01919V

A REPORT ON THE ASSESSMENT OF GRAVES INSIDE OF THE FENCE AT THE SHONGWE RESERVOIR, CLOSE TO MALELANE, MPUMALANGA PROVINCE

Summary

Archaetnos cc was requested by Environmental Consultants International to assess graves identified adjacent to the Shongwe reservoir. It is planned to build a water reservoir here as part of the Driekoppies water scheme. The graves may be part of a larger grave yard to be found outside of the fence around the current reservoir. The aim was to advise and make recommendations in this regard.

A Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) was not conducted, since the site was already known. An HIA will however be done as part of the larger project. Nevertheless, the same principles as that of an HIA was implemented. The site was visited in order to obtain contextual information. The site visit was also used to count and document the graves in order to utilize this in recommending appropriate action.

The site is located at Shongwe in Mpumalanga. This is south of Malelane and close to the Jeppe’s Reef border post with Swaziland.

The site was visited in order to obtain contextual information. This was coupled with information known about the proposed development on site, applicable legislation and the best practice of dealing with graves. It needs to be indicated that the land owner is the responsible authority to take care of this site.

There are two options when dealing with graves. Both options are discussed in the report. A risk assessment is done, in which the two options are compared to one another. In order to facilitate preservation and prevent possible future delays during the implementation of the development, appropriate mitigation measures are recommended. The development can continue once the SAHRA BGG Unit allows it.

In conclusion it is clear that that there is no easy solution. The nature of the grave site is such that it is impossible to be certain that all graves has been accounted for. Also, the nature of the disturbed soil within the fence makes it impossible to determine whether there may be more than the seven graves identified.

It would therefore be safe to rather exclude the entire site from further development. Should it be decided to relocate the graves, one should also test for graves in the area. Even if the graves are not relocated one will at least need a watching brief during construction of the new reservoir. This entails the presence of an archaeologist on site to deal with any possible human remains that may be unearthed.

In conclusion it is clear that that there is no easy solution. The nature of the grave site is such that it is impossible to be certain that all graves has been accounted for. Also, the nature of the disturbed soil within the fence makes it impossible to determine whether there may be more than the seven graves identified.

It would therefore be safe to rather exclude the entire site from further development. Should it be decided to relocate the graves, one should also test for graves in the area. Even if the graves are not relocated one will at least need a watching brief during construction of the new reservoir. This entails the presence of an archaeologist on site to deal with any possible human remains that may be unearthed.

The final recommendations therefore are as follows:

  • The three possible graves should be dealt with as actual graves until such time as proved otherwise.
  • It is recommended that the entire site (graves in and outside of the fence) rather be preserved in situ. It means that Option 1 is recommended. The site should be fenced in and a management plan be drafted for the site. The plan should give clear instruction on the handling of buffer zones, accessibility, permanent fencing and the implementation of the sustainable preservation measures indicated in the plan. Such a management plan will entail detailed information regarding the preservation of the sites.
  • The management plan should be approved by SAHRA.
  • The above is the responsibility of the developer and land owner.
  • In this case any future development in the area, should only be allowed outside of the perimeters of the grave site – this means the entire site both in and outside of the current fence.
  • Should the developer decide to rather go for Option 2 (exhumation and relocation), it may be allowed.
  • It should however be realized that SAHRA will require all graves to be relocated, including those outside of the current fence.
  • The alternative would be to obtain permission from SAHRA to only move those inside of the fence, and then to relocate them to those on the outside.
  • The risk of encountering more than only the seven indicated needs to be considered as well as the risk that those open areas on the outside of the fence may also contain human skeletal remains, thus complicating the matter. Therefore a watching brief, as explained above, will need to be implemented during construction.
  • In fact, should it be possible to continue with the development without relocation, a watching brief should still need to be implemented due to the large possibility of finding more graves.
  • The land owner may also wish to determine a more accurate site perimeter or location of individual graves. It is recommended that this be done via GPRS survey, bearing in mind the inaccuracies indicated above.

Report by:

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

Accredited member of ASAPA

Accredited member of SASCH

Report by