Specialist Report

SPECIALIST REPORT

PHASE 1 ARCHAEOLOGICAL / HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOR A PROPOSED EXTENSION OF PIET RETIEF EXTENSION 6, ON THE REMAINDER OF PORTION 1 OF PIET RETIEF TOWN AND TOWNLANDS 149HT, MKHONDO LOCAL MUNICIPALITY

MPUMALANGA PROVINCE

REPORT COMPILED FOR

CORE ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES

Ms. ANNE-MARI WHITE

Cell: 0608781591 / e-mail: [email protected]

FEBRUARY 2021

ADANSONIA HERITAGE CONSULTANTS ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHERN AFRICAN PROFESSIONAL ARCHAEOLOGISTS C. VAN WYK ROWE e-mail: [email protected] Tel: 0828719553 / Fax: 0867151639 P.O. BOX 75, PILGRIM'S REST, 1290

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A Phase 1 Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) regarding archaeological and other cultural heritage resources was conducted on the footprint for an extension of the township boundary of Piet Retief Extension 6 on the remainder of portion 1 of PIET RETIEF TOWN & TOWNLANDS 149-HT, Mkhondo Local Municipality, in the Mpumalanga Province. The study area is situated on topographical map 1:50 000, 2730BB (Piet Retief). This area falls under the jurisdiction of the Mkhondo Local Municipality, and is located within the Gert Sibande District Municipality.

The National Heritage Resources Act, no 25 (1999)(NHRA), protects all heritage resources, which are classified as national estate. The NHRA stipulates that any person who intends to undertake a development, is subjected to the provisions of the Act.

The landowner (Mkhondo Local Municipality) in association with the applicant, Mahelane Development Planners propose to extend the township boundary of Piet Retief Extension 6 by 11ha. CORE ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES was appointed as the Environmental Assessment Practitioner to obtain the necessary authorizations in terms of the National Environmental Management Act (Act 107 of 1998).

The site is divided into three sections for ease of reference. Section 1 in the south has been disturbed by existing gravel road networks, as well as small scale cultivated areas used by the people in the existing township throughout the years, section 2 (east), was entirely disturbed by forestry (currently wattle infestation), and section 3 (north), is partly disturbed by a gravel road network. The rest of section 3 is natural grassland and sloping towards the Klipmesselspruit. There are no rocky outcrops on the site. Adjacent properties to the west and north are the existing Piet Retief (Mkhondo) residential areas, south and east are commercial forestry areas.

The survey revealed no archaeological or historical features of significance or graves on the site. It is recommended that the owner be made aware that distinct archaeological material or human remains may only be revealed during construction activities of the proposed development, in which case a qualified archaeologist must do an assessment. Based on the survey and the findings in this report, Adansonia Heritage Consultants state that there are no compelling reasons which may prevent the proposed development to continue.

Disclaimer: Although all possible care is taken to identify all sites of cultural significance during the investigation, it is possible that hidden or sub-surface sites could be overlooked during the study. Christine Rowe trading as Adansonia Heritage Consultants will not be held liable for such oversights or for costs incurred by the client as a result.

Copyright: Copyright in all documents, drawings and records whether manually or electronically produced, which form part of the submission and any subsequent report or project document shall vest in Christine Rowe trading as Adansonia Heritage Consultants. None of the documents, drawings or records may be used or applied in any manner, nor may they be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means whatsoever for or to any other person, without the prior written consent of the above. The Client, on acceptance of any submission by Christine Rowe, trading as Adansonia Heritage Consultants and on condition that the Client pays the full price for the work as agreed, shall be entitled to use for its own benefit and for the specified project only:

1) The results of the project; 2) The technology described in any report; 3) Recommendations delivered to the Client.

C. Rowe

FEBRUARY 2021

CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2 DISCLAIMER 3 A. BACKGROUND INFORMATION TO THE PROJECT 5 • Terms of Reference 6 • Legal requirements 7 B. BACKGROUND TO ARCHAEOLOGY AND HISTORY OF THE STUDY AREA 9 • Literature review, museum databases & previous relevant impact assessments 9 C. DESCRIPTION OF AREA TO BE AFFECTED BY DEVELOPMENT 13 D. LOCALITY 17 • Description of methodology 18 • GPS Co-ordinates of perimeters 20 E. DESCRIPTION OF IDENTIFIED SITES 21 F. DISCUSSION ON THE FOOTPRINT OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 21 • Summarised identification & cultural significance assessment of affected 22 • Summarised recommended impact management interventions 26 G. STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE & EVALUATION OF HERITAGE RESOURCES IN THE STUDY AREA 28 • Evaluation methods 28 • NHRA 28 • Significance & evaluation 28 H. RECOMMENDATION & CONCLUSION 29 REFERENCES 30 MAP 1: 1935 Map of Van Warmelo 11 MAP 2: Google image: Study area within the wider region 14 MAP 3: Google image: Study area, Section 1 15 MAP 4: Google image: Study area and Section 2 16 MAP 5: Google image: Study area and Section 3 16 MAP 6: Google image: Study areas 1, 2 & 3 17 MAP 7: Topographic map 1: 50000 (2730BB) 18

Appendix 1: Google image of Tracks and paths 32 Appendix 2: Photographic documentation 33

A. BACKGROUND INFORMATION TO THE PROJECT The applicant (Mahelane Development Planners), and landowner (Mkhondo Local Municipality), in co-operation Environmental Assessment Practitioner, CORE ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, are proposing to extend the Piet Retief Extension 6 Township boundary with 11ha, in Mkhondo (Piet Retief). 1 The development area is situated on the remainder of portion 1 of PIET RETIEF TOWN & TOWNLANDS 149-HT.

This development is compatible to the municipal planning and services infrastructure of this zone and is ideally located on the boundary of the Piet Retief Extension 6 township. The study area is situated on topographical map 1:50 000, 2730BB (Piet Retief). This area falls under the jurisdiction of the Mkhondo Local Municipality, and is located within the Gert Sibande District Municipality. 2

The site is divided into three sections for ease of reference. Section 1 in the south has been disturbed by existing gravel road networks, as well as small scale cultivated areas used by the people in the existing township throughout the years; section 2 (east), was entirely disturbed by forestry (currently wattle infestation); and section 3 to the north, is natural grassland which is partly disturbed by a gravel road network. Section 3 slopes gently towards the Klipmesselspruit, directly to the north. There are no rocky outcrops on the project site. Adjacent properties to the west and north are the existing Piet Retief (Mkhondo) residential areas, south and east are commercial forestry plantations.

Adansonia Heritage Consultants were appointed by CORE ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES to conduct a Phase 1 heritage impact assessment (HIA) on archaeological and other heritage resources on the study area. A literature review, relevant to the study area as well as a foot

1 CORE ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, Background Information Document, January 2021, p. 1. 2 CORE ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, Background Information Document, January 2021, p. 1.

survey was done, to determine that no archaeological or heritage resources will be impacted upon (See map 7: Topographical Map: 2730BB (1987).

The aims of this report are to source all relevant information on archaeological and heritage resources in the study area, and to advise the client on sensitive heritage areas as well as where it is viable for the development to take place in terms of the specifications as set out in the National Heritage Resources Act no., 25 of 1999 (NHRA). Recommendations for maximum conservation measures for any heritage resources will also be made. The study area is indicated in Maps 2 - 7, and Appendix 1 & 2. • This study forms part of an EIA, Consultant: CORE ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, Ms. Anne- Mari White, Cell: 060 878 1591 / e-mail: [email protected] • EIA / Scoping Report & Plan of study for EIA is in process; • Type of development: Township Development on 11ha on the remainder of portion 1 of PIET RETIEF TOWN & TOWNLANDS 149-HT, adjacent to the town of Mkhondo (Piet Retief), Mpumalanga Province. • The current land use is vacant sections (with a fragment of natural grassland to the north), and forestry to the east. The land is zoned as agriculture and will be rezoned to a residential area. 3 • Location of Province, Magisterial district / Local Authority and Property (farms): The area falls within the Mpumalanga Province under the jurisdiction of the Mkhondo Local Municipality, and is located within the Gert Sibande District Municipality. • Land owner: Mkhondo Local Municipality and Applicant, Mahelane Development Planners. 4

Terms of reference: As specified by section 38 (3) of the NHRA, the following information is provided in this report. a) The identification and mapping of heritage resources where applicable; b) Assessment of the significance of the heritage resources; c) Alternatives given to affected heritage resources by the development; d) Plans for measures of mitigation.

3 PERSONAL COMMUNICATION: Ms. A-M White (EAP), 2021-02-08. 4 CORE ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, Background Information Document, January 2021, p. 1. 6

Legal requirements:

The legal context of the report is grounded in the National Heritage Resources Act no. 25, 1999, as well as the National Environmental Management Act (1998) (NEMA):

• In terms of Government Notice R546, a basic Environmental Impact Assessment is required in terms of the following listed activities: 1) Activities associated with township establishment (Scoping & EIA); 2) Activities associated with the construction of services & pipelines to town (Basic EIA).

National Heritage Resources Act no. 25, 1999 requires:

• Section 38 of the NHRA This report constitutes a heritage impact assessment investigation linked to the environmental impact assessment required for the development. The proposed development is a listed activity in terms of Section 38 (1) of the NHRA. Section 38 (2) of the NHRA requires the submission of a HIA report for authorisation purposes to the responsible heritage resources agency, (SAHRA).

Heritage conservation and management in South Africa is governed by the NHRA and falls under the overall jurisdiction of the South African Heritage Resources Agency (SAHRA) and its provincial offices and counterparts.

Section 38 of the NHRA requires a Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) to be conducted by an independent heritage management consultant, for the following development categories:

• Any development or other activity which will change the character of a site: - exceeding 5000m² in extent; - the rezoning of a site exceeding 10 000m² in extent; In addition, the new EIA regulation promulgated in terms of NEMA (as amended), determines that any environmental report will include cultural (heritage) issues.

The end purpose of this report is to alert CORE ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, as well as the client and interested and affected parties about existing heritage resources that may be affected by the proposed development, and to recommend mitigation measures aimed at reducing the risks of any adverse impacts on these heritage resources. Such measures could include the recording of any heritage buildings or structures older than 60 years prior to demolition, in terms

of section 34 of the NHRA and also other sections of this act dealing with archaeological sites, buildings and graves.

The NHRA section 2 (xvi) states that a “heritage resource” means any place or object of cultural significance, and in section 2 (vi) that “cultural significance” means aesthetic, architectural, historical, scientific, social, spiritual, linguistic or technological value or significance.

Apart from a heritage report assisting a client to make informed development decisions, it also serves to provide the relevant heritage resources authority with the necessary data to perform their statutory duties under the NHRA. After evaluating the heritage scoping report, the heritage resources authority will decide on the status of the resource, whether the development may proceed as proposed or whether mitigation is acceptable, and whether the heritage resource require formal protection such as a Grade I, II or III, with relevant parties having to comply with all aspects pertaining to such a grading.

• Section 35 of the NHRA Section 35 (4) of the NHRA stipulates that no person may, without a permit issued by SAHRA, destroy, damage, excavate, alter or remove from its original position, or collect, any archaeological material or object. This section may apply to any significant archaeological sites that may be discovered. In the case of such chance finds, the heritage practitioner will assist in investigating the extent and significance of the finds and consult with an archaeologist about further action. This may entail removal of material after documenting the find or mapping of larger sections before destruction. No archaeological material was found during the survey.

• Section 36 of the NHRA Section 36 of the NHRA stipulates that no person may, without a permit issued by SAHRA, destroy, damage, alter, exhume or 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. It is possible that chance burials might be discovered during development of the road infrastructure or construction activities. No graves were identified within the study area.

• Section 34 of the NHRA Section 34 of the NHRA stipulates that no person may alter, damage, destroy, relocate etc., any building or structure older than 60 years, without a permit issued by SAHRA or a provincial heritage resources authority. No building or structure older than 60 years was identified during the survey.

• Section 37 of the NHRA This section deals with public monuments and memorials but does not apply in this report.

• NEMA The regulations in terms of Chapter 5 of the National Environmental Management Act, (107/1998), provides for an assessment of development impacts on the cultural (heritage) and social environment and for specialist studies in this regard.

B BACKGROUND TO ARCHAEOLOGY AND HISTORY OF THE STUDY AREA • Literature review, museum databases & previous relevant impact assessments In order to place the areas in and around Piet Retief in an archaeological context, primary and secondary sources were consulted. Ethnographical and linguistic studies by early researchers such as Ziervogel and Van Warmelo shed light on the cultural groups living in the area since ca 1600. Historic and academic sources were also consulted.

The town of Piet Retief was founded in 1882 on land bought from a local Swazi chief. It was named after the Voortrekker leader Piet Retief who was massacred by Dingane in 1838. It was at one stage the smallest independent state, with only 72 inhabitants and with its own president.5

• Prehistory Very little visible archaeological evidence remained in the area. Some SAN rock art sites were observed and recorded around Piet Retief, Amsterdam and Chrissiesmeer. The San people also called “Bathwa”, inhabited Mpumalanga long before African societies began to enter the region.6 Remains of stone tools and rock art sites have been found throughout the Mpumalanga Province.7 The disappearance of the San people in the Mpumalanga region may be attributed to the greatly increased and rapidly expanding population of African settlers who immigrated here, especially since the 17th century, as well as the arrival of Europeans during the 19th century.

• History of African groups The Government Ethnologist, N.J. Van Warmelo, conducted a survey of African groups in 1935. He based his survey of Bantu Tribes of South Africa on the number of adult male taxpayers in

5 Internet access: 2019-08-12: www.mpumalangahappenings.co.za/piet_retief.homepage.htm 6 Tlou Makhura, Early Inhabitants, in P. Delius (ed,), Mpumalanga, History and heritage, p. 91. 7 PRMA: Information file 9/2. 9

an area. The survey does not include the extended households of each taxpayer, so it was impossible to indicate the number of people who were actually living in one area.8

The history of the African groups, is not well recorded. Van Warmelo identified groups that were resident in the Piet Retief area in July 1933. They were Swazi and Zulu (Natal Nguni) groups.9 Some of the African groups which were living in the area during the 1860’s was the Khubheka (Swazi), north of the Ngcaka mountain, Nkosi Dlamini (Swazi), south of the Ngcaka mountain and Tshabalala (Swazi), in the area of the Hlanganvula mountain. Some caves in the wider Piet Retief area, such as Mbilini’s Cave and Khubeka’s Cave, were places of refuge during various stages in the history of the area.10

Swazi & Natal Nguni The great majority of Nguni lived from Swaziland through Natal to the Ciskei and the Cape Province. The Nguni division comprises a number of fairly diverse groups, some of which are also geographically widely separated from one another. The presence of off-shoots of the “Natal Group” is as far distant as Zimbabwe, Botswana and Malawi due to the movements of tribes that were witnessed during the first half of the 19th century.

The Swazi people descended from the southern Bantu (Nguni) who migrated from central Africa in the 15th and 16th centuries.11 The differences between the Swazi and the Natal Nguni were never great. Their culture as far as is known from the comparatively little research being carried out, does not show striking differences. Their language is a ‘Tekeza’ variation of Zulu, but through having escaped being drawn into the mainstream of the Zulus of the Shaka period, they became independent and their claim to be grouped apart as a culture is now well founded.12

8 N.J. van Warmelo, A Preliminary Survey of the Bantu Tribes of South Africa, p.9. 9 N.J. van Warmelo, A preliminary survey of the Bantu Tribes of South Africa, in Ethnological Publications, Vol. V., Department of Native Affairs, p. 50 10 B.K., Zulu, From the Lűneburger Heide to Northern Zululand, Masters dissertation, pp. 129-140. 11 Swaziland: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swaziland p.1. 12 N.J. Van Warmelo, A Preliminary Survey of the Bantu Tribes of South Africa, pp. 59 & 83. 10

MAP 1: Van Warmelo: 1935: The study area is indicated by the red oval.

• History Prince Bongani Kashelembe Zulu gave an in-depth account of the history of the encounters between the settlers of the Hermansburg missionaries (Piet Retief area), the AmaKhosi and their people with special reference to the mission stations in northern Zululand (1860-1913).13 At that time, some Zulus, a Swazi clan, German missionaries around Luneburg, as well as Boer farmers occupied this territory. After negotiations, Bulwer's Boundary Commission of 1878 favored the Zulu claim to this area, a decision that was not greeted with universal acclaim. At the outset of the Anglo-Zulu War, Lt. Colonel Evelyn Wood's No. 4 Column and the No. 5 Column under Colonel Rowlands were in the Entombe valley where the latter opposed robber clans led by Mbilini kaMswati a renegade Swazi chief, and the Zulu induna Manyonyoba kaMaqondo. There was much fighting, burning of homesteads and stealing of cattle.

13 B.K. Zulu, From the Lűneburger Heide to Northern Zululand, Masters dissertation, Part I & II. 11

Many battles took place in the Piet Retief area. One such battle near the town, took place at Entombe, and is also known as The Action at Entombe Drift. This was one of the most remote of the Anglo-Zulu War, and is remarkable in that only the battles of Isandlwana and Hlobane, cost more British and Colonial lives. 14

The author was involved in desktop studies and surveys in the wider area, such as: • Phase 1 Archaeological Impact assessment, survey and Management guidelines for two Rock art sites: Roburnia Plantation, Mpumalanga Province, (2008) – KOMATILAND; Rock art site. • Phase 1 Archaeological Impact assessment, survey and Management guidelines for Rock art site: Jessievale Plantation, Mpumalanga Province, (2009) - KOMATILAND; Rock art site. • Heritage Inspection and evaluation report (second visit) – Lochiel 1 & 2; Syde 1 & 2; Rinkink 1a and 1b – Lochiel, Warberton and Amsterdam, Mpumalanga Province, (2012 & 2015) - KOMATILAND; • Phase 1 Archaeological Impact assessment, survey and Management guidelines for two Rock art sites, Lochiel 1 & Lochiel 2, Redhill Plantation, Lochiel, Mpumalanga, (2011 & 2015) - KOMATILAND. • Phase 1 Archaeological Impact assessment, survey and Management guidelines for Rock art site: Jessievale Plantation, Mpumalanga Province, (2009 & 2015) - KOMATILAND; • Letter of recommendation for the exemption from a Phase 1 AIA & HIA investigation: Proposed footbridge at AVONTUUR, crossing the Nkomazi River on the farm Avontuur 721JT, near Tjakastad, May 2015. No archaeological remains were observed. • A Phase 1 AIA & HIA of the stone walled settlements on Taurus Plantation, Barberton District, Mpumalanga April 2015. Many stone walled sites were documented on the Taurus Plantation associated with Swazi settlement. • A Phase 1 AIA & HIA: Development of two tented camps at Songimvelo Nature Reserve, Eerstehoek on the farms Laaggenoeg & Onverwacht, 2018. Stone walled settlements were observed; • Cultural mapping & survey of heritage features & Burial sites at the Entombe Battlefield,

14 S.A. Military History Society, KZN Branch, Http://samilitaryhistory.org/4/d04julne,html, Newsletter no. 346, June 2004. Access 2008-10-16.

Piet Retief area, 2008. • Phase 1 Archaeological Impact assessment, survey and Management guidelines for two Rock art sites, Northdene 1A & Northdene 1B, Blairmore Plantation, Lothair Mpumalanga, (2019) - KOMATILAND. • Phase 1 Archaeological Impact assessment for a proposed Township development on the remainder of portion 1 of the farm Welverdiend 148HT, Piet Retief, (2019).

The SAHRA database for archaeological and historical impact assessments was consulted and revealed other recent Archaeological Impact assessment reports in the area: • 2014: Enpact Environmental Consultants: Proposed relocation of the Mkhondo Local Municipal Traffic Dept. facilities to Portion 123 of the farm Piet Retief and Townlands 149HT, Piet Retief, Mpumalanga – no heritage features were observed • 2014: Leiden Env: The application area is approximately 1 291 hectares in extent and falls within the jurisdiction of the Mkhondo Local Municipality in the Gert Sibande District Municipality of Mpumalanga. The proposed project is situated on Portion RE of the farm Leiden 340 IT, South of Sheepmoor, between Ermelo and Piet Retief, Mpumalanga. • 2014: NGT Heritage Consultants: Heritage screening assessment report for the proposed Cascade Iron ore mine located in Mkhondo Local Municipality within Gert Sibande District, Mpumalanga province - Desktop and Screening phase. • 2015: eThembeni Cultural Heritage: Phase 1 Heritage Impact Assessment for the Proposed Kwasa Mine Project, Piet Retief – Amsterdam area. – No heritage features were identified.

C. DESCRIPTION OF THE AREA TO BE AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Mkhondo Local Municipality is proposing to extend the township boundary of Piet Retief Extension 6, on the remainder of portion 1 of the farm PIET RETIEF TOWN & TOWNLANDS 149-HT, adjacent to the town of Mkhondo (Piet Retief), on 11ha of municipal property. The study area and proposed activity is compatible to the municipal planning of this zone. The proposed development site is ideally located adjacent to the existing town and services infrastructure and is a necessary expansion of the town. 15 (See map 2 for the study area).

15 CORE ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, Background Information Document, January 2021, p. 1. 13

MAP 2: The study area, is indicated in blue (map provided by CORE Environmental Services).

The site is divided into three sections for ease of reference. (See maps 3 – 6). Section 1 is in the south and is in a rectangular shape, bordered by the existing township in the west and north. It borders the forestry section (section 2), in the east and south. It has been disturbed by existing gravel road networks, as well as small scale cultivated areas used by the people in the existing township throughout the past years (map 3, Google image of 2011) (figs 1-5) (It is approximately 4.5ha in extent).

Section 2 is in the east and is also rectangular in shape (approximately 5ha in size). It borders the residential area to the west and commercial forestry plantations to the east. It was entirely disturbed by commercial forestry in the past. It is currently infested with alien invader species such as black wattle (map 4, Google image of 2016) (figs. 6 – 11).

Section 3, is a small square (approximately 1.5ha), of mostly natural grassland which slopes gently towards the Klipmesselspruit, directly to the north. It borders the residential area to the south, and section 2 to the east (see map 5 google image of 2011) (figs. 12 – 16). The study area has been disturbed by a gravel road network.

There are no rocky outcrops in the study area (sections 1, 2 & 3). The present land use is vacant and disturbed grassland, and commercial forestry which was replaced with invader species such as black wattle (see figs. 6 - 11 in Appendix 2). Several roads from the study area lead towards the forestry areas. The Klipmesselspruit is directly north of section 3 of the study area. Most of the surrounding land in the wider area is used for commercial forestry or residential areas (see map 2). 16

SECTION 1

MAP 3: Google image: 2011 - Section 1 in the south was severely disturbed in the past by a gravel road network as well as small-scale cultivated areas.

The grassland section is on a National level located in the grassland biome on the south eastern Mpumalanga Highveld, and is classified by Acocks as Piet Retief Sourveld / or North Eastern Mountain Grassland (by Low & Rabelo). 17 The vegetation is short dense grassland with a wide diversity of flowers. Geology is based on granites with melanic soils.

The study area was accessed by an existing road network (see maps 2 & 4). The grassland varied from dense to short in some sections and visibility was good (figs. 1 - 16). The area was investigated for any signs of archaeological or historical nature. No graves were observed in

16 CORE ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, Background Information Document, January 2021, p. 1. 17 C. Rowe, Phase 1 Archaeological Impact assessment for a proposed Township development on the remainder of portion 1 of the farm Welverdiend 148HT, Piet Retief, (2019).

the study area. See maps 4 & 6 and figs. 6 – 11 for photographic evidence of the disturbed forestry section.

MAP 4: Google image: 2011 – The study area (with the three sections), is indicated in red. Section 2 consisted entirely of commercial forestry in the past.

MAP 5: Google image: 2011 – Section 3 borders the residential area as well as an open field in the south, and section 2 (forestry), in the east. The Klipmesselspruit is towards the north.

MAP 6: Google image: 2011 – Another image of section 2 which indicates the commercial forestry.

D. LOCALITY

The proposed site is located on the remainder of portion 1 of the farm Piet Retief Town and Townlands 149-HT, Piet Retief Extension 6, Mkhondo Local Municipality, Mpumalanga Province. The proposed development is located adjacent to the east of the town of Piet Retief on vacant and commercial forestry land (see Google images from 2011). The N2/R33 is approximately 780m to the west. The border with Swaziland is approximately 15 km to the east. The site is located on the remainder of portion 1 of the farm PIET RETIEF TOWN & TOWNLANDS 149HT. The site falls under the jurisdiction of the Mkhondo Local Municipality and is located within the Gert Sibande District Municipality, in the Mpumalanga Province 18 (see Maps 2 - 7: Topographical Map & Google images of site; Appendix 1 & 2).

The study area for the proposed development is indicated in maps 2 - 6. The Phase 1 investigation concentrated mainly on sections 1 & 3 as the forestry section (section 2), has already extensively been transformed.

18 CORE ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, Background Information Document, January 2021, p. 1. 17

MAP 7: Topographical map (1987), 2730BB (Piet Retief). The study area is outlined in red.

• Description of methodology: The 1987 topographical map 2730BB - map 7, as well as Google images of the site (maps 2 – 6), indicate the study area of the proposed development. These were intensively studied to assess the current and historically disturbed areas and infrastructure. The 2011 Google images, clearly show the established forestry as well as grassland sections in the study area.

In order to reach a comprehensive conclusion regarding the cultural heritage resources in the study area, the following methods were used:

• The desktop study consists mainly of archival sources studied on distribution patterns of early African groups who settled in the area since the 17th century, and which have been observed in past and present ethnographical research and studies. • Literary sources, books and government publications, which were available on the subject, have been consulted, in order to establish relevant information. • Several specialists currently working in the fields of anthropology, archaeology and

ecology have also been consulted on the subject. -Literary sources: A list of books and government publications about prehistory and history of the area were cited, and revealed some information;

-The archaeological database of SAHRA as well as the National Cultural History Museum were consulted. Heritage Impact Assessment reports of specialists who worked in the area were studied and are quoted in section B.

• The 11ha study area, consisted of commercial forestry land, a natural grassland section in the north (disturbed by gravel roads) and section 1 to the south which was disturbed with a network of dirt roads, small-scale disturbed agricultural sections and some excavated areas (probably to source sand for construction). • The fieldwork and survey were conducted on foot and with a vehicle by 2 people. Existing roads and small paths were mainly used to access areas (See Appendix 1: Tracks). • The terrain was even, and section 3 slopes gently towards the Klipmesselspruit in the north. The investigation concentrated mainly on the grassland sections as the forestry areas have already been transformed. The grassland varied from dense to short in sections, but visibility in general was good, as the site was accessible and small. • The relevant data was located with a GPS instrument (Garmin Etrex) datum WGS 84, and plotted. Co-ordinates were within 4-6 meters of identified sites. • Evaluation of the resources which might be impacted upon by the footprint, was done within the framework provided by the National Heritage Resources Act, no. 25 (1999); • Personal communication with relevant stakeholders on the specific study area was held.19 • The study area (sections 1, 2 & 3), are numbered from A to J (see maps 4 & 6) for the perimeters of the project site).

19 Personal information: Ms. Anne-Mari White, Core Environmental Services, 2021-02-08. 19

• GPS co-ordinates: Perimeters of the site: (See Maps 2, 4 - 6). GPS CO-ORDINATES LOCATION: South East Elevation STUDY AREA Average SECTION 1 A S 27° 01' 10.33" E 30° 48' 53.31" 1270m B S 27° 01' 08.72" E 30° 49' 09.18" 1300m C S 27° 01' 12.10" E 30° 49' 08.89" 1303m D S 27° 01' 12.28" E 30° 48' 53.58" 1270m

GPS CO-ORDINATES LOCATION: South East Elevation STUDY AREA Average SECTION 2 (Commercial forestry section) C S 27° 01' 12.10" E 30° 49' 08.89" 1303m B S 27° 01' 08.72" E 30° 49' 09.18" 1300m E S 27° 00' 54.62" E 30° 49' 07.77" 1276m F S 27° 00' 52.02" E 30° 49' 07.09" 1268m G S 27° 00' 53.69" E 30° 49' 11.09" 1280m H S 27° 01' 12.53" E 30° 49' 11.12" 1307m

GPS CO-ORDINATES LOCATION: South East Elevation STUDY Average AREA SECTION 3 I S 27° 00' 52.17" E 30° 49' 02.73" 1262m J S 27° 00' 50.22" E 30° 49' 03.75" 1259m F S 27° 00' 52.02" E 30° 49' 07.09" 1268m E S 27° 00' 54.62" E 30° 49' 07.77" 1276m

E. DESCRIPTION OF IDENTIFIED SITES The current land use for the study area is natural grassland, forestry and some disturbed sections. The access roads to the study area are also roads which are used to access the Plantations. The Klipmesselspruit is situated directly north of section 3. There are no rocky outcrops in the study area. 20 (See Appendix 2, figs. 12 & 16).

The 1935 map by Van Warmelo indicated the groups living in the area as mainly Swazi (map 1), but no evidence of previous settlements or archaeological, historical remains or graves were observed during the survey.

The area was surveyed on foot and per vehicle. Paths and roads were used to access the areas. Disturbed areas or open areas with sparse vegetation, were investigated for possible signs of an archaeological or historical nature. No archaeological material, graves or historical features or structures of any significance were identified which could be impacted upon by the proposed development.

F. DISCUSSION ON THE FOOTPRINT OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

ACT COMPO- IMPLICATION RELEVANCE COMPLIANCE NENT

NHRA S 34 Impact on buildings and None present None structures older than 60 years

NHRA S35 Impacts on archaeological None present None heritage resources

NHRA S36 Impact on graves None present None

NHRA S37 Impact on public None present None monuments

NHRA S38 Developments requiring an Development is a listed HIA done HIA activity

NEMA EIA Activities requiring an EIA Development is subject to HIA is part of regulations an EIA EIA

20 CORE ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, Background Information Document, January 2021, p. 1. 21

• Summarised identification and cultural significance assessment of affected heritage resources: General issues of site and context:

Context

Urban environmental context No NA

Rural environmental context No NA

Natural environmental context No NA

Formal protection (NHRA)

(S. 28) Is the property part of a No NA protected area?

(S. 31) Is the property part of a No NA heritage area?

Other

Is the property near to or visible from No NA any protected heritage sites

Is the property part of a conservation No NA area of special areas in terms of the Zoning scheme?

Does the site form part of a historical No NA settlement or townscape?

Does the site form part of a rural No NA cultural landscape?

Does the site form part of a natural No NA landscape of cultural significance?

Is the site adjacent to a scenic route? No NA

Is the property within or adjacent to No N/A any other area which has special environmental or heritage protection?

Does the general context or any No NA adjoining properties have cultural significance?

Property features and characteristics

Context

Have there been any previous Yes Historically disturbed forestry development impacts on the land property?

Are there any significant landscape No NA features on the property?

Are there any sites or features of No NA geological significance on the property?

Does the property have any rocky No NA outcrops on it?

Does the property have any fresh Yes The Klipmesselspruit is directly water sources (springs, streams, north of section 3 rivers) on or alongside it?

Heritage resources on the property

Formal protection (NHRA)

National heritage sites (S. 27) No NA

Provincial heritage sites (S. 27) No NA

Provincial protection (S. 29) No NA

Place listed in heritage register (S. No NA 30)

General protection (NHRA)

Structures older than 60 years (S. No NA 34)

Archaeological site or material (S. No NA 35)

Graves or burial grounds (S. 36) No NA

Public monuments or memorials (S. No NA 37)

Heritage resources on the property

Other

Any heritage resource identified in a No NA heritage survey (author / date / grading)

Any other heritage resources No NA (describe)

NHRA ELE- INDICATORS OF HERITAGE SIGNIFICANCE RISK S (3)2 MENT Histo Rare Sci Typi Tech- Aes Pers Land Mate Sust Heritage S rical enti cal nolog thetic on / mark rial aina resourcec fic ical com con bility ategory munit dition y

Buildings / No NA structures of cultural significanc e No No No No No No No No No No

Areas No NA attached to oral traditions / intangible heritage No No No No No No No No No No

Historical No NA settlement/ townscape s ------

Landscape No ------NA of cultural significanc e

Geological No ------NA site of scientific/ cultural importance

Archaeolog No ------NA ical sites

Grave / No ------NA burial grounds

Areas of No ------NA significanc e related to labour history

Movable No ------NA objects

• Summarised recommended impact management interventions

NHRA SITE IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE Impact Motivation S (3)2 Cultural significance rating management Heritage resource Cultural Impact category significance significance

Buildings / No None - NA structures of cultural significance No

Areas No None None - NA attached to oral traditions / intangible heritage

Historical No None None - NA settlement/ townscape

Landscape No None None - NA of cultural significance

Geological No None None - NA site of scientific/ cultural importance

Archaeologic No None None - NA al

Grave / No No None - NA burial grounds

NHRA SITE IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE Impact Motivation S (3)2 Cultural significance rating management Heritage resource Cultural Impact category significance significance

Areas of No None None - NA significance related to labour history

Movable No None None - NA objects

ACT COMPO- IMPLICATION RELEVANCE COMPLIANCE NENT

NHRA S 34 Impact on buildings and None present None structures older than 60 years

NHRA S35 Impacts on archaeological None present None heritage resources

NHRA S36 Impact on graves None present None

NHRA S37 Impact on public None present None monuments

NHRA S38 Developments requiring Development is a Full HIA an HIA listed activity

NEMA EIA Activities requiring an EIA Development is HIA is part of EIA regulations subject to an EIA

G. STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE & EVALUATION OF HERITAGE RESOURCES

Section 38 of the NHRA, rates all heritage resources into National, Provincial or Local significance, and proposals in terms of the above is made for all identified heritage features.

• Evaluation methods Site significance is important to establish the measure of mitigation and / or management of the resources. Sites are evaluated as HIGH (National importance), MEDIUM (Provincial importance) or LOW, (local importance), as specified in the NHRA. It is explained as follows:

• National Heritage Resources Act The National Heritage Resources Act no. 25, 1999 (NHRA) aims to promote good management of the national estate, and to enable and encourage communities to conserve their legacy so that it may be bequeathed to future generations. Heritage is unique and it cannot be renewed, and contributes to redressing past inequities.21 It promotes previously neglected research areas.

All archaeological and other cultural heritage resources are evaluated according to the NHRA, section 3(3). A place or object is considered to be part of the national estate if it has cultural significance or other special value in terms of:

(a) its importance in the community, or pattern of South Africa's history;(c) its potential to yield information that will contribute to an understanding of South Africa's natural or cultural heritage;

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

(h) its strong or special association with the life or work of a person, group or organisation of importance in the history of South Africa.22

• The significance and evaluation of the archaeological and cultural heritage features in the study area The current land use of the study area, the remainder of portion 1 of the farm PIET RETIEF TOWN & TOWNLANDS 149HT, has partially been transformed by forestry (section 2), with small sections of natural grassland – sections 1 & 3. The grassland sections have a gravel road

21National Heritage Resources Act, no. 25 of 1999. p. 2. 22National Heritage Resources Act, no. 25 of 1999. pp. 12-14 28

network (as clearly indicated by google images) (2011 & 2016). Small areas in section 1 were cultivated by small-scale subsistence farmers (see map 3).

No archaeological sites of significance, stone walls, historic features, structures or graves were identified during the survey.

It is not believed that any archaeological or historical features will be impacted upon by the proposed township development.

H. RECOMMENDATIONS & CONCLUSION Archaeological material or graves are not always visible during a field survey and therefore some significant material may only be revealed during construction activities of the proposed development. It is recommended that the client be made aware that distinct archaeological material or human remains may only be revealed during the construction activities. Based on the survey and the findings in this report, Adansonia Heritage Consultants state that there are no compelling reasons which may prevent the proposed Piet Retief Extension 6 township development to continue, but it is recommended that earthmoving activities be monitored by a qualified archaeologist and that an assessment be done should any archaeological material be found.

Adansonia Heritage Consultants cannot be held responsible for any archaeological material or graves which were not located during the survey.

REFERENCES NATIONAL LEGISLATION

• Republic of South Africa, National Heritage Resources Act, (Act No. 25 of 1999). LITERARY SOURCES

• BERGH J.S., Swart gemeenskappe voor die koms van die blankes, in J.S. Bergh (red)., Geskiedenis Atlas van Suid Afrika: Die vier Noordelike Provinsies. J.L. van Schaik, 1999.

• BORNMAN, H., Pioneers of the Lowveld, 1994.

• DE JONGH, M. (ed)., Swatini,1978.

• DELIUS P, & M. HAY, Mpumalanga, an illustrated history, Highveld Press, 2009.

• ELOFF, J.F., Verslag oor Argeologiese Navorsing in die Krugerwildtuin, June / July 1982

• ENGLISH, M., Die rotskuns van die Boesmans in die NKW, in De Vos Pienaar, Neem uit die Verlede, 1990.

• HAMPSON, et al., The rock art of Bongani Mountain Lodge, SA Archaeological Bullitin 57.

• KüSEL, U.S., Survey of Heritage sites in the Olifants Catchment area, 2009.

• MAKHURA, T., Early Inhabitants, in Delius, P. (ed)., Mpumalanga: History and Heritage. Natal University Press, 2007.

• MASSON, J. 2008. Views from a Swaziland Cave. The Digging Stick, Vol. 25 no 1: 1-3.

• MYBURGH, A.C., The Tribes of Barberton District, 1949.

• VAN WARMELO, N.J., A Preliminary Survey of the Bantu Tribes of South Africa, Pretoria, 1935.

• VAN WYK, B., & VAN WYK, P., Field Guide to Trees of Southern Africa, 1997.

• VAN WYK (ROWE), C, Inspection of Umbhaba Stone-walled settlement, Hazyview, 2002.

• VOIGHT, E., Guide to the Archaeological sites in the Northern and Eastern Transvaal. Transvaal Museum, 1981.

• VON FINTEL, E (Red.), Die Nachkommen van Johann Heinrich Jakob Filter 1858-2008: Die Geschichte einer Pionierfamilie in Nordnatal.

• WEBB, H. S., The Native Inhabitants of the Southern Lowveld, in Lowveld Regional Development Association, The South-Eastern Transvaal Lowveld. Cape Times Limited. 1954.

• ZIERVOGEL, D. The Eastern Sotho: A Tribal, Historical and Linguistic Survey with Ethnographical notes on the Pai, Kutswe and Pulana Bantu Tribes. Pretoria, 1953.

ELECTRONIC INFORMATION SOURCES • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swaziland, Access: 2013-06-13.

• Internet access: 2019-08-12: www.mpumalangahappenings.co.za/piet_retief.homepage.htm • Internet Access: 2008-10-16, S.A. Military History Society, KZN Branch, Http://samilitaryhistory.org/4/d04june,html, Newsletter no. 346, June 2004.

PERSONAL INFORMATION • Personal information: Ms. A-M White, CORE ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES: e-mail 2021-02-08.

MISCELLANEOUS • CORE ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, Background Information Document, January 2021. • PILGRIMS REST MUSEUM ARCHIVES: Information file 9/2. • Rowe, C., Heritage Management of Archaeological, Historical and Industrial resources on the Blyde River Canyon Nature Reserve, MA dissertation. Pretoria: UP. 2009. • Zulu, B.K., From the Lűneburger Heide to Northern Zululand, Masters dissertation, pp. 129-140.

APPENDIX 1 TRACKS AND PATH USED TO ACCESS THE AREA

Tracks and paths which were used during the survey.