Cmc Heritage Resources Sensitivity Study
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
IDENTIFICATION AND MAPPING OF ENVIRONMENTALLY SIGNIFICANT AREAS IN THE CAPE METROPOLITAN AREA (CMA) HERITAGE COMPONENT Prepared for Cape Metropolitan Council Project No: J90136a June 1999 Prepared by Tim Hart & Belinda Mutti Archaeology Contracts Office Department of Archaeology University of Cape Town Private Bag Rondebosch 7701 Phone (021) 650 2357 Fax (021) 650 2352 Email [email protected] CMC HERITAGE RESOURCES SENSITIVITY STUDY ACCOMPANYING STATEMENT This statement accompanies the set of maps and spreadsheets produced by the Archaeology Contracts Office for Gibb Africa and The Cape Metropolitan Council. It is designed to place the work in context so users of the final product will understand how the information was collected and the implications thereof. 1. Team members We are a team of professional archaeologists who have extensive local knowledge of heritage issues and sites. We have collected the information contained in the spreadsheets and maps. Thus the areas, sites and priorities that have been identified in the study reflect our background and values. Perceptions of what is an important heritage object or site range from places valued by members of a small community, to broadly recognised places of historical or community distinction. This study cannot cover the entire range of possibilities, however we have attempted to identify areas that are known and significant to a range of people who work regularly in the heritage field. This includes historic landscapes, buildings, graveyards (disused), shipwrecks, colonial and pre-colonial archaeological sites. 2. Parameters The new heritage legislation (the South African Heritage Resources Act of 1999) has been the guidline to which we have referred with respect to identification of areas and definition of sensitivity. We have tried to focus on delineation of areas as opposed to single sites. Many parts of the CMA remain unknown and unstudied. This in part, reflects prior research priorities, and especially with respect to buildings, concentration by researchers on the known early loci of colonial settlement. Vast areas of the Cape Flats remain unstudied as much of this area was only settled during the last 50 years and fall outside the bounds of existing legislation. Furthermore, until a few ago, the apartheid view of what constituted heritage excluded places of importance to most citizens of the country. 3. The built environment Todeschini & Japha & Pistorius have completed a systematic survey of historic structures (as protected by legislation) within the CMA. This has already been digitised and is in the hands of the CMA. Although we have delineated areas where building conservation studies have been done and sensitive areas identified, we have not replicated their work and this should be incorporated by the CMA as an HR overlay. 4. Robben Island Robben Island is not indicated on the maps but is within the CMA. Robben Island together with the ocean within one nautical mile of its shores is a national monument and should be delineated as sensitive. Belinda Mütti Tim Hart October 1999 2 HERITAGE RESOURCES ASSESSMENT Introduction A workshop was held in the Department of Archaeology at the University of Cape Town (28th May 1999) to discuss sensitivity rating of heritage resources as required by the Terms of Reference for the CMA study. The meeting was attended by Ms P. Pistorius (Town Planner) Dr G. Avery (Archaeologist) Dr A. Malan (Archaeologist) Mr T. Hart (Task leader) Ms B. Mütti (ACO staff archaeologist) Prof J.E. Parkington (Archaeologist) Dr N. Shepherd (Archaeologist) Ms E. Sealy (post-graduate student) Mr G. Orlofse (for client) Mr B. Ridgard (for Gibb) Mr C. Dalgliesh (for Gibb) Mr Tim Hart introduced the project framework and the proposed methodology for the assessment of heritage resources. This was followed by a discussion of the both the method and issues involved in the assessment of sensitivity and significance. At the termination of the meeting reasonable consensus was arrived at concerning both methodology and criteria for rating significance. Method The study will focus on heritage resources of a material nature as covered by the new Heritage Resources Bill (of 1999) which is yet to be implemented. The project will revolve around the identification and mapping of areas of heritage knowledge, which are significant as well as unknown areas. The types of knowledge involved will include historic and prehistoric surface archaeology, historic landscapes and conservation areas for which studies exist in the form of written documents (both published and unpublished). The emphasis will be on the mapping of areas rather than individual sites. Sensitivity criteria It must be acknowledged from the outset that assigning of sensitivity or importance to any given area is subjective and based very much on the experience and disciplinary background of any person attempting to do this. The ratings must be considered to be broad and will not be able take into the consideration the place related values of specific persons or communities other than those reflected in the current research trends of persons working within the heritage field. There are presently two methods of assessment in place used by professionals. One of these is a rating system used for built structures initiated by the institute of architects (reflected in the document). The other is the system and criteria for rating heritage objects as published in the National Heritage Resources Act (1999). Archaeologists in South Africa have not used any uniform system of assessment for grading historical and pre-colonial sites. However, the ACO (ourselves) have a checklist of criteria that we use as guide when we are required to do 3 this. The checklist was amended with input from the specialists and reproduced in this document. It is proposed that the identified areas will be assessed in terms of the spirit of the checklist and then rated on a 1-4 grading system which includes those grades that will be put in place by the new legislation. Areas that fall within grades 1-3 will be mapped as significant while grade 4 areas will be considered insignificant and not mapped. This will essentially result in the ratings and criteria that are in keeping with the requirements of the Heritage Resources Act (1999). The resulting map will indicate significant areas, unknown areas. "Gaps" on the map will by default, indicate insignificant or insensitive areas. As with the other specialist studies, the maps will be accompanied by a short report explaining the rationale and acknowledging shortcomings and restrictions. A comprehensive spreadsheet will detail the features, sources of knowledge and confidence ratings of the mapped areas. 4 HERITAGE RESOURCES IN THE CMA Prehistoric 3ma BP - 1790 AD Early Stone Age scatters/middens Middle Stone Age scatters/middens Late Stone Age scatters/middens Historical 17-18th century Postal stones Mariners/fishermen’s camps Prison camps Whaling camps Foundations of DEIC period structures and refuse dumps/middens associated with them. Structures of the DEIC period Lime industry Military structures Quarries Wells Shipwrecks Unmarked and marked burials Historic landscapes Streetscapes Battlefields 19th 20th century Jetties and landing sites Standing buildings (grades 1-3) Industrial structures Military structures and facilities Associated middens Burial grounds (marked) Burial grounds (unmarked) Tramlines Streetscapes Reservoirs, below surface conduits, plumbing Historic landscapes Battlefields Quarries Shipwrecks 5 HERITAGE GRADING SYSTEMS 1. BUILDING GRADING SYSTEM USED BY URBAN CONSERVATION UNIT AND NMC This is based on the Metropolitan Council's Urban Conservation Unit's current system (CCC 1992). This is an adaptation of the CIA Catalogue method, itself updated in May 1992 and added in the following table in brackets Source: A0731.CW Grade 1 • Proclaimed National Monument • Buildings or other elements of great architectural, aesthetic, (national or local) historical or social significance (importance or association) • Buildings (or landmarks) which are rare or outstanding examples of their period Grade 2 • Buildings or other elements of some architectural, aesthetic, historical or social significance • Buildings or other elements which are landmarks for historical or aesthetic reasons • Buildings which are good examples of their period • (Buildings or landmarks which by their presence contribute something special to a fine setting or lend special character to an area) • (Buildings or other elements which contribute to or enhance the quality of a square, street or other space of significance onto which they abut) • (Buildings of pre-1914 which are substantially unaltered, or which have additions of architectural significance) Grade 3 • Buildings of lesser architectural or aesthetic merit • Buildings or other elements of minor historical or social significance • Buildings or other elements which (form a grouping of architectural merit or which) contribute to the character of an area. 6 HERITAGE OBJECTS GRADING SYSTEM (as proclaimed in the National Heritage Resources Act of 1999) 7. (1) SAHA, in consultation with the minister and the MEC of every province, must by regulation establish a system of grading of places and objects which form part of the national estate, and which distinguishes between at least the categories - (a) Grade I: Heritage resources with qualities so exceptional that they are of special national significance; (b) Grade II: Heritage resources which, although forming