 1961 No
K26 2730AA-K26 -27.099257 30.222508 Structure Demolished Aerial 1969 No
K27 2730AA-K27 -27.083100 30.164778 Building Demolished Aerial 1939 No
K28 2730AA-K28 -27.084616 30.164850 Building Demolished Aerial 1939 No
K29 2730AA-K29 -27.035831 30.165814 Building Demolished Aerial 1939 No
K30 2730AA-K30 -27.039991 30.176738 Building Demolished Aerial 1939 No
K31 2730AA-K31 -27.035750 30.173153 Structure Demolished Aerial 1939 No
K32 2730AA-K32 -27.034771 30.166705 Building Demolished Aerial 1939 No
K33 2730AA-K33 -27.034717 30.167455 Building Demolished Aerial 1939 No
K34 2730AA-K34 -27.035305 30.163505 Building Demolished Aerial 1939 No
K35 2730AA-K35 -27.037803 30.166631 Building Demolished Aerial 1939 No
K36 2730AA-K36 -27.085714 30.162040 Building Demolished Aerial 1939 No
K37 2730AA-K37 -27.093458 30.166854 Building Demolished Aerial 1939 No
K38 2730AA-K38 -27.092020 30.167232 Building Demolished Aerial 1939 No
K39 2730AA-K39 -27.032989 30.163248 Building Demolished Aerial 1939 No
K40 2730AA-K40 -27.027662 30.178501 Building Demolished Aerial 1939 No
K41 2730AA-K41 -27.053697 30.160244 Building Demolished Aerial 1939 No
K42 2730AA-K42 -27.038316 30.168002 Building Demolished Aerial 1961 No
K43 2730AA-K43 -27.036581 30.166077 Building Demolished Aerial 1961 No
K44 2730AA-K44 -27.076139 30.163853 Building Ruin Aerial 1939 No
K45 2730AA-K45 -27.084552 30.160703 Building Demolished Aerial 1961 No
Tobias Coetzee © KangraCoal_AIA_1504201 February 2021 (version 4) 31
Current Name Off. Name Latitude Longitude Description ID Source Visited Status K46 2730AA-K46 -27.063433 30.166597 Structure Demolished Aerial 1969 No
K47 2730AA-K47 -27.037290 30.164329 Building Demolished Aerial 1969 No
K48 2730AA-K48 -27.038519 30.163802 Building Demolished Aerial 1969 No
K49 2730AA-K49 -27.039201 30.162404 Building Demolished Aerial 1969 No
K50 2730AB-K50 -27.093394 30.268291 Stone-walling Intact Aerial 1939 Yes
K51 2730AB-K51 -27.091733 30.256054 Stone-Walling Intact Field Yes
K52 2730AA-K52 -27.085161 30.229124 Grave/Cemetery Intact Field Yes
K53 2730AA-K53 -27.083568 30.222618 Natural N/A Field Yes
K54 2730AA-K54 -27.084498 30.223083 Natural N/A Field Yes
K55 2730AA-K55 -27.092835 30.147771 Grave/Cemetery Intact Field Yes
K56 2730AA-K56 -27.093035 30.147919 Grave/Cemetery Intact Field Yes
K57 2730AA-K57 -27.083562 30.233141 Settlement Intact Field Yes
K58 2730AB-K58 -27.091035 30.268818 Grave/Cemetery Intact Field Yes
K59 2730AB-K59 -27.088921 30.254061 Grave/Cemetery Intact Field Yes
K60 2730AB-K60 -27.091881 30.268253 Stone-Walling Intact Field Yes
K61 2730AB-K61 -27.091403 30.269353 Stone-Walling Intact Field Yes
K62 2730AB-K62 -27.093107 30.274702 Stone-Walling Intact Field Yes
K63 2730AB-K63 -27.093557 30.274799 Stone-Walling Intact Field Yes
K64 2730AB-K64 -27.093982 30.275064 Stone-Walling Intact Field Yes
K65 2730AB-K65 -27.095575 30.284115 Building Ruin Field Yes
K66 2730AB-K66 -27.096327 30.286588 Building Ruin Field Yes
K67 2730AA-K67 -27.092364 30.237348 Grave/Cemetery Intact Field Yes
K68 2730AB-K68 -27.089254 30.254292 Grave/Cemetery Intact Field Yes
K69 2730AA-K69 -27.067195 30.165057 Building Intact Aerial 1939 Yes
K70 2730AA-K70 -27.066203 30.164386 Grave/Cemetery Intact Field Yes
K71 2730AA-K71 -27.083768 30.233047 Grave/Cemetery Intact Field Yes
Tobias Coetzee © KangraCoal_AIA_1504201 February 2021 (version 4) 32
Figure 5: Study area with pre-plotted and field-recorded sites on a 2020 aerial backdrop.
Tobias Coetzee © KangraCoal_AIA_1504201 February 2021 (version 4) 33
Figure 6: Vent shaft 1 towards the west.
Figure 7: Vent shaft 1 towards the east.
Tobias Coetzee © KangraCoal_AIA_1504201 February 2021 (version 4) 34
Figure 8: Vent shaft 3 towards the west.
Figure 9: Vent shaft 3 towards the east.
Tobias Coetzee © KangraCoal_AIA_1504201 February 2021 (version 4) 35
Figure 10: Vent shaft 4 towards the north.
Figure 11: Vent shaft 4 towards the south.
Tobias Coetzee © KangraCoal_AIA_1504201 February 2021 (version 4) 36
Figure 12: Eastern end of the proposed powerline.
Figure 13: Eastern connection point of the proposed powerline.
Tobias Coetzee © KangraCoal_AIA_1504201 February 2021 (version 4) 37
Figure 14: General environment during the 1st site visit.
Figure 15: General environment during the 2nd site visit.
Tobias Coetzee © KangraCoal_AIA_1504201 February 2021 (version 4) 38
Figure 16: General environment during the 2nd site visit – proposed powerline next to road.
Figure 17: General environment during the 3rd site visit.
Tobias Coetzee © KangraCoal_AIA_1504201 February 2021 (version 4) 39
4.1 Sources of information At all times during the survey, standard archaeological procedures for the observation of heritage resources were followed. As most archaeological material occur in single or multiple stratified layers beneath the soil surface, special attention was paid to disturbances; both man-made such as roads and clearings, and those made by natural agents such as burrowing animals and erosion. Locations of archaeological material remains were recorded by means of a Garmin Oregon 750 GPS. These sites, as well as the general conditions of the terrain, were photographed with a Sony Cyber-shot camera.
A literature study, which incorporated previous work done in the region, was conducted in order to place the study area into context from a heritage perspective.
Personal communication with a few of the local farm workers proved useful in locating two cemeteries
4.1.1 Previous Heritage Studies
Kusipongo and opencast project, Mpumalanga An archaeological survey was done by PGS Heritage for the amendment of the Kusipongo Underground and Opencast Coal Mine directly to the northeast of the Kangra Coal T4 project. PGS surveyed the study area and the following remains were recorded: Burial grounds, historic black homesteads, Late Iron Age stone-walled sites, recent black homesteads and historic white farmsteads (Birkholtz 2019).
Balgarthan Colliery, Mpumalanga An Archaeological survey was done by Huffman (1995) for the Balagarthan Colliery to the east of the Kangra Coal T4 project. It appears that the Balagarthan study overlaps with the eastern-most section of the proposed powerline of the Kangra Coal T4 project. The project included various portions of the farms Naauwhoek 37 HT and Roodepoort 38 HT. The survey recorded nine sites, of which one was a European homestead and the others Swazi homesteads. One cemetery was observed at one of the homesteads.
9600 Sow unit piggery and abattoir, Amersfoort, Mpumalanga Marais-Botes (2017) conducted a Phase 1 Heritage Impact Assessment for the construction of a 9600 sow unit piggery and abattoir approximately 20 km east of Amersfoort. The piggery is located about 8 km west of the Kangra Coal T4 project study area concerned in this report. Several informal graves were located during the survey.
Tobias Coetzee © KangraCoal_AIA_1504201 February 2021 (version 4) 40
4.2 Limitations During the 1st site visit (August 2020) the general environment was characterised by dense vegetation that hampered site visibility and free movement (Figure 18). During this site visit only a section of the proposed powerline was surveyed and two pre-plotted sites were inspected. During the site visit it transpired that access was not allowed to any of the remaining farm portions due to ongoing court cases between Kangra Coal (Pty) Ltd and one of the farm owners (Mr. Greyling), who appears to own the majority of the farm portions on which mining is proposed. As a result of the court case the remaining farm owners also refused access. It was also noted that the local farm workers in the general area only speak Zulu, significantly hampering communication.
The 2nd site visit (November 2020) saw only access to the Farm Middelpan 44 HT, owned by Mr. Moller. Visibility was good at this time as the entire project area had recently been burnt (Figure 19). The court cases were still ongoing at this stage.
The final site visit was conducted in February 2021. Some areas, especially in mountainous regions, were characterised by dense grass cover that hampered site visibility and free movement (Figure 20). Vegetation cover at lower altitudes were relatively short that promoted site visibility. Also, heavy rains resulted in extremely wet and marshy conditions that hampered access and free movement (Figure 21). Accordingly, Kangra Coal won two court cases against Mr. Greyling and the court ruled that specialists had to be allowed access to the properties to conduct their respective studies. Access, however, was still refused. At this stage Mr. Pierre Louw from Kangra Coal accompanied the specialists and access was granted on the second day. However, due to time constraints in terms of available fieldwork days and remaining time for submission of the EIA, as well as the unavailability of some of the farm owners, not all pre-plotted sites could be reached. Personal communication with the owners to determine the location additional burial sites or the age of some of the structures was limited as well . During this site visit the author was accompanied by Mr. Simo Yende from Kangra Coal to some of the pre-plotted sites. This significantly aided the process as Mr. Yende speaks Zulu and was therefore able to communicate with the local residents. This greatly helped in determining the location of cemeteries and graves on some of the farm portions inspected. Sites K02, K03, K08, K11, K19 could not be visited due to time restrictions and the unavailability of Mr. Greyling at the time of surveying. Access to site K21 was allowed, but due to a significant amount of rain and wet conditions, the site could not be reached in time. According to Mr. Yende, the property of which sites K04 and K23 are located, is communal property. At the time of surveying the gate was locked and access was not obtained. According to Mr. Yende, access would not be a problem, but would take time to arrange.
The lack of communication and access to land owners, as well as the language barrier with the local population resulted in a potential gap in locating burial sites and determining an accurate age of structures and buildings. It should be noted, however, that all surface impact areas were surveyed.
Tobias Coetzee © KangraCoal_AIA_1504201 February 2021 (version 4) 41
Figure 18: Generally high and dense grass cover during the 1st site visit.
`
Figure 19: Burnt veldt during the 2nd site visit.
Tobias Coetzee © KangraCoal_AIA_1504201 February 2021 (version 4) 42
Figure 20: Dense grass cover on the mountain section during the 3rd site visit.
Figure 21: Very wet and marshy conditions during the 3rd site visit.
Tobias Coetzee © KangraCoal_AIA_1504201 February 2021 (version 4) 43
5. Archaeological and Historical Remains 5.1 Stone Age Remains No Stone Age archaeological remains were observed within the demarcated study area.
Although no Stone Age archaeological remains were found, such artefacts may occur in the area. These artefacts are often associated with rocky outcrops or water sources. Figures 22 – 24 below are examples of stone tools often associated with the Early, Middle and Later Stone Age of southern Africa.
Archaeological studies done on the surrounding areas also did not locate material pertaining to the Stone Age.
According to Bergh (1999: 5), no major Stone Age archaeological sites are located in the direct vicinity of Amersfoort.
Figure 22: ESA artefacts from Sterkfontein (Volman 1984).
Figure 23: MSA artefacts from Howiesons Poort (Volman 1984).
Figure 24: LSA scrapers (Klein 1984).
Tobias Coetzee © KangraCoal_AIA_1504201 February 2021 (version 4) 44
5.2 Iron Age Farmer Remains No Iron Age Farmer remains were located within the demarcated study area.
The Heritage Impact Assessment done by Birkholtz (2019) located one circular stone-walled enclosure that dates to the Late Iron Age.
5.3 Historical Fifty-three sites dating to the Historical Period were identified using a combination of historical topographical maps, aerial images and via personal observation.
Table 4 lists the 24 sites that were identified using aerial imagery dating to 1939 and 1961 (Appendix A: Figures 82 – 87). These sites consist of buildings and structures, but based on recent aerial imagery appear to have been demolished completely. These sites were therefore not visited.
Table 4: Demolished sites not visited.
Name Type Source Year Status Age Parcel K07 Structure Aerial 1939 Demolished Historical 2/11 K08 Building Aerial 1939 Demolished Historical 2/11 K10 Building Aerial 1939 Demolished Historical RE/9 K21 Building Aerial 1961 Demolished Historical 8/43 K24 Structure Aerial 1961 Demolished Historical 1/9 K25 Building Aerial 1961 Demolished Historical 1/12 K27 Building Aerial 1939 Demolished Historical 1/43 K28 Building Aerial 1939 Demolished Historical 1/43 K29 Building Aerial 1939 Demolished Historical RE/9 K30 Building Aerial 1939 Demolished Historical RE/9 K31 Structure Aerial 1939 Demolished Historical RE/9 K32 Building Aerial 1939 Demolished Historical RE/9 K33 Building Aerial 1939 Demolished Historical RE/9 K34 Building Aerial 1939 Demolished Historical RE/9 K35 Building Aerial 1939 Demolished Historical RE/9 K36 Building Aerial 1939 Demolished Historical 6/43 K37 Building Aerial 1939 Demolished Historical 3/43 K38 Building Aerial 1939 Demolished Historical 3/43 K39 Building Aerial 1939 Demolished Historical 0/9 K40 Building Aerial 1939 Demolished Historical 4/8 K41 Building Aerial 1939 Demolished Historical 1/9 K42 Building Aerial 1961 Demolished Historical RE/9 K43 Building Aerial 1961 Demolished Historical RE/9 K45 Building Aerial 1961 Demolished Historical 6/43
Tobias Coetzee © KangraCoal_AIA_1504201 February 2021 (version 4) 45
Table 5 lists seven historical sites, consisting of buildings and structures, identified on 1939 and 1961 aerial imagery (Appendix A: Figures 82 – 87). Based on recent aerial imagery, surface remains appear to be present at these sites, but due access constraints (discussed in the Limitations section), these sites could not be visited.
Table 5: Historical buildings/structures with apparent surface remains - not visited.
Name Type Source Year Status Age Parcel K02 Structure Aerial 1961 Ruin Historical 1/6 K03 Structure Aerial 1961 Ruin Historical 2/11 K04 Building Aerial 1939 Intact Historical 4/8 K11 Building Aerial 1939 Intact Historical 18/43 K19 Building Aerial 1939 Intact Historical 1/9 K23 Building Aerial 1961 Ruin Historical 4/8 K44 Building Aerial 1939 Ruin Historical 2/43
Table 6 lists the three historical building/structure sites that were identified on 1939 aerial imagery. According to recent aerial imagery these sites were demolished, but were visited regardless.
Site K09, located on Portion 8 of the Farm Grootvallei 43 HT, consists of an open area that appear to have been used as a kraal (Figure 25). Structures are visible on the 1939 aerial image (Appendix A: Figure 84), but not on subsequent images or topographical maps.
Site K14 is located on the Farm Middelpan 44 HT and appears as a potential structure with rows of trees on 1939 aerial imagery (Appendix A: Figure 84). The trees and potential structure appear on the 1961 and 1969 aerial images as well, but are omitted thereafter. No building, however, is visible on historical toparchical maps (Appendix A: Figures 87 & 90). No evidence of infrastructure could be detected during the site visit (Figure 26).
Site K15, also located on the Farm Middelpan 44 HT and to the north of the main residence, is visible on the 1939, 1961 and 1969 aerial images (Appendix A). The 1969 topographical map (Appendix A: Figure 91) shows the site to be a kraal. Subsequent topographical maps do not indicate any structure. The outline of the kraal is visible on recent aerial imagery, but no surface remains could be detected during the site visit (Figure 27).
Table 6: Demolished historical buildings/structures – visited.
Name Type Source Year Status Age Parcel K09 Structure Aerial 1939 Structure Historical 8/43 K14 Structure Aerial 1939 Structure Historical RE/44 K15 Building Aerial 1939 Building Historical RE/44
Tobias Coetzee © KangraCoal_AIA_1504201 February 2021 (version 4) 46
Figure 25: K09 – Demolished structure. Figure 26: K14 – Demolished structure.
Figure 27: K15 – Demolished building.
Table 7 lists the 19 visited historical sites (Figures 28 - 58) that are associated with surface remains. These sites were identified on a combination of 1939 and 1961 aerial imagery, as well as through observation during the pedestrian survey.
Site K01 was identified on the 1939 aerial image (Appendix A: Figure 84) as a rectangular structure measuring approximately 50 X 56 m. The structure appears to have been demolished by 1961 (Appendix A) and is not indicated on any of the topographical maps. The site visit confirmed that the structure consists of dilapidated stone-walling (Figure 28) and smaller cement structures within the larger enclosure (Figure 29). The site, however, is overgrown and dense vegetation hampered visibility. The function of the structure is unclear, but it might have been used as a kraal.
Site K05 is located on Portion 3 of the Farm Grootvallei 43 HT and consists of a farmhouse and outbuilding (Figures 30 & 31). The farmhouse, a painted brick building with a stone foundation, and a stone-constructed outbuilding are visible on the 1939 aerial image (Appendix A: Figure 84). Both structures appear to be in a fairly
Tobias Coetzee © KangraCoal_AIA_1504201 February 2021 (version 4) 47
good condition. However, it is not clear whether the buildings visible on the 1939 aerial image are still present or if they have been demolished and replaced by more recent buildings.
Site K06 first appears on the 1961 aerial image (Appendix A: Figure 87) as a building on Portion 16 of the Farm Grootvallei 43 HT and is present on all subsequent aerial and topographical maps. The building appears to be a rondavel at the centre of the settlement (Figure 32) with a few additional and more recent buildings nearby. The settlement is fenced-off and it should be noted that a cemetery was observed. Direct access, however, was not gained.
Site K12 consists of three dilapidated buildings, two constructed from bricks and one from stone. The site is located on Portions 3, 4 and 12 of the Farm Grootvallei 43 HT. The buildings appear on the 1939, 1961 and 1969 aerial images (Appendix A), but not on the 1969 topographical map (Appendix A: Figure 91). Though the western-most building is shown on the 1987 topographical map and the eastern-most on the 2009 topographical map (Appendix A: Figures 92 & 93).
Site K13 is characterised by a farmhouse and several outbuildings on the Farm Middelpan 44 HT (Figures 35 – 36). The farmhouse first appears on the 1939 aerial image (Appendix A: Figure 84), but some of the buildings appear to have only been constructed between 1939 and 1961. One of the outbuildings is constructed from stone, while the rest of the buildings consist of painted brick buildings. The farmhouse, however, has a stone foundation.
Sites K16 (Figure 37 & 38) & K17 (Figure 39) are located on Portion 8 of the Farm Grootvallei 43 HT. Both sites appear on the 1939, 1961 and 1969 aerial images (Appendix A), as well as on all of the topographical maps (Appendix A: Figures 91 – 93). Both sites appear to consist of several buildings, but it is unclear whether the buildings visible on the 1939 aerial image are still present or have been demolished and replaced by more recent buildings. It should also be noted that site K17 could not be closely inspected due to access restrictions caused by wet and marshy conditions.
Sites K18 (Figures 40 – 42) & K22 (Figure 45 & 46) respectively appear on 1939 and 1961 aerial imagery (Appendix A: Figures 82 & 85). The sites are located on Portion 4 of the Farm De Paarl 39 HT and appear to be the original farmhouse and outbuilding (Site K18) with a nearby kraal (Site K22). Both sites consist of several buildings and structures, however, several of the smaller buildings associated with the sites appear to be of a more recent origin and are not clearly visible on the aerial imagery. The topographical maps (Appendix A: Figures 91 – 93) indicate two buildings at Site K18 and a Kraal at Site K22.
Site K20 (Figures 43 & 44) is located directly southwest of Site K05 on Portion 3 of the Farm Grootvallei 43 HT. The site consists of an angular stone-walled enclosure with a cement structure that appears to have been used
Tobias Coetzee © KangraCoal_AIA_1504201 February 2021 (version 4) 48
as a dip for small stock. Site K20 appears on historical aerial imagery dating to 1939 (Appendix A: Figure 84), but not on any of the topographical maps.
Site K50 (Figures 47 – 49), a cluster of angular and circular stone-walled enclosures located on the Farm Naauwhoek 37 HT, was observed on 1939, 1961 and 1969 aerial imagery (Appendix A). The topographical map dating to 1969 indicates a building (Appendix A: Figure 91), while no indication is noted on the following topographical maps (Appendix A: Figures 92 & 93). Figure 49 depicts a wheel tax plate dating to 1942 that was observed at the site. The exact number of enclosures could not be determined due to dense vegetation cover and the dilapidated state of the structures, but at least one circular enclosure, possibly used for livestock, and one angular enclosure, possibly a residence, were identified. The angular enclosure measures approximately 10 X 7 m while the circular enclosure has an approximate diameter of 16 m. No other material remains were observed. It should be noted that the option B powerline route runs directly through the site.
Site K51 (Figure 50), is located approximately 16 m south of the proposed powerline option B route on the Farm Naauwhoek 37 HT. The site consists of a section of stone-walling, but due to the dilapidated state and dense vegetation, the extent could not be determined. The site is not visible on any of the aerial images (Appendix A) and is not depicted on any of the topographical maps.
Site K57 consists of a fenced-off settlement characterised by several buildings and structures (Figure 51). A building first appears on the 1961 aerial image (Appendix A: Figure 85) near the centre of the settlement and appears to have increased in size by 1969 (Appendix A: Figure 88). Recent aerial imagery, however, shows the location of the original building to be vacant land, while new buildings are visible directly to the east and west (Figure 80). The topographical map dating to 1969 shows the presence of the original building (Appendix A: Figure 91) while no building is shown on the 1987 map (Appendix A: Figure 91). The 2009 topographical map, however, indicates the two buildings to the east and west (Appendix A: Figure 93). It should be noted that a cemetery was observed within the fenced-off settlement (Figure 52), but access was not gained as a result of the language barrier. Also, the proposed powerline route A runs directly through the settlement.
Sites K60 (Figure 53) & K61 (Figure 54) are located approximately 140 m north of site K50 on Portion 2 of the Farm Roodepoort 38 HT and consist of similar stone-walling. Both sites are not clearly visible on historical aerial imagery, although a faint outline of Site K61 appears on the 1939 aerial image (Appendix A: Figure 82). No building or structure is visible on any of the topographical maps (Appendix A: Figures 91 – 93). Site K60 consists of a circular stone-walled enclosure with an approximate diameter of 10 m, while Site K61, located 120 m to the northeast, measures approximately 24 X 17 m and has two angular and two rounded corners. The proposed powerline option A runs directly through Site K60 and 60 m to the south of Site K61.
Tobias Coetzee © KangraCoal_AIA_1504201 February 2021 (version 4) 49
Site K62 (Figure 55) consists of a singular stone-walled enclosure with a diameter of approximately 10 m. The site is located 15 m north of the proposed powerline option A and falls on Portion 2 of the Farm Roodepoort 38 HT. No indication of a structure is observed on any of the topographical maps or aerial images (Appendix A). No surface material were observed at the site.
Site K63 (Figure 56), also located no Portion 2 of the Farm Roodepoort 38 HT, is located 23 m south of the proposed powerline option A and consists of a section of stone-walling. Due to the dilapidated state of the stone- walling and dense vegetation, the exact extent and shape could not be determined. No indication of a structure was observed on any of the topographical maps or aerial images (Appendix A) and no surface material were observed at the site.
Site K64 (Figure 57) consists of a singular stone-walled enclosure with a diameter of approximately 3 m. The site is located 63 m south of the proposed powerline option A and 53 m north of option B and falls on Portion 3 of the Farm Roodepoort 38 HT. No indication of a structure is observed on any of the topographical maps or aerial images (Appendix A). No surface material were observed at the site.
Site K69 (Figure 58) consists of a stone-constructed building approximately 200 m west of site K13 on the Farm Middelpan 44 HT. The building is present on the 1939 aerial image (Appendix A: Figure 84. A kraal is indicated directly to the southwest of the building on the 1969 topographical map, though have been demolished since. Also, a section of the building appears to have been demolished and another restored in later years. A section was added to the building as well. It is unclear whether the building was completely demolished and rebuilt at some stage. The building material and style, however, suggests a historical building.
Tobias Coetzee © KangraCoal_AIA_1504201 February 2021 (version 4) 50
Table 7: Historical buildings/structures with surface remains - visited.
Name Type Source Year Status Age Parcel K01 Building Aerial 1939 Ruin Historical 16/43 K05 Building Aerial 1939 Intact Historical 3/43 K06 Building Aerial 1961 Intact Historical 16/43 K12 Building Aerial 1939 Intact Historical 12/43 K13 Building Aerial 1939 Intact Historical RE/44 K16 Building Aerial 1939 Intact Historical 8/43 K17 Building Aerial 1939 Intact Historical 8/43 K18 Building Aerial 1939 Intact Historical 4/39 K20 Structure Aerial 1939 Intact Historical 3/43 K22 Building Aerial 1961 Intact Historical 4/39 K50 Stone-Walling Aerial 1939 Intact Historical RE/37 K51 Stone-Walling Field Unknown Intact Historical RE/37 K57 Settlement Field Unknown Intact Historical 3/39 K60 Stone-Walling Field Unknown Intact Historical 2/38 K61 Stone-Walling Field Unknown Intact Historical 2/38 K62 Stone-Walling Field Unknown Intact Historical 2/38 K63 Stone-Walling Field Unknown Intact Historical 2/38 K64 Stone-Walling Field Unknown Intact Historical 3/38 K69 Building Aerial 1939 Intact Historical RE/44
Tobias Coetzee © KangraCoal_AIA_1504201 February 2021 (version 4) 51
Figure 28: K01 –Stone-walling. Figure 29: K01 – Cement structure.
Figure 30: K05 – Farmhouse. Figure 31: K05 – Outbuilding.
Figure 32: K06 – Buildings. Figure 33: K12 – Dilapidated building.
Tobias Coetzee © KangraCoal_AIA_1504201 February 2021 (version 4) 52
Figure 34: K12 – Building ruins. Figure 35: K13 – Stone building.
Figure 36: K13 – Residence. Figure 37: K16 – Outbuilding.
Figure 38: K16 – Residence. Figure 39: K17 – Intact buildings.
Tobias Coetzee © KangraCoal_AIA_1504201 February 2021 (version 4) 53
Figure 40: K18 – Outbuilding. Figure 41: K18 – Main residence.
Figure 42: K18 – Rondavels. Figure 43: K20 – Kraal.
Figure 44: K20 – Animal dip. Figure 45: K22 – Cement & brick structures.
Tobias Coetzee © KangraCoal_AIA_1504201 February 2021 (version 4) 54
Figure 46: K22 – Outbuilding. Figure 47: K50 – Circular stone-walled enclosure.
Figure 48: K50 – Angular stone-walled enclosure. Figure 49: K50 – Wheel tax plate, 1942.
Figure 50: K51 – Stone-walling. Figure 51: K57 – Settlement.
Tobias Coetzee © KangraCoal_AIA_1504201 February 2021 (version 4) 55
Figure 52: K57 – Cemetery. Figure 53: K60 – Circular stone-walled enclosure.
Figure 54: K61 – Angular stone-walled enclosure. Figure 55: K62 – Circular stone-walled enclosure.
Figure 56: K63 - Stone-walling. Figure 57: K64 – Circular stone-walled enclosure.
Tobias Coetzee © KangraCoal_AIA_1504201 February 2021 (version 4) 56
Figure 58: K69 – Intact historical building.
The Heritage studies done by Huffman (1995) and Birkholtz (2019) recorded several sites dating to the Historic period.
5.4 Contemporary Remains Table 8 lists the nine sites that date to contemporary times. Five of these sites (K26, K46, K47, K48, K49) first appear on the 1969 aerial image as structures and buildings (Appendix A: Figures 88 & 89), but based on recent aerial images, were demolished. These sites were therefore not visited.
Sites K53 & K54 (Figures 59 & 60) were recorded as natural rocky outcrops on Portion 5 of the Farm De Paarl 39 HT during the pedestrian survey and inspected afterwards on historical aerial images and topographical maps. These sites are therefore not considered significant from a heritage perspective.
Site K65 (Figure 61) & K66 (Figure 62) are located on Portion 3 of the Farm Roodepoort 38 HT. Site K65 consists of the concrete foundations of a small angular structure measuring 5 X 5 m. Site K66 is located at the eastern- most point of the proposed powerline and consists of a concrete building ruin measuring 14 X 7 m. Site K65 & K66 are not visible one any of the historical aerial images and are not indicated on any of the topographical maps (Appendix A). The use of these sites are unknown, but it is suspected that they may be connected to a water- filled quarry located 150 m to the east. This might indicate past mining activity. The building material used also suggests more recent construction.
Tobias Coetzee © KangraCoal_AIA_1504201 February 2021 (version 4) 57
Table 8: Contemporary Remains.
Name Type Source Year Status Age Parcel K26 Structure Aerial 1969 Demolished Contemporary 3/41 K46 Structure Aerial 1969 Demolished Contemporary RE/44 K47 Building Aerial 1969 Demolished Contemporary RE/9 K48 Building Aerial 1969 Demolished Contemporary RE/9 K49 Building Aerial 1969 Demolished Contemporary RE/9 K53 Natural Field N/A N/A N/A 5/39 K54 Natural Field N/A N/A N/A 5/39 K65 Building Field Unknown Ruin Contemporary 3/38 K66 Building Field Unknown Ruin Contemporary 3/38
Figure 59: K26 – Natural rock outcrop. Figure 60: K54 – Natural rock outcrop.
Figure 61: K65 – Angular ruin. Figure 62: K66 – Building ruin.
The heritage study done by Birkholtz (2019) recorded recent black homesteads.
Tobias Coetzee © KangraCoal_AIA_1504201 February 2021 (version 4) 58
5.5 Graves Eight confirmed cemeteries and one possible grave were identified using a combination of personal communication with local farm workers and via personal observation. Table 9 lists these sites.
Site K52 (Figure 63) is located on Portion 3 of the Farm De Paarl 39 HT and directly adjacent the proposed powerline option B. The sites consists of a stone cairn measuring approximately 1 X 1 m with no surface remains. The site is also not fenced-off and no indications were observed on any of the topographical maps (Appendix A).
Site K55 (Figures 64 – 65) consists of a fenced-off cemetery to the southeast of Site K16 on Portion 8 of the Farm Grootvallei 43 HT. Approximately 12 graves are located in the cemetery, all oriented in an east-west direction. All the graves appear to consists of formal surface dressings and in two cases inscriptions on the headstones could be identified. Dense vegetation and a few graves in a dilapidated state hampered identifying all graves. The cemetery also appears to be the Coetzer family cemetery with the oldest burial date visible dating to 1915. No grave goods were observed at the cemetery. The cemetery appears not to be in use anymore.
Site K56, a cemetery located 15 m east of Site K55, is associated with approximately 35 graves. The majority of the graves consist of informal surface dressings in the form om elongated stone cairns. The cemetery is not fenced-off, but low stone-walling surrounds the site. All graves are oriented in an east-west direction and one grave is fenced-off with metal rods. Two headstones were noted, the oldest of which date to 1982. Grave goods include empty beer bottles and plastic bottles, suggesting that the cemetery is still visited. Whether the cemetery is still used for new burials is unclear.
Site K58 consists of 11 graves oriented in an east-west direction (Figures 69 – 71). The cemetery is located on Portion 2 of the Farm Roodepoort 38 HT, 90 m north of the proposed powerline option A, is not fenced off but stacked stones surround the entire site. Four of the graves are associated with formal grave dressings, while the rest consist of elongated stone cairns. The cemetery is kept tidy and the vegetation has been cleared, but no grave good were observed. Also, the graves consisting of formal surface dressings are in a dilapidated state. The cemetery appears not to be in use anymore. The oldest grave, belonging to Zymon Shongwe, date to 1980 while the rest of the graves with headstones belong to the Shongwe family as well.
Site K59 consists of approximately 6 unfenced graves oriented in an east-west direction on Portion 1 of the Farm Roodepoort 38 HT (Figure 59). Although the vegetation surrounding the graves was cleared, the individual graves are not clearly marked which hampered identifying the number of graves. All the graves consist of elongated stone cairns and are absent of grave goods, headstones and inscriptions. The cemetery appears not to be in use anymore. It should be noted that the proposed powerline option A runs directly through the cemetery.
Tobias Coetzee © KangraCoal_AIA_1504201 February 2021 (version 4) 59
Cemetery K67 is located on the Remaining Extent of the Farm De Paarl 39 HT and approximately 640 m south of the proposed powerline option B (Figures 73 & 74). Approximately 10 graves with formal surface dressings are oriented in an east-west direction, are surrounded by a stone-walling and are in a dilapidated state as several headstones are broken. The cemetery is no longer in use and it is unclear whether the graves are still visited. One of the graves is that of a Mr. Grobbelaar and dates to 1899.
Site K68 consists of an unknown number of graves, but is estimated at 20 graves oriented in an east-west direction (Figures 75 – 77). The cemetery is located on Portions 1 & 2 of the Farm Roodepoort 38 HT, 15 m south of the proposed powerline option A, is fenced off and stacked stones partially surround the site. Six of the graves are associated with formal surface dressings, while the rest consist of elongated stone cairns with no inscriptions. The overgrown state of the cemetery hampered identifying graves and no grave good were observed. It is unclear whether the cemetery is still in use. Some of the inscriptions are faded, but appear to date to 1971.
Site K70 (Figure 78), located on the Farm Middelpan 44 HT and to the north of Site K69, consists of a 5 X 6 m angular stone-walled enclosure with an entrance on the northern side. Extremely dense vegetation completely prevented access to the interior and visibility was completely blocked as well. Although no physical verification could be obtained that the site is a cemetery, it is assumed to be as such. This assumption is based on other stone-walled enclosures in the general area that are of a different design. These structures were likely used for livestock or small stock, are mostly circular in design with no clear entrances. Based on the extent, shape and proximity of other cemeteries to farmhouses, this enclosure is likely to be a cemetery.
Cemetery K71 is associated with Site K57 on Portion 3 of the Farm De Paarl 39 HT (Figure 79). Due access constrains as a result of the language barrier discussed in the limitations section, the cemetery could only be observed from a distance. The age, number and condition of the graves are therefore not known. It should also be noted that the proposed powerline option A runs through the cemetery.
Table 9: Graves/cemeteries located within the demarcated stud area.
Name Type Source Status Parcel K52 Potential grave Field Intact 3/39 K55 Cemetery Field Intact 8/43 K56 Cemetery Field Intact 8/43 K58 Cemetery Field Intact 2/38 K59 Cemetery Field Intact 1/38 K67 Cemetery Field Intact RE/39 K68 Cemetery Field Intact 1/38; 2/38 K70 Cemetery Field Intact RE/44 K71 Cemetery Field Intact 3/39
Tobias Coetzee © KangraCoal_AIA_1504201 February 2021 (version 4) 60
Figure 63: K52 – Stone cairn / possible grave. Figure 64: K55 – Cemetery.
Figure 65: K55 – close-up of headstone. Figure 66: K56 – Unfenced cemetery.
Figure 68: K56 – Cement surface dressing. Figure 67: K56 – Fenced-off grave.
Tobias Coetzee © KangraCoal_AIA_1504201 February 2021 (version 4) 61
Figure 69: K58 – Unfenced cemetery. Figure 70: K58 – Formal grave ressings.
Figure 72: K59 – Unfenced cemetery. Figure 71: K58 – Informal grave dressings.
Figure 74: K67 – Close-up of headstone. Figure 73: K67 – Cemetery.
Tobias Coetzee © KangraCoal_AIA_1504201 February 2021 (version 4) 62
Figure 76: K68 – Formal & informal surface dressings. Figure 75: K68 – Fenced-off cemetery.
Figure 77: K68 – Formal surface dressings. Figure 78: K70 – Potental cemetery.
Figure 79: K71 – Cemetery.
The Heritage studies done by Huffman (1995), Birkholtz (2019) and Marais-Botes (2017) all recorded burial sites.
Tobias Coetzee © KangraCoal_AIA_1504201 February 2021 (version 4) 63
6. Evaluation The significance of an archaeological site is based on the amount of deposit, the integrity of the context, the kind of deposit and the potential to help answer present research questions. Historical structures are defined by Section 34 of the National Heritage Resources Act, 1999, while other historical and cultural significant sites, places and features, are generally determined by community preferences.
A fundamental aspect in the conservation of a heritage resource relates to whether the sustainable social and economic benefits of a proposed development outweigh the conservation issues at stake. There are many aspects that must be taken into consideration when determining significance, such as rarity, national significance, scientific importance, cultural and religious significance, and not least, community preferences. When, for whatever reason the protection of a heritage site is not deemed necessary or practical, its research potential must be assessed and if appropriate mitigated in order to gain data / information which would otherwise be lost. Such sites must be adequately recorded and sampled before being destroyed.
6.1 Field Ratings All sites should include a field rating in order to comply with section 38 of the National Heritage Resources Act (Act No. 25 of 1999). The field rating and classification in this report are prescribed by SAHRA.
Table 10: Field Ratings
Rating Field Rating/Grade Significance Recommendation National Grade 1 National site Provincial Grade 2 Provincial site Local Grade 3 A High Mitigation not advised Part of site should be Local Grade 3 B High retained General protection A 4 A High/Medium Mitigate site General Protection B 4 B Medium Record site General Protection C 4 C Low No recording necessary
Tobias Coetzee © KangraCoal_AIA_1504201 February 2021 (version 4) 64
Table 11: Individual site ratings
Site / Field Survey Point Type Rating Significance Recommendation Rating/Grade Name Ruin- 2730AA-K01 General Protection B 4 B Medium Record site Building Ruin- 2730AA-K02 General Protection B 4 B Medium Record site Structure Ruin- 2730AA-K03 General Protection B 4 B Medium Record site Structure
2730AA-K04 Building General Protection B 4 B Medium Record site
2730AA-K05 Building General Protection B 4 B Medium Record site
2730AA-K06 Building Local Grade 3 A High Mitigation not advised
Demolished 2730AA-K09 General Protection C 4 C Low No recording necessary structure
2730AA-K11 Building General Protection B 4 B Medium Record site
2730AA-K12 Building General Protection B 4 B Medium Record site
2730AA-K13 Building General Protection B 4 B Medium Record site
Demolished 2730AA-K14 General Protection C 4 C Low No recording necessary structure Demolished 2730AA-K15 General Protection C 4 C Low No recording necessary Building
2730AA-K16 Building General Protection B 4 B Medium Record site
2730AA-K17 Building General Protection B 4 B Medium Record site
2730AA-K18 Building General Protection B 4 B Medium Record site
2730AA-K19 Building General Protection B 4 B Medium Record site
2730AA-K20 Structure General Protection B 4 B Medium Record site
2730AA-K22 Building General Protection B 4 B Medium Record site
Ruin- 2730AA-K23 General Protection B 4 B Medium Record site Building Stone- 2730AB-K50 General Protection B 4 B Medium Record site walling Stone- 2730AB-K51 General Protection B 4 B Medium Record site walling
Tobias Coetzee © KangraCoal_AIA_1504201 February 2021 (version 4) 65
Site / Field Survey Point Type Rating Significance Recommendation Rating/Grade Name Potential 2730AA-K52 Local Grade 3 A High Mitigation not advised grave
2730AA-K53 Natural General Protection C 4 C Low No recording necessary
2730AA-K54 Natural General Protection C 4 C Low No recording necessary
2730AA-K55 Cemetery Local Grade 3 A High Mitigation not advised
2730AA-K56 Cemetery Local Grade 3 A High Mitigation not advised
2730AA-K57 Settlement Local Grade 3 A High Mitigation not advised
2730AB-K58 Cemetery Local Grade 3 A High Mitigation not advised
2730AB-K59 Cemetery Local Grade 3 A High Mitigation not advised
Stone- 2730AB-K60 General Protection B 4 B Medium Record site walling Stone- 2730AB-K61 General Protection B 4 B Medium Record site walling Stone- 2730AB-K62 General Protection B 4 B Medium Record site walling Stone- 2730AB-K63 General Protection B 4 B Medium Record site walling Stone- 2730AB-K64 General Protection B 4 B Medium Record site walling Ruin- 2730AB-K65 General Protection B 4 B Medium Record site Building Ruin- 2730AB-K66 General Protection B 4 B Medium Record site Building
2730AA-K67 Cemetery Local Grade 3 A High Mitigation not advised
2730AB-K68 Cemetery Local Grade 3 A High Mitigation not advised
2730AA-K69 Building General Protection B 4 B Medium Record site
2730AA-K70 Cemetery Local Grade 3 A High Mitigation not advised
2730AA-K71 Cemetery Local Grade 3 A High Mitigation not advised *The demolished sites that were not visited are not rated, only the visited sites and the sites that appear intact, but due to access constraints could not be visited.
Tobias Coetzee © KangraCoal_AIA_1504201 February 2021 (version 4) 66
7. Statement of Significance & Recommendations
7.1 Statement of significance
The study area: The Proposed Kangra Coal T4 Project Some of the areas demarcated for the proposed Kangra Coal T4 project are considered to be significant from a heritage perspective. The significance of the proposed areas and the observed sites are discussed here.
The general study area is associated with a combination of historical buildings, settlements, building ruins, stone- walled enclosures, and burial sites. Because the majority of the study area will consist of underground mining methods, only the sites that might be impacted on by the proposed surface development and underground mining are indicated on Figures 80 & 81.
Demolished historical sites – not visited. The following 24 sites, consisting of buildings and structures, have been identified on historical aerial and topographical maps: K07 & K08, K10, K21, K24 & K25, K27 – K43, K45. These sites intersect the area planned for underground mining, but are not located within close proximity of planned surface development. Based on recent aerial imagery, these sites have completely been demolished and were not visited. No surface impact is envisaged.
Historical sites associated with surface remains – not visited Seven historical sites associated with surface remains were identified on historical aerial imagery: K02 – K04, K11, K19, K23, K24. These sites intersect the area planned for underground mining, but are not located within close proximity of planned surface development. Based on recent aerial imagery, structures and buildings still exist at these sites. Due to access constraints, however, these sites could not be inspected. Because these buildings/structures are likely to exceed 60 years of age, they are considered significant form a heritage perspective and are protected under the National Heritage Resources Act 25 of 1999.
Historical sites associated with surface remains – visited The following 11 sites were identified on historical aerial imagery and were inspected during the site visits: K01, K05 & K06, K12 & K13, K16 – K18, K20 & K22, K69. These sites intersect the area planned for underground mining, but are not located within close proximity of planned surface development. The site visits confirmed that structures and buildings are still associated with these sites and it is therefore likely that these buildings and structures, or parts thereof, exceed 60 years of age and are considered significant form a heritage perspective. These sites are therefore protected under the National Heritage Resources Act 25 of 1999.
Tobias Coetzee © KangraCoal_AIA_1504201 February 2021 (version 4) 67
Demolished historical sites – visited. Three sites (K09, K14, K15) recorded on historical aerial imagery and consisting of buildings and structures intersect the area planned for underground mining, but are not located within close proximity of planned surface development. These sites were visited and no surface material were observed. No surface impact is envisaged.
Demolished contemporary sites – not visited. Five sites consisting of buildings and structures that date to contemporary times were identified on 1969 aerial imagery: K26, K46 – K49. These sites intersect the area planned for underground mining, but are not located within close proximity of planned surface development. Based on recent aerial imagery, these sites have completely been demolished, were not visited and are not considered significant form a heritage perspective.
Contemporary sites – visited Two sites (K65 & K66) are located at the eastern end of the proposed powerline. One of the structures has been demolished, while the other is in a dilapidated state. Accordingly, these sites were constructed in recent years and are not considered significant from a heritage perspective.
Historical sites in close proximity of surface development – visited. Eight sites (K50 & K51, K57, K60 – K64) associated with surface infrastructure were recorded in close proximity of the proposed powerline. Seven of these sites consist of stone-walled enclosures and based on surface remains and the combination of angular and circular building patterns, these sites date to historical times. The possibility, however, exists that some of the circular stone-walled enclosures might date to the Late Iron Age Farmer period. One of the sites, settlement K57, consists of a demolished homestead dating to historical times, as well as modern buildings and a cemetery. Because these buildings/structures, as well as the potential subsurface cultural material, exceed 60 years of age, they are considered significant form a heritage perspective and are protected under the National Heritage Resources Act 25 of 1999.
Natural sites Sites K53 & K54 were recorded during the pedestrian survey and identified as natural rock outcrops as no evidence, whether material or archival, could be obtained to indicate otherwise.
Graves/Cemeteries located outside of the areas demarcated for surface development but within the underground mining boundary The following graves/cemeteries fall outside of the area demarcated for surface development, but within the boundary of underground mining activity. These sites might therefore be at risk of suffering impact from the proposed underground mining activities: K55 & K56, K67, K70. Also, the burial dates of the majority of the graves could not be determined. As stated above, no graves could be observed at Site K70 due to access limitations, although the surface infrastructure suggests a cemetery. Therefore, the site should be regarded as a cemetery
Tobias Coetzee © KangraCoal_AIA_1504201 February 2021 (version 4) 68
until proven otherwise. It is likely that the cemeteries contain graves older, as well as younger than 60 years and are significant from a heritage perspective as the Human Tissues Act (65 of 1983) and Ordinance on the Removal of Graves and Dead Bodies (Ordinance 7 of 1925), as well as the National Heritage Resources Act 25 of 1999 apply.
Graves/cemeteries located within close proximity of the areas demarcated for surface development. Sites K52, K58, K59, K68, K71 are graves/cemeteries located within close proximity of the proposed powerline. These sites are therefore at risk of being negatively impacted by the proposed development. Also, Site K52 consists of stone cairn and should be regarded as a grave until proven otherwise. It is likely that the cemeteries contain graves older, as well as younger than 60 years and are significant from a heritage perspective as the Human Tissues Act (65 of 1983) and Ordinance on the Removal of Graves and Dead Bodies (Ordinance 7 of 1925), as well as the National Heritage Resources Act 25 of 1999 apply.
Tobias Coetzee © KangraCoal_AIA_1504201 February 2021 (version 4) 69
Figure 80: Western sites, buffer zones and sensitive areas indicated on a 2020 aerial backdrop.
Tobias Coetzee © KangraCoal_AIA_1504201 February 2021 (version 4) 70
Figure 81: Eastern sites, buffer zones and sensitive areas indicated on a 2020 aerial backdrop.
Tobias Coetzee © KangraCoal_AIA_1504201 February 2021 (version 4) 71
7.2 Recommendations
The following recommendations are made in terms with the National Heritage Resources Act (25 of 1999) in order to avoid the destruction of heritage remains associated with the areas demarcated for development:
Powerline option A Sties K65 (demolished structure) & K66 (dilapidated building) are of contemporary origin and therefore not of heritage significance. No further action is required.
Sites K62, K63 & K64 consist of stone-walled enclosures dating to the historical / LIA period. Option A of the powerline runs between Site K62 & K63, while Site K64 is located further to the south. It is recommended that these sites be avoided by the proposed powerline.
Site K61 and Cemetery K58 is located a significant distance to the north of the proposed powerline and should therefore not be at risk. It is recommended that these sites be avoided by the proposed powerline.
Site K60, a stone-walled enclosure directly in the path of the proposed powerline, dates to the Historic Period / LIA, exceeds 60 years of age and is protected by the National Heritage Resources Act 25 of 1999. It is therefore recommended that this site be avoided by the proposed powerline.
Cemeteries K59 & K68 are located in close proximity of the proposed powerline. It is recommended that a fenced-off conservation buffer of 30 m be established around the cemeteries and that a qualified archaeologist compile a Conservation Management Plan to ensure the safeguarding of the graves. Also, access to the cemeteries must not be refused. Alternatively, the graves may be relocated by a qualified graves relocation unit to a premises earmarked by the local municipality, but will set in motion a substantial process as new legislation will be triggered. These processes, however, must be performed in accordance with the involvement of community leaders and the relatives of the deceased buried in the concerned cemeteries.
Site K57 (settlement) falls directly in the path of the proposed powerline. It is recommended that this site be avoided by the proposed powerline as potential subsurface remains associated with a demolished structure at the centre of the settlement might be impacted during construction. The settlement is also associated with a cemetery, Site K71. It is recommended that a fenced-off conservation buffer of 30 m be established around the cemetery and that a qualified archaeologist compile a Conservation Management Plan to ensure the safeguarding of the graves. Also, access to the cemetery must not be refused. Alternatively, the graves may be relocated by a qualified graves relocation unit to a premises earmarked by the local municipality, but will set in motion a substantial process as new legislation will be triggered. These processes, however, must Tobias Coetzee © KangraCoal_AIA_1504201 February 2021 (version 4) 72
be performed in accordance with the involvement of community leaders and the relatives of the deceased buried in the concerned cemetery.
Site K53 was identified as a natural rock outcrop and is not of heritage significance. No further action is therefore required.
Should impact to sites K62, K63, K64, K60 and K61 be unavoidable, destructions permits may be applied for. However, it should be kept in mind that unmarked burial sites might be associated with these stone- walled enclosures.
Due to the high number of heritage sites, Option A is not advised, unless altered to avoid the specified heritage resources. This, however, will require a revision of the recommendations made for the specific heritage sites in the vicinity of the powerline.
Powerline option B
Site K50, consisting of several stone-walled enclosures directly in the path of the proposed powerline, exceeds 60 years of age and is protected by the National Heritage Resources Act 25 of 1999. It is therefore recommended that this site be avoided by the proposed powerline as per the indicated sensitive area.
Site K51, a small stone-walled enclosure is located to the south of the proposed powerline and should therefore not be at risk of impact from the construction of the proposed powerline.
Impact to Site K52, a potential grave (stone cairn), should be avoided during the construction of the proposed powerline. Should this not be possible, the potential grave may be inspected using Ground Penetrating Radar employed by a professional specialising in human remains.
Site K54 was identified as a natural rock outcrop and is not of heritage significance. No further action is therefore required.
Should impact to sites K50 and K51 be unavoidable, destructions permits may be applied for. However, it should be kept in mind that unmarked burial sites might be associated with these stone-walled enclosures.
Due to fewer heritage sites, Option B is preferred. Should the route be altered to avoid the affected heritage sites, a revision of the recommendations must be made.
Tobias Coetzee © KangraCoal_AIA_1504201 February 2021 (version 4) 73
Sites falling outside of the proposed surface development area, but within the proposed underground mining boundary.
Sites K01 – K06, K11 – 13, K16 – 20, K22, K23, K44 and K69 consist of historical buildings or structures associated with surface infrastructure that fall within the area demarcated for underground mining. It is therefore recommended that the mine’s ECO (Environmental Control Officer) quarterly, as well pre- and post-blasting, inspect these structures. Should any impact be observed, or if impact cannot be avoided, all buildings and structures associated with the demarcated areas must be adequately recorded by a qualified archaeologist and destruction permits be obtained from the relevant heritage authority.
Sites K55, K56, K67 and K70 are cemeteries located within the boundary of the area demarcated for underground mining. These cemeteries may be impacted by the proposed underground mining. Therefore it is recommended that the mine’s ECO quarterly, as well as pre- and post-blasting, inspect these graves. Should any impact be observed, or if impact cannot be avoided, a qualified archaeologist should be contacted to provide the required input to ensure the safeguarding of the graves. Also, access to the cemeteries must not be refused.
Sites K07, K08, K09, K10, K14, K15, K21, K24, K25, K27 – K43 and K45 are located on the demarcated underground mining area and was identified using historical aerial and topographical datasets. The structures, however, no longer exist and no surface impact is expected. No further action is required.
Sites K26, K46, K47, K48 and K49 are located on the demarcated underground mining area and was identified using historical aerial and topographical datasets. These sites, however, date to contemporary times and were subsequently demolished. No further action is required
General Recommendations The above recommendations are based on the specific powerline route options and underground mining boundaries as indicated in this report. Should the proposed development expand to any area outside of the proposed surface or underground boundaries, a qualified archaeologist must revise the recommendations made in this report to ensure the safeguarding of heritage sites. Also, should the proposed surface impact areas be changed, a qualified archaeologist must conduct a pedestrian survey on the new areas and amend the report accordingly.
Because the following historical sites associated with surface infrastructure could not be visited due to access constraints, it is recommended that a qualified archaeologist inspect and verify these sites prior to mining: K02 – K04, K11, K19, K23 & K24.
Tobias Coetzee © KangraCoal_AIA_1504201 February 2021 (version 4) 74
Access constraints caused by ongoing court cases, the language barrier and limited time also resulted in a lack of communication with the land owners. Since land owners and local farm workers are the most reliable and efficient source for locating burial sites, it is recommended that this information be gathered, mapped, inspected and the required recommendations be made to ensure the safeguarding of heritage sources.
Because archaeological artefacts generally occur below surface, the possibility exists that culturally significant material may be exposed during the development and construction phases, in which case all activities must be suspended pending further archaeological investigations by a qualified archaeologist. Also, should skeletal remains be exposed during development and construction phases, all activities must be suspended and the relevant heritage resources authority contacted (See National Heritage Resources Act, 25 of 1999 section 36 (6)).
From a heritage point of view, development may proceed on the demarcated areas, subject to the abovementioned conditions, recommendations and approval by the South African Heritage Resources Agency.
8. Conclusion The proposed Kangra Coal T4 project consists of an underground mining section, three ventilation shafts, and a powerline. The Archaeological Impact Assessment examined the area and identified sites of cultural significance that might be impacted by the proposed development. These sites aided in the archaeological contextualisation of the general study area.
The AIA found several sites of heritage significance intersecting the proposed underground mining section. The buildings, structures and burial sites associated with these sites might potentially be damaged by the proposed underground mining activities as a result of vibration and subsistence, should these occur. Therefore, it is recommended that these sites be monitored.
Developing the areas associated with the proposed ventilation shafts are not at risk of damaging culturally significant material as these surface areas appear vacant of heritage sites. The proposed powerline options leading to these areas, however, intersect several culturally significant sites that include cemeteries and stone- walled enclosures. Due to the sensitive nature of the sites, the preferred course of action would be to alter the route of the proposed powerline to avoid these localities.
Tobias Coetzee © KangraCoal_AIA_1504201 February 2021 (version 4) 75
It should also be noted that assessing the sites that could not be inspected due to access constraints, as well as filling the data gaps caused by the language barrier and limited communication with the land owners, will only aid in obtaining a more comprehensive account of the heritage associated with the project aera, thereby allowing for the management of heritage resources and the protection thereof. Cognisance should also be taken of the fact that archaeological artefacts generally occur below surface and may be exposed during the development and construction phases.
Should the recommendations made in this study be adhered to and with the approval of the South African Heritage Resources Agency, the proposed Kangra Coal T4 project may proceed.
9. Addendum: Terminology
Archaeology: The study of the human past through its material remains.
Artefact: Any portable object used, modified, or made by humans; e.g. pottery and metal objects.
Assemblage: A group of artefacts occurring together at a particular time and place, and representing the sum of human activities.
Context: An artefact’s context usually consist of its immediate matrix (the material surrounding it e.g. gravel, clay or sand), its provenience (horizontal and vertical position within the matrix), and its association with other artefacts (occurrence together with other archaeological remains, usually in the same matrix).
Cultural Resource Management (CRM): The safeguarding of the archaeological heritage through the protection of sites and through selvage archaeology (rescue archaeology), generally within the framework of legislation designed to safeguard the past.
Excavation: The principal method of data acquisition in archaeology, involving the systematic uncovering of archaeological remains through the removal of the deposits of soil and other material covering and accompanying it.
Feature: An irremovable artefact; e.g. hearths or architectural elements.
Ground Reconnaissance: A collective name for a wide variety of methods for identifying individual archaeological sites, including consultation of documentary sources, place-name evidence, local folklore, and legend, but primarily actual fieldwork.
Tobias Coetzee © KangraCoal_AIA_1504201 February 2021 (version 4) 76
Matrix: The physical material within which artefacts is embedded or supported, i.e. the material surrounding it e.g. gravel, clay or sand.
Phase 1 Assessments: Scoping surveys to establish the presence of and to evaluate heritage resources in a given area.
Phase 2 Assessments: In-depth culture resources management studies which could include major archaeological excavations, detailed site surveys and mapping / plans of sites, including historical / architectural structures and features. Alternatively, the sampling of sites by collecting material, small test pit excavations or auger sampling is required.
Sensitive: Often refers to graves and burial sites although not necessarily a heritage place, as well as ideologically significant sites such as ritual / religious places. Sensitive may also refer to an entire landscape / area known for its significant heritage remains.
Site: A distinct spatial clustering of artefacts, features, structures, and organic and environmental remains, as the residue of human activity.
Surface survey: There are two kinds: (1) unsystematic and (2) systematic. The former involves field walking, i.e. scanning the ground along one’s path and recording the location of artefacts and surface features. Systematic survey by comparison is less subjective and involves a grid system, such that the survey area is divided into sectors and these are walked ally, thus making the recording of finds more accurate.
10. References
Bergh, J.S. 1998. Administratiewe en ruimtelike ordening. In: Bergh, J. (ed.) Geskiedenisatlas Van Suid-Afrika: Die Vier Noordelike Provinsies: 133-153. Pretoria: J. L. van Schaik Uitgewers.
Birkholtz, P. 2019. Heritage Impact Assessment. Proposed Amendment of the Kusipongo Underground and Opencast Project, Mkhondo Local Municipality, Gert Sibande District Municipality, Mpumalanga Province. Pretoria: PGS.
Climate-Data.org. Piet Retief Climate. https://en.climate-data.org/africa/south-africa/mpumalanga/piet-retief-12657/ Accessed 17-02-2021.
Tobias Coetzee © KangraCoal_AIA_1504201 February 2021 (version 4) 77
Clarke, R.J. & Kuman, K. 2000. The Sterkfontein Caves Palaeontological and Archaeological Sites. Johannesburg: University of the Witwatersrand.
De Wit, M. 2007. A History of Deep Time. In: Delius, P. (ed.) Mpumalanga History and Heritage: 27-38. Scottsville: University of KwaZulu-Natal Press.
Elemental Sustainability. 2020. EIA Process and Mining Right Application of Kangra Coal (Pty) Ltd. Kangra Coal T4 Project, Mpumalanga Province. Background Information Document (BID) and Invitation to Comment.
Deacon, H. & Deacon, J. 1999. Human beginnings in South Africa. Cape Town: David Philip.
Heydenrych, D. H. 1999. Mynbou-, landbou-en spoorwegontwikkeling in die 19de en 20ste eeu. In: Bergh, J. (ed.) Geskiedenisatlas Van Suid-Afrika: Die Vier Noordelike Provinsies: 327-332. Pretoria: J. L. van Schaik Uitgewers
Huffman, T.N. 1995. Archaeological Survey of the Balgarthan Colliery. Johannesburg: Archaeological Resources Management, Archaeology Department of the Witwatersrand.
Huffman, T.N. 2007. Handbook to the Iron Age. Pietermaritzburg: UKZN Press.
Klein, R. G. (ed.) 1984. South African prehistory and paleoenvironments. Rotterdam: Balkema.
Marais-Botes, L. 2017. Proposed 9600 Sow Unit Piggery and an Abattoir to be Established 20 km East of Amersfoort Mpumalanga Province.
Mitchell, P. 2002. The archaeology of southern Africa. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mucina, L. & Rutherford, M. C. 2006. The Vegetation of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. Strelitzia 19. South African National Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria.
Schirmer, S. 2007. Enterprise and Exploitation in the 20th Century. In: Delius, P. (ed.) Mpumalanga History and Heritage: 291-346. Scottsville: University of KwaZulu-Natal Press
Toth, N. & Schick, K. 2007. Handbook of paleoanthropology. Berlin: Springer.
Volman, T. P. 1984. Early Prehistory of southern Africa. In: Klein, R. G. (ed.) Southern African prehistory and paleoenvironments. Rotterdam: Balkema.
Human Tissue Act No. 65 of 1983, Government Gazette, Cape Town
Tobias Coetzee © KangraCoal_AIA_1504201 February 2021 (version 4) 78
National Heritage Resource Act No.25 of 1999, Government Gazette, Cape Town
Removal of Graves and Dead Bodies Ordinance No. 7 of 1925, Government Gazette, Cape Town
Tobias Coetzee © KangraCoal_AIA_1504201 February 2021 (version 4) 79
Appendix A: Historical Aerial Photographs and Topographical Maps
Tobias Coetzee © KangraCoal_AIA_1504201 February 2021 (version 4) A
Figure 82: Study area superimposed on a 1939 aerial photograph – eastern section.
Tobias Coetzee © KangraCoal_AIA_1504201 February 2021 (version 4) B
Figure 83: Study area superimposed on a 1939 aerial photograph – northern section.
Tobias Coetzee © KangraCoal_AIA_1504201 February 2021 (version 4) C
Figure 84: Study area superimposed on a 1939 aerial photograph – southern section.
Tobias Coetzee © KangraCoal_AIA_1504201 February 2021 (version 4) D
Figure 85: Study area superimposed on a 1961 aerial photograph – eastern section.
Tobias Coetzee © KangraCoal_AIA_1504201 February 2021 (version 4) E
Figure 86: Study area superimposed on a 1961 aerial photograph – northern section.
Tobias Coetzee © KangraCoal_AIA_1504201 February 2021 (version 4) F
Figure 87: Study area superimposed on a 1961 aerial photograph – southern section.
Tobias Coetzee © KangraCoal_AIA_1504201 February 2021 (version 4) G
Figure 88: Study area superimposed on a 1969 aerial photograph – eastern section.
Tobias Coetzee © KangraCoal_AIA_1504201 February 2021 (version 4) H
Figure 89: Study area superimposed on a 1969 aerial photograph – northern section.
Tobias Coetzee © KangraCoal_AIA_1504201 February 2021 (version 4) I
Figure 90: Study area superimposed on a 1969 aerial photograph – southern section.
Tobias Coetzee © KangraCoal_AIA_1504201 February 2021 (version 4) J
Figure 91: Study area superimposed on a 1969 topographical map.
Tobias Coetzee © KangraCoal_AIA_1504201 February 2021 (version 4) K
Figure 92: Study area superimposed on a 1987 topographical map.
Tobias Coetzee © KangraCoal_AIA_1504201 February 2021 (version 4) L
Figure 93: Study area superimposed on a 2009 topographical map.
Tobias Coetzee © KangraCoal_AIA_1504201 February 2021 (version 4) M
Appendix B: Curriculum Vitae Curriculum vitae
Tobias Coetzee
082 821 3104
Registered Professional Archaeologist, Association of Southern African Professional Archaeologists (ASAPA), CRM accredited, membership no: 289
Full names: Tobias Johannes Coetzee
Date of birth: 19 May 1986
Qualifications: MA (Archaeology)
Education:
2017 MA (Archaeology) University of Pretoria Dissertation: Mapping Bokoni: Exploring Bokoni settlement choices and changes in Mpumalanga and Limpopo, South Africa using GIS site distribution analysis techniques
2008 BA (Hons) (Archaeology) University of Pretoria Dissertation: Mapping Bokoni towns & trade: Applying Geographic Information Systems to the articulation of Mpumalanga stonewalled sites with pre-colonial trade routes
2006 – 2008 BA (Archaeology & Geography) University of Pretoria Subjects: Zulu, Afrikaans, Cartography, GIS and ArcGIS applications, Meteorology, Anthropology, Ancient History, Isotope Ecology and Dating, Computer and Information Literacy, Academic Skills and Introduction to research
Tobias Coetzee © KangraCoal_AIA_1504201 February 2021 (version 4) a
Employment:
2020 Heritage Practitioner Agri Civils Geo-Tech & Heritage
2013 – 2019 GIS Practitioner Bigen Group (Pty) Ltd
2013 Specialist consultant: Heritage Environmental Assurance (Pty) Ltd
2011 Junior lecturer in Archaeology at the University of South Africa (UNISA) at the department of Anthropology & Archaeology Primary lecturer for: The Prehistory of South Africa Assistant lecturer for: Applied Archaeology - Heritage Conservation
2009 Tutor Department of Anthropology & Archaeology, University of Pretoria
Conference papers, publications & Cultural Resources Management Reports:
Coetzee, T. 2020. Conservation Management Plan for Cemetery 1 at the Kwagga North Mine, Middelburg, Mpumalanga. Lydenburg: Agri Civils Geo-Tech & Heritage
Coetzee, T. 2020. Conservation Management Plan for Cemetery 4 at the Kwagga North Mine, Middelburg, Mpumalanga. Lydenburg: Agri Civils Geo-Tech & Heritage
Coetzee, T. 2020. A Phase 1 Archaeological Impact Assessment for the Proposed Trentra Mining Development near Kriel, Mpumalanga. Lydenburg: Agri Civils Geo-Tech & Heritage
Coetzee, T. 2020. A Phase 1 Archaeological Impact Assessment for the Proposed Lakeside/Leeuwfontein Colliery Expansion near Ogies, Mpumalanga. Lydenburg: Agri Civils Geo-Tech & Heritage
Coetzee, T. 2020. A Phase 1 Archaeological Impact Assessment for the proposed Blesboklaagte Colliery near eMalahleni, Mpumalanga. Lydenburg: Agri Civils Geo-Tech & Heritage
Coetzee, T. 2020. Integrated Heritage Impact Assessment for The Proposed Buchuberg Resources Prospecting Right Project On Portion 1 Of The Farm Karoovlei 454; Portion 21 Of The Farm Elsie Erasmuskloof 158; Erf 624 In The Matzikama Local Municipality, West Coast District Municipality, Western Cape Province. Pretoria
Coetzee, T. 2019. Grave relocation report of Tlabane Mamoloko Mankge from Portion 2 of the Farm Diepgezet 18 JT, Mashishing, Mpumalanga. Pretoria
Coetzee, T. 2019. Conservation Management Plan for the Cemetery on the Farm Portions of the Proposed Bothashoek Mine, Pullens Hope, Mpumalanga. Pretoria
Coetzee, T. 2019. A Phase 1 Archaeological Impact Assessment for Rivanet Mining & Exploration on Several Portions of the Farm Palmietfontein 189 IP near Ventersdorp, North West. Pretoria
Coetzee, T. 2019. A Phase 1 Archaeological Impact Assessment for the Wildebeestfontein Colliery near Phola, Mpumalanga. Pretoria
Tobias Coetzee © KangraCoal_AIA_1504201 February 2021 (version 4) b
Coetzee, T. 2019. A Phase 1 Archaeological Impact Assessment for the Weltevreden Colliery near Emalahleni, Mpumalanga. Pretoria
Coetzee, T. 2019. A Phase 1 Archaeological Impact Assessment for the Construction of Chicken Broiler Houses on a Portion of Portion 78 of the Farm Mezeg 77 JP, Zeerust, North West. Pretoria
Coetzee, T. 2019. A Phase 1 Archaeological Impact Assessment for South 32 on a Portion of the Farm Prinshof 2 IS near Ogies, Mpumalanga. Pretoria
Coetzee, T. 2019. Phase 1 Archaeological Impact Assessment for the Isiko Malt Grain Milling Plant on Pt 7 of the Farm Reydal 165 IQ, Krugersdorp, Gauteng. Pretoria
Coetzee, T. 2019. Heritage Scoping Report for the Development of Erf 96, Kilner Park, Pretoria, Gauteng. Pretoria
Coetzee, T. 2019. Archaeological Scoping Report for the Proposed Prospecting of Manganese, Baryte and Iron Ore on the Farm Vlak Fontein 433, Postmasburg, Northern Cape. Pretoria
Coetzee, T. 2019. Phase 1 Archaeological Impact Assessment for the Proposed Woestalleen/Noodhulp Coal Mining Project near Middelburg, Mpumalanga. Pretoria
Coetzee, T. 2019. Phase 1 Archaeological Impact Assessment for the Refurbishment of the Reception and Construction of a New Double Storey Office Extension at Sender Technology Park, Roodepoort, Gauteng. Pretoria
Coetzee, T. 2019. Conservation Management Plan for the Graveyards and Infrastructure on Portion 5 of the Farm Op Goedenhoop 205 IS, Mpumalanga. Pretoria
Coetzee, T. 2018. Conservation Management Plan for a Graveyard on Portion 5 of the Farm Van Dykspruit 431 JR, Mpumalanga. Pretoria
Coetzee, T. 2018. A Phase 1 Archaeological Impact Assessment for Environmental Assurance (Pty) Ltd for the Construction of the Mareesburg Haul Road near Boschfontein, Mpumalanga. Pretoria
Coetzee, T. 2018. Phase 1 Archaeological Impact Assessment for the proposed Gulf service station on erf 10742, Umhlathuze Village, Empangeni, KwaZulu-Natal. Pretoria
Coetzee, T. 2018. A Phase 1 Archaeological Impact Assessment for the Proposed Tala Bethal Coal Project Between Hendrina and Bethal, Mpumalanga. Pretoria
Coetzee, T. 2018. A Phase 1 Archaeological Impact Assessment for the Proposed Diep Vaalbank Coal Project Between Hendrina and Bethal, Mpumalanga. Pretoria
Coetzee, T. 2018. A Phase 1 Archaeological Impact Assessment for the Expansion of the Kleinfontein Colliery Between Hendrina and Bethal, Mpumalanga. Pretoria
Coetzee, T. 2018. Grave Relocation Report for the Jeremiah Nyathi Grave from Portion 7 of the Farm Enkeldedoorns 35 JT, Lydenburg, Mpumalanga. Pretoria
Coetzee, T. 2017. Phase 1 Archaeological Impact Assessment for M² Environmental Connections (Pty) Ltd for the proposed Township Blue Hills Ext. 77 on the Farm Blue Hills 397 JR, Midrand, Gauteng. Pretoria
Coetzee, T. 2017. A Phase 1 Archaeological Impact Assessment for the Proposed Witbank Siding on erf 5197 and portions of portion 2, 144, 150, 219 and 244 of the Farm Blesboklaagte 296 JS, Emalahleni, Mpumalanga. Pretoria
Coetzee, T. 2017. Heritage Management Plan for Sedibeng Iron Ore Mine on Annex Taaibosch 1, Portion 3 and the RE of Farm 445 Postmasburg, Northern Cape. Pretoria
Tobias Coetzee © KangraCoal_AIA_1504201 February 2021 (version 4) c
Coetzee, T. 2017. A Phase 1 Archaeological Impact Assessment for the Emfuleni Local Municipality landfill development on a Portion of Portion 178 of the Farm Vlakfontein 546 IQ, Vereeniging, Gauteng. Pretoria
Coetzee, T. 2017. A Phase 1 Archaeological Impact Assessment for Environmental Assurance (Pty) Ltd on a portion Intersecting Portions 19, 22 and 29 of the Farm Kennedy’s Vale 361 KT, Steelpoort, Limpopo Province. Pretoria
Coetzee, T. 2017. A Phase 1 Archaeological Impact Assessment for Environmental Assurance (Pty) Ltd on erf 1 of Masehlaneng and erf 1480 of Sekgakgapeng, Mokopane, Limpopo. Pretoria
Coetzee, T. 2017. A Phase 1 Archaeological Impact Assessment for Environmental Assurance (Pty) Ltd on two portions of Portion 6 of the Farm Mareesburg 8 JT, Steelpoort, Limpopo. Pretoria
Coetzee, T. 2017. A Phase 1 Archaeological Impact Assessment for Environmental Assurance (Pty) Ltd for the construction of a powerline to supply electricity to a Vodacom tower between Roossenekal and Mashishing, Mpumalanga. Pretoria
Coetzee, T. 2017. Phase 1 Archaeological Impact Assessment for Eco Elementum (Pty) Ltd for the proposed expansion of the Moeijelyk Chrome Mine on the remaining extent of the Farm Moeijelijk 412 KS, Sekhukhune, Limpopo. Pretoria
Coetzee, T. 2017. Phase 1 Archaeological Impact Assessment for M² Environmental Connections (Pty) Ltd for the proposed Service Station on a portion of Portion 836 of the Farm Knopjeslaagte 385 JR, Centurion, Gauteng. Pretoria
Coetzee, T. 2017. Limited Phase 1 AIA for Diepsoils Investments (Pty) Ltd on a portion of Portion 5 of the Farm Kalabasfontein 232 IS and a portion of Portion 10 of the Farm Rietkuil 224 IS, Bethal, Mpumalanga. Pretoria
Coetzee, T. 2017. Phase 1 Archaeological Impact Assessment for the proposed opencast mining and initial site areas of the Northern and Southern Clusters of the Bauba Platinum Farms Mining Project, Sekhukhune, Limpopo. Pretoria
Coetzee, T. 2016. Phase 1 Archaeological Impact Assessment for Vunene Mining (Pty) Ltd on a portion of portion 6 of the Farm Jan Hendriksfontein 263 IT and a portion of the Farm Transutu 257 IT, Ermelo, Mpumalanga. Pretoria
Coetzee, T. 2016. Phase 1 Archaeological Impact Assessment for I-Cat (Pty) Ltd on a Portion of Portion 25 of the Farm Vlakfontein 523 JR, Bronkhorstspruit, Gauteng. Pretoria
Coetzee, T. 2016. Phase 1 AIA & Scoping for Yoctolux Collieries (Pty) Ltd on Portions 13 & 16 of the Farm Mooifontein 109 IT, Ermelo, Mpumalanga. Pretoria
Coetzee, T. 2016. Phase 1 Archaeological Desktop Study for Eco Elementum (Pty) Ltd on a portion of the remaining portion of the Farm Dingwell 276 JT, White River, Mpumalanga. Pretoria
Coetzee, T. 2016. Phase 1 Archaeological Impact Assessment for Eco Elementum (Pty) Ltd on a Portion of Portion 9 of the Farm Goedvertrouwd 499 JR, Emalahleni. Pretoria
Coetzee, T. 2015. Conservation Management Plan for Vunene Mining Usutu Colliery on Portion 3 and 4 of the farm Jan Hendriksfontein 263 IT, Ermelo, Mpumalanga. Pretoria
Coetzee, T. 2015. Phase 1 Archaeological Impact Assessment for Millsell Chrome Mine on a portion of portion 410 of the farm Waterkloof 305 JQ, Rustenburg, North West. Pretoria
Coetzee, T. 2015. Phase 1 Archaeological Impact Assessment for Eco Elementum (Pty) Ltd on a portion of the remaining extent of the farm Moeijelik 412 KS, Sekhukhune, Limpopo. Pretoria
Coetzee, T. 2015. Phase 1 Archaeological Impact Assessment for Vus’ithemba Project Solutions CC on a portion of the remaining extent of the farm Witklip 388 KR, Modimolle, Limpopo. Pretoria
Tobias Coetzee © KangraCoal_AIA_1504201 February 2021 (version 4) d
Coetzee, T. 2015. Phase 1 Archaeological Impact Assessment for Rock Environmental Consulting (Pty) Ltd on a portion of Portion 74 of the Farm Rietkol 237 IR, Delmas, Mpumalanga. Pretoria
Coetzee, T. 2015. Phase 1 Archaeological Impact Assessment for Eco Elementum (Pty) Ltd on a portion of Portion 1 of the farm Vygenhoek 10 JT - Mpumalanga. Pretoria
Coetzee, T. 2014. Bokoni from Above: Using Geographical Information Systems to discover settlement patterns and migrations. Poster presented at the SAFA/PAA Congress, Johannesburg, July 2014.
Coetzee, T. 2014. Phase 1 Archaeological Impact Assessment for Eco Elementum (Pty) Ltd on a Portion of Portion 11 of the Farm Driefontein 297 JS, eMalahleni. Pretoria
Coetzee, T. 2014. Phase 1 Archaeological Impact Assessment for Eco Elementum (Pty) Ltd on Portion 7, a portion of Portion 3 of the Farm Rietspruit 437 IS - Mpumalanga. Pretoria
Coetzee, T. 2014. A Phase 1 Archaeological Impact Assessment for the proposed Kebrafield (Pty) Ltd open cast coal mine on Portion 17 of the farm Roodepoort 151 IS, Pullens Hope, Mpumalanga. Pretoria
Coetzee, T. 2014. Phase 1 Archaeological Impact Assessment for Environmental Assurance (Pty) Ltd on Portion 43, a portion of Portion 16 of the Farm Rooidraai 34 JT - Mpumalanga. Pretoria
Coetzee, T. 2014. Phase 1 Archaeological Impact Assessment for Environmental Assurance (Pty) Ltd on the area demarcated for the development of Argent Siding near Delmas, Mpumalanga. Pretoria
Coetzee, T. & George, L. 2013. Archaeological Impact Assessment for Assmang Limited – Black Rock Mine Operations on Erf 5529, a portion of Erf 01 Kuruman. Pretoria
Coetzee, T. & George, L. 2013. A Phase 1 Archaeological Impact Assessment for the proposed mining on portions 3, 8, 19, and the remaining extent of the Farm Mamatwan 331, Northern Cape Province. Pretoria
Coetzee, T. & George, L. 2013. A Phase 1 Archaeological Impact Assessment for the proposed Yoctolux (Pty) Ltd open cast coal mine on Portion 38 of the farm Elandspruit 291 JS, district Middelburg, Mpumalanga. Pretoria
Coetzee, T. 2012. Phase 1 AIA for the proposed Medium Density Fibre plant on portion 60 of the farm Lothair 124 IT, Mpumalanga. Pretoria: ENVASS Pty. Ltd.
Coetzee, T. 2012. Phase 1 AIA for the proposed mining of sand and clay from the remaining portion of the Farm Papkuilfontein 469 JR, Mpumalanga. Pretoria: ENVASS Pty. Ltd.
Coetzee, T. 2012. Archaeological Scoping Report for the Proposed Prospecting for Iron Ore and Manganese Ore for Amari Manganese (Pty) Ltd on the Farms Constantia 309, Simondium 308 and Portions 1,2, 3 and 8 of the Farm Goold 329 in the Vicinity of District Municipality: Kgalagadi Northern Cape Province, South Africa. Pretoria: ENVASS Pty. Ltd.
Coetzee, T. & Schoeman, A. 2011. Mapping Trade in Bokoni. The Digging Stick 28 (1): 7-9.
Coetzee, T. 2010. Comments on Bokoni settlement pattern and its geographical relationship to pre-colonial trade routes in Mpumalanga. Paper presented at the Five Hundred Year Initiative (FYI), Johannesburg, October 2010.
Coetzee, T. 2010. Mapping Bokoni: Applying Geographic Information Systems to the articulation of Mpumalanga stonewalled sites with pre-colonial trade routes. Paper presented at the SAFA/PAA Congress, Dakar, November 2010.
Kruger, N. & Coetzee, T. 2010. Phase 1 Archaeological Impact Assessment of the demarcated surface areas Bantu Bonke, located on the farm Panfontein 437 IR, Gauteng Province. Pretoria: AGES Pty. Ltd.
Tobias Coetzee © KangraCoal_AIA_1504201 February 2021 (version 4) e
Kruger, N. & Coetzee, T. 2010. Phase 1 Archaeological Impact Assessment of the demarcated surface areas at Rooderand, Northwest Province. Pretoria: AGES Pty. Ltd
References:
Dr M.H. Schoeman, Lecturer, Honours project and Masters supervisor University of the Witwatersrand 1 Jan Smuts Avenue Braamfontein 2000 Tel. :011 717 6046 Cell. :082 827 9731 Email :[email protected]
Prof. I. Pikirayi, Head: Department anthropology & archaeology University of Pretoria Lynnwood Road Pretoria 0002 Tel. :012 420 4661 Cell. :082 786 6137 Email :[email protected]
Neels Kruger, Cultural resources manager Exigo3 Tygerpoort Pretoria 0007 Tel. :012 751 2160 Cell. :082 967 2131 Email :[email protected]
Tobias Coetzee © KangraCoal_AIA_1504201 February 2021 (version 4) f
Appendix C: NEMA Risk Assessment Methodology 1.1 RISK ASSESSMENT
The first stage of impact assessment is the identification of environmental activities, aspects and impacts. The receptors and resources are also identified, which allows for an understanding of the impact pathway and assessment of the sensitivity to change.
The purpose of the rating is to develop a clear understanding of influences and processes associated witheach impact. The values for the likelihood and consequence (severity, spatial scope and duration) of the impact are then used to determine whether mitigation is necessary.
1.1.1 Methodology used in Determining the Significance of Environmental impacts
The Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) 2014 Regulations [as amended] promulgated in terms of Sections 24 (5), 24M and 44 of the National Environmental Management Act, 1998 (Act No. 107 of 1998) [as amended] (NEMA), requires that all identified potential impacts associated with the project be assessed in terms of their overall potential significance on the natural, social and economic environments. The criteria identified in the EIA Regulations (2014) include the following:
Nature of the impact;
Extent of the impact;
Duration of the impact
Probability of the impact occurring;
Degree to which impact can be reversed;
Degree to which impact may cause irreplaceable loss of resources;
Degree to which the impact can be mitigated; and
Cumulative impacts.
The impact assessment methodology used to determine the significance of impacts prior and after mitigation is presented below
Extent of the impact The EXTENT of an impact is the physical extent/area of impact or influence. Score Extent Description Footprint The impacted area extends only as far as the actual footprint of the
Tobias Coetzee © KangraCoal_AIA_1504201 February 2021 (version 4) i
activity. 2 Site The impact will affect the entire or substantial portion of the site/property. 3 Local The impact could affect the area including neighbouring properties and transport routes. 4 Region Impact could be widespread with regional implication. 5 National Impact could have a widespread national level implication. Duration of the impact The DURATION of an impact is the expected period of time the impact will have an effect. Score Duration Description 1 Short term The impact is quickly reversible within a period of less than 2 y limited to the construction phase, or immediate upon the commenof floods. 2 Short to medium term The impact will have a short term lifespan (2–5 years). 3 Medium term The impact will have a medium term lifespan (6 – 10 years) 4 Long term The impact will have a medium term lifespan (10 – 25 years) 5 Permanent The impact will be permanent beyond the lifespan of the developm
Intensity of the impact The INTENSITY of an impact is the expected amplitude of the impact. Score Intensity Description 1 Minor The activity will only have a minor impact on the affected environment i a way that the natural processes or functions are not affected. 2 Low The activity will have a low impact on the affected environment. 3 Medium The activity will have a medium impact on the affected environme function and process continue, albeit in a modified way. 4 High The activity will have a high impact on the affected environment whic be disturbed to the extent where it temporarily or permanently ceases 5 Very High The activity will have a very high impact on the affected environment may be disturbed to the extent where it temporarily or permanently ce
Tobias Coetzee © KangraCoal_AIA_1504201 February 2021 (version 4) ii
Reversibility of the impact The REVERSIBILITY of an impact is the severity of the impact on the ecosystem structure Score Reversibility Description 1 Completely reversible The impact is reversible without any mitigation measures and manag measures 2 Nearly completely The impact is reversible without any significant mitigation reversible management measures. Some time and resources required. 3 Partly reversible The impact is only reversible with the implantation of mitigation management measures. Substantial time and resources required. 4 Nearly irreversible The impact is can only marginally be reversed with the implantatio significant mitigation and management measures. Significant time resources required to ensure impact is on a controllable level. 5 Irreversible The impact is irreversible. Probability of the impact The PROBABILITY of an impact is the severity of the impact on the ecosystem structure Score Probability Description 1 Improbable The possibility of the impact occurring is highly improbable (less than of impact occurring). 2 Low The possibility of the impact occurring is very low, due either to circumstances, design or experience (5% to 30% of impact occurring 3 Medium There is a possibility that the impact will occur to the extent that provis must be made therefore (30% to 60% of impact occurring). 4 High There is a high possibility that the impact will occur to the extent t provision must be made therefore (60% to 90% of impact occurring). 5 Definite The impact will definitely take place regardless of any prevention pla and there can only be relied on migratory actions or contingency pla to contain the effect (90% to 100% of impact occurring). Calculation of Impacts – Significance Rating of Impact Significance is determined through a synthesis of the various impact characteristics and represents the combined effect of the Irreplaceability (Magnitude, Extent, Duration, and Intensity) multiplied by the Probability of the impact. The significance of an impact is rated according the scores a presented below:
Equation 1: Significance = Irreplaceability (Reversibility + Intensity + Duration + Extent) X Probability
Tobias Coetzee © KangraCoal_AIA_1504201 February 2021 (version 4) iii
Significance Rating Score Significance Colour Code 1 to 20 Very low 21 to 40 Low 41 to 60 Medium 61 to 80 High 81 to 100 Very high Mitigation Efficiency Degree to which the impact can be mitigated: The effect of mitigation measures on the impact and its degree of effectiveness: Equation 2: Significance Rating = Significance x Mitigation Efficiency
High 0,2 Medium to High 0,4 Medium 0,6 Low to Medium 0,8 Low 1,0
Confidence rating: Level of certainty of the impact occurring.
- Certain
- Sure
- Unsure
Cumulative impacts: The effect the combination of past, present and “reasonably foreseeable” future actions have on aspects. - Very Low cumulative impact - Low cumulative impact - Medium cumulative impact - High cumulative impact
Tobias Coetzee © KangraCoal_AIA_1504201 February 2021 (version 4) iv
Appendix D: Monitoring – Heritage Site type Impact Applicable Phase Action Frequency Responsible person Heritage buildings, Potential damage structures and cemeteries Monitoring of buildings, should Quarterly, as well pre- and post- intersecting the area Operational structures and ECO subsistence and blasting (if applicable) demarcated for cemeteries vibration occur underground mining Demolished heritage sites intersecting the area None foreseen Operational None required N/A N/A demarcated for underground mining Potential damage Heritage sites in close to cemeteries, ECO/person responsible for proximity of the proposed stone-walled Planning & Construction Avoid sensitive areas Once – planning powerline route selection powerline enclosures and a settlement Potential damage to subsurface Monitor subsurface All surface impacts culturally Construction Duration of construction ECO material significant material
Tobias Coetzee © KangraCoal_AIA_1504201 February 2021 (version 4) I