ARCHAEOLOGICAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF THE PROPOSED EXTENSION OF A BORROW PIT ON SOETMELKSVLEI 150, AREA, DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY,

(Assessment conducted under Section 38 (8) of the National Heritage Resources Act as part of a Heritage Impact Assessment)

Prepared for:

Vidamemoria Heritage Consultants Att: Ms Quahnita Samie E-mail: [email protected] On behalf of: Nadeson Consulting Services

Prepared by: Madelon Tusenius Natura Viva cc PO Box 12410 Mill Street, 8010 Phone: (021) 462 3622 E-mail: [email protected]

OCTOBER 2012

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Natura Viva cc was appointed by Vidamemoria Heritage Consultants on behalf of Nadeson Consulting Services to undertake an Archaeological Impact Assessment (AIA) for the proposed extension of an existing borrow pit DR1303/16.50/R/1250 (Vidamemoria pit no. 179) between Greyton and in the Overberg District Municipality. Material excavated from the proposed pit extension will be used for the maintenance of the DR1303. No new roads will have to be constructed as access to the quarry site will be via existing roads and tracks. Special erosion measures will have to be implemented during rehabilitation of the site after quarrying activities have ceased.

This study forms part of the Heritage Impact Assessment triggered by the development. The brief for the study was a field visit and short report identifying and assessing archaeological resources and any impact on them, an assessment of significance and recommendations regarding any mitigation required.

The field assessment was conducted on foot on 17 September 2012. Archaeological visibility was good on the sparsely-vegetated steep slopes of the hill which forms the major part of the proposed extension. It was not possible to do a full survey of the densely- vegetated and disturbed western and north-western areas.

No archaeological remains were observed in the area of the proposed pit extension, nor were any flaked cobbles noted near the stream over 100m to the east of the affected area. If any graves are located close to the workers’ cottages they may already have been obscured, damaged or destroyed by previous quarrying and dumping activities. None were noted during the assessment.

The absence of archaeological remains in the affected polygon and the immediate area indicate that the proposed extension site is of low archaeological heritage significance. No significant impact on such resources is expected if the proposed extension is developed. No further archaeological studies or mitigation are recommended.

If any human remains are found during the development of the proposed pits, work in that area must cease and the South African Heritage Resources Agency (SAHRA) must be notified immediately.

2 TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY………………………………………………………...2

1. INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………………...... 4

2. LEGAL FRAMEWORK…………………………………………………...... 4

3. TERMS OF REFERENCE………………………………………………….. 5

4. STUDY APPROACH……………………………………………………...... 5 4.1 Methods…………………………………………………………………….. 5 4.2 Limiting factors……………………………………………………………. 5

5. DESCRIPTION OF AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND SITE.………… 5 5.1 Archaeological background…………………………………………….. 5 5.2 Borrow pit DR1303/16.50/R/1250 (Vidamemoria pit no. 179)...... 6

6. SIGNIFICANCE AND RECOMMENDATIONS…………………………… 8

7. REFERENCES…………………………………………………………...... 8

8. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS…………………………………………………... 9

3 1. INTRODUCTION

Natura Viva cc was appointed by Vidamemoria Heritage Consultants on behalf of Nadeson Consulting Services to undertake an Archaeological Impact Assessment (AIA) for the proposed extension of an existing borrow pit DR1303/16.50/R/1250 (Vidamemoria pit no. 179) between Greyton and Riviersonderend in the Overberg District Municipality (Figure 1). Material excavated from the proposed pit extension will be used for the maintenance of the DR1303. No new roads will have to be constructed as access to the quarry site will be via existing roads and tracks. Special erosion measures will have to be implemented during rehabilitation of the site after quarrying activities have ceased.

Greyton

Riviersonderend

Figure 1: Google earth image showing the location of the proposed extension of existing borrow pit DR1303/16.50/R/1250 (Vidamemoria pit no. 179). The relevant 1:50 000 topographical map is 3419BA Greyton.

2. LEGAL FRAMEWORK

Section 38 of the National Heritage Resources Act (Act 25 of 1999) is triggered by certain types of development, including changes of character to an area exceeding 5 000m², and makes provision for compulsory Heritage Impact Assessments to assess the potential impacts of such proposed developments on heritage resources. In terms of Section 38(1), a Notification of Intent to Develop (NID) form was submitted to Heritage Western Cape (HWC) by Vidamemoria. Following comment from HWC (case 1880-1972 ref 120726JL12E) an AIA was included amongst the requirements according to Section 38(8) of the Act.

4 3. TERMS OF REFERENCE

The terms of reference for the AIA stipulated a field visit to locate and map archaeological resources, a short report dealing with the field observations, an assessment regarding the significance of the resources (in the context of other studies in the area) and any impacts on them, as well as recommendations regarding any mitigation required.

4. STUDY APPROACH

4.1 Methods

Fieldwork was undertaken on 17 September 2012. A site plan indicating the affected area was provided by Nadeson for the Phase 1 survey. The area was covered on foot and the tracks were recorded by a Garmin GPSMAP 62s set on the WGS84 datum (Figure 2). The site was extensively photographed.

4.2 Limiting factors

The visibility of archaeological remains on the ground was problematic in the western part and along the northern edge of the polygon as winter rains had resulted in very dense growth of vegetation. Archaeological visibility was however good in the rest of the affected area.

5. DESCRIPTION OF AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND SITE

5.1 Archaeological background:

No studies in a similar context were noted on the SAHRA Archaeology, Palaeontology and Meteorite Unit Report Mapping Project DVD (2009). The closest projects recorded appear to be in the region of Riviersonderend and /Greyton. Kaplan recorded several low density occurrences of Early Stone Age (ESA) artefacts, as well as two Middle Stone Age (MSA) flakes, during his study of the proposed Jagersbos – Greyton powerline (2006). No archaeological remains were observed during a survey of a portion of the DR1298 to the west of Genadendal (Van Schalkwyk 2005). The supplementary report to a Heritage Impact Assessment done by Deacon (2006) in the Riviersonderend area revealed no archaeological remains either. As noted in his previous study, there is no background scatter of stone artefacts in this landscape.

5 5.2 Borrow pit DR1303/16.50/R/1250 (Vidamemoria pit no. 179)

Approximate area: 3600m² Location: S 34° 6'10.62" E 19°44'20.42" Farm name and number: Remainder of Soetmelksvlei 150 (Sweet Milks Valley 150)

Environment: The affected area lies on the north-facing slopes of a steep hill and lower- lying ground at the base of the hill (Figures 2, 3 and 4). The existing borrow pit marks the eastern boundary of the polygon whereas the rest of the area is bounded by a fence to the northwest and tracks along the edge of an apple orchard to the west and south (Figure 2). Several farm-workers’ cottages lie some 15m beyond the northwest boundary fence (Figures 2, 5 and 9) and a small stream is situated over 100m to the east of the affected area (Figure 9). Cleaved Bokkeveld rocks are overlain by ferruginised gravels. Grass and scattered Elytropappus sp. bushes occur on the steep slopes (Figures 3, 7 and 8), while the denser vegetation in the western part (across a drainage line) consists of weeds, taller grass and shrubs (Figures 4, 5 and 6). Heaps of previously quarried rocks, soil and rubble which line the north-western fence area are also covered by abundant plant growth (Figure 10). The north-western area is further disturbed by a small erosion gully which is mostly hidden by the vegetation which includes a few invasive black wattles (Acacia mearnsii).

Figure 2: Google earth image showing the proposed extension of the existing borrow pit 179 and the tracks of the field survey. The western side of the polygon was not surveyed due to the growth of very dense vegetation. Please note that the straight blue lines do not indicate survey tracks.

6

Figures 3 and 4: View towards the south of the existing pit in the eastern half of the affected area; view towards the densely vegetated north-western portion of the site from the slope of the existing quarry.

Figures 5 and 6: View towards the north with the densely-vegetated area on the left of the middle ground and farm-workers’ cottages on the right; detail of the luxuriant vegetation in the north-western area of the polygon, looking towards the west.

Figures 7 and 8: View towards the east of the north/northwest-facing slope in the southern part of the affected area. A heap of cobbles and blocks removed from the nearby orchard is visible in the foreground (the green ruler is about 15 cm in length); closer view towards the east of the northwest-facing slope.

7

Figures 9 and 10: View towards the farm-workers’ cottages to the north and the stream to the east of the affected site; view towards the east of the heaps of rocks and soil in the northern boundary area to left of the track.

Results of the survey: No Stone Age or historical archaeological remains were observed in the area of the proposed pit extension. A heap of cobbles and blocks cleared from the adjoining orchard (Figure 7) was examined, but no flaked material was noted. No flaked cobbles were seen near the stream to the east of the affected area (Figure 9). It was not possible to do a full survey of the densely-vegetated western and northern boundary areas, but it is unlikely that Stone Age material would occur there if not seen elsewhere. If any graves are located close to the workers’ cottages they may already have been obscured, damaged or destroyed by previous quarrying and dumping activities. None were noted during the assessment.

6. SIGNIFICANCE AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The absence of archaeological remains in the affected polygon and the immediate area indicate that the proposed extension site is of low archaeological heritage significance. No significant impact on such resources is expected if the proposed extension is developed. No further archaeological studies or mitigation are recommended.

If any human remains are found during the development of the proposed pits, work in that area must cease and the South African Heritage Resources Agency (SAHRA) must be notified immediately.

7. REFERENCES

Deacon, H.J. 2006. Proposed deviation to the Eskom Overberg Powerline Vryheid Substation to Riviersonderend Substation: Heritage Impact Assessment Report. Unpublished report prepared for SHE Cape Environmental (cc).

8 Kaplan, J.M. 2008. Phase 1 Archaeological Impact Assessment Proposed Jagersbos - Greyton 66 KV Powerline and Greyton Substation, Western Cape Province. Unpublished report prepared for Eskom Land Development. Agency for Cultural Resource Management.

SAHRA. 2009. Archaeology, Palaeontology and Meteorite Unit Report Mapping Project DVD. Version 1.0.

Van Schalkwyk, J.A. 2005. Heritage Impact Assessment: Road DR 1298 at Bereaville near Genadendal. Unpublished report prepared for Strategic Environmental Focus. National Cultural History Museum.

8. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Ms Quahnita Samie of Vidamemoria Heritage Consultants is thanked for commissioning this study and providing background information. The assistance of Hedi and Erwin Stummer in the field is gratefully acknowledged. Dr M Galimberti (SAHRA) kindly provided copies of the Deacon and Van Schalkwyk reports.

9