01908V

A REPORT ON AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOR A PROPOSED NEW OPENCAST MINING AREA AT THE ROYAL SHEBA MINE CLOSE TO BARBERTON, MPUMALANGA PROVINCE

Purpose:

Archaetnos cc was requested by Cabanga Environmental to conduct an archaeological impact assessment (AIA) for a proposed new opencast mining area at the Royal Sheba Project. This forms part of the Barberton Mines (Pty) Ltd Royal Sheba operations. This is close to Barberton in the Mpumalanga Province.

Project description:

The development entails new opencast mining within an existing mining right area, including a proposed new Royal Sheba Processing plant, a tailings dam and ancillary infrastructure (some offices, small workshop etc.).

Methodology:

The methodology for the study includes a survey of literature and a field survey. The latter was conducted according to generally accepted HIA practices and was aimed at locating all possible objects, sites and features of cultural significance in the area of proposed development.

If required, the location/position of any site was determined by means of a Global Positioning System (GPS), while photographs were also taken where needed.  The survey was undertaken by doing a physical survey via off-road vehicle and on foot and covered as much as possible of the area to be studied. Certain factors, such as accessibility, density of vegetation, etc. may however influence the coverage.

All sites, objects, features and structures identified were documented according to the general minimum standards accepted by the archaeological profession. Co-ordinates of individual localities were determined by means of the Global Positioning System (GPS). The information was added to the description in order to facilitate the identification of each locality.

Public consultation:

General public consultation will be done by Cabanga. The various specialist reports will be utilized for this purpose.

Findings:

Fifteen sites of cultural heritage significance were located during the survey of which 11 are in the surveyed area.

It needs to be mentioned that the Sheba area is an extremely complex area with numerous potential heritage sites, features and structures. It can indeed be stated that it is one of the most historically significant areas related to industrial heritage. As such it is impossible to give an accurate assessment of sites, structures and features identified, without taking the broader historical context into account.

However, apart from the four sites identified outside of the project area, there are definitely more, and these are not all managed by the same company. This further complicates the matter as one would ideally want to assess the identified sites in comparison with other in the area in order to determine which of these would indeed be worthy of being preserved. One should however also realise that the client can only take responsibility for those heritage assets within their mining boundary.

Thus, it should be remembered that recommendations made, will always be subject to the above-mentioned factors.

The following is recommended:

In light of the above mentioned it is necessary to do historical research on the Sheba Mine and surroundings. It is therefore recommended that such a study be implemented to identify old maps, photographs and other documentation which may shed light on the different sites. This can then be utilised to re-assess the sites within the context of the history of the area as well as that of more accurate knowledge on individual sites.

The above study may influence the below assessment of sites identified during the survey. Regarding the individual sites identified:

Site 1 – old stamp mill at Royal Sheba west: the site is of high heritage importance and should be included in the heritage register. It may not be mitigated, should be maintained in situ with a protected buffer zone and a CMP must be drafted. The latter is to be written by a heritage specialist and should be approved by SAHRA. Since the site lies within the proposed pit area, it means the project should be adapted to ensure the preservation of this site.

Site no. 4 – the old Royal Sheba plant: Although the site has medium significance, it is at the upper scale thereof. It should be included in the heritage register and may be mitigated. Mitigation is subject to a permit application lodged with the relevant heritage Again, the site falls outside of the area of impact.Thus, it should merely be left in situ. However, should it be directly impacted on by any change in the mine plan, it may be demolished. In such a case it also should be documented first during a Phase II heritage study.

However, if the site also includes the remains of an old stamp mill it will increase the heritage significance thereof. One could then consider to rather preserve this site and in such a case site 1 may be demolished, but only after it had been documented by a Phase II heritage survey. A CMP would then be needed for site no. 4.

Site 2 – old stope and stone bridge: The site has a medium-high significance. It should be included in the heritage register and may be mitigated. Mitigation is subject to a permit application lodged with the relevant heritage The site also falls within the pit area, but in this case it means that it may be demolished. It should however be documented first during a Phase II heritage study.

 

Site no. 3 – circle of stones and other indications of disturbance at Charlestown: The site has a medium-high significance. It should be included in the heritage register and may be mitigated. Mitigation is subject to a permit application lodged with the relevant heritage The site however falls outside of the area to be impacted on. Thus, it should merely be left in situ. However, should it be directly impacted on by any change in the mine plan, it may be demolished. It such a case it also should be documented first during a Phase II heritage study.

 

·         Site no. 5 – grave yard: The site is of high significance but may be mitigated. It also should be included in the heritage register. Mitigation is subject to a permit application lodged with the relevant heritage authority.

Two possibilities exist. The first option would be to fence the graves in and have a management plan drafted for the sustainable preservation thereof. The second option is to exhume and relocate the mortal remains.

Since the site is not impacted on directly by the proposed development, Option 1 is recommended.

·        Site no. 6 – Possible Residential remains: Although the site has a low significance it needs to be realized that most of the sites in the area are probably contextually linked. This may increase the significance of the site. For now however, the description in this Phase I heritage report is sufficient recording and it may be granted destruction at the discretion of the relevant heritage authority without a formal permit application, subjected to the granting of Environmental Authorisation.

Site no. 7 – Cement floor with low concrete pillars: As with the above site, this one also has a low significance it needs to be realized that most of the sites in the area are probably contextually linked. This may increase the significance of the site. For now however, the description in this Phase I heritage report is sufficient recording and it may be granted destruction at the discretion of the relevant heritage authority without a formal permit application, subjected to the granting of Environmental Authorisation. However, should graves be identified it should be handled similar to other grave sites mentioned in this report.

It is outside of the area of direct impact and may therefore just be left in situ.

 

Site no. 8 – stone circle: The site has a medium-high significance. It should be included in the heritage register and may be mitigated. Mitigation is subject to a permit application lodged with the relevant heritage authority. The site will be impacted on by the proposed development. In this case mitigation will consist of a Phase II heritage study, which would include the excavation and documentation of the structure.

·        Site no. 9 – semi-circular platform: The site has high significance and although it may be mitigated it is at the upper scale of the significance rating. It should be included in the heritage register. The site will be impacted on by the development and mitigation is therefore subject to a permit application lodged with the relevant heritage authority. It will consist of the documentation and excavation of the site during a Phase II heritage study.

·         Site no. 10 – old stone bridge: The site has a high significance and should be included in the heritage register. It may not be mitigated, should be maintained in situ with a protected buffer zone and a CMP must be written by a heritage practitioner. The site will be impacted on by the establishment of new roads and thus these will have to be diverted to not impact on the bridge. However, it may be possible to utilise the bridge as part of the road. This may be considered, but a CMP will still need to be drafted.

·         Site no. 11 – ruin of winder house and old mine shaft and tunnels: As a collective, the site is of high significance. However, the winder house and shaft are of less importance. The site should be included in the heritage register. The winder house and shaft may be mitigated, but the old tunnels not.

The site will be impacted on by the development and mitigation for the winder house and shaft is therefore subject to a permit application lodged with the relevant heritage authority. It will consist of the documentation of the site during a Phase II heritage study.

Regarding the tunnels it should be indicated that there may be other similar ones in the area. If that is the case, one could take the option to rather preserve those outside of the development footprint and then these may be demolished. The preservation of this or an alternative site will be subject to the drafting of a CMP.

·         Site no. 12 – ruin of industrial building: The site has medium significance. It should be included in the heritage register and may be mitigated. Mitigation is subject to a permit application lodged with the relevant heritage authority and will consist of the documentation of the site.

However, the site will not be impacted on and it may therefore just be left in situ.

·         Site no. 13 – Current offices of Sheba Mine: The site is of very high cultural significance. It should be nominated to be declared a Provincial Heritage site (Grade II). Usually this would mean that the site should be managed as part of the provincial estate, should be maintained in situ with a protected buffer zone and a CMP must be drafted.

Although the offices and associated infrastructure was not included in the scope of this study, it needs to be emphasized that within the context of the history of the area it needs to be included in the heritage assessment. However, it also needs to be realised that this is an active mining operation and that the office complex forms an integral part thereof. Thus, it is recommended that a CMP be drafted, but that it be done with consideration of the operational needs of the mine to remain economically viable.

·         Site no. 14 – Bonanza Mine: Again this is outside of the project area and is operated by another company. Thus the Barberton Mines: Sheba Mine cannot take responsibility for this site. It does however include buildings and other structures dating to as far back as the late 19th century and therefore a similar approach as with site no. 13 should be considered by the relevant management authority.

·         Site no. 15 – Sheba cemetery: Again this is outside of the project area. The site however has a very high significance and should be managed as part of the provincial estate, should be nominated as Grade II site, should be maintained in situ with a protected buffer zone and a CMP must be drafted.

However, this is outside of the mining right of the Royal Sheba operations, and thus not their responsibility. The land owner should be responsible.

It should be noted that the subterranean presence of archaeological and/or historical sites, features or artifacts is always a distinct possibility. It may only become known later on, especially since the density of the vegetation probably influenced the accurate recording of sites. Therefore, operating controls and monitoring should be introduced, aimed at the possible unearthing of such features. Care should therefore be taken when development commences that if any of these are discovered, a qualified archaeologist be called in to investigate the occurrence.

It is also important to take cognizance that it is the client’s responsibility to do the submission of this report via the SAHRIS System on the SAHRA website. No work on site may commence before receiving the necessary comments from SAHRA.

Report by:

Prof. A.C. van Vollenhoven (L.AKAD.SA.)

Accredited member of ASAPA (Accreditation number: 166)

Accredited member of SASCH (Accreditation number: CH001)

Report by