01930V

A REPORT ON AN ADDITIONAL CULTURAL HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT ON THE FARM KETTING 368 LR AND THE FARM DISSELDORP 369 LR, DONE FOR THE PLATINUM GROUP METALS WATERBERG PROSPECTING AREA, LIMPOPO PROVINCE

Summary

Archaetnos cc was requested by the Platinum Group Metals (RSA) Pty) Ltd to conduct an additional cultural heritage impact assessment (HIA) for the proposed Waterberg Mining development (“the Project”). The survey was only done on the farm Ketting 368 LR and Disseldorp 369 LR since it seems some of the other farms in the vicinity were not available for certain infrastructure development any more. The Project lies to the west of the town of Bochum in the Limpopo Province.

The field survey for the project was conducted according to generally accepted HIA practices and was aimed at locating possible objects, sites and features of cultural significance in the area of proposed development.  One regularly looks a bit wider than the demarcated area, as the surrounding context needs to be taken into consideration.  However, since the area is extremely large the study is merely an indication of what cultural resources can be expected in the area.

Twenty-five sites of cultural importance were identified in the study area, with another five being identified by the client, making the total number of sites on the farms Ketting and Disseldorp thirty. Some of these sites will be impacted on and therefore mitigation measures are proposed. The study is however contextualized with the site identified on other farms, since some of these are still being impacted on. Thus the HIA done in 2018 for these will be referred to and needs to be read in conjunction with this report. The total number of known sites thus are 46.

Regarding impact on the sites the following should be indicated:

  • Impact is foreseen on the following sites:
  • Grave sites –

Ketting – 2, 6, 8-9 and 19-21

  • Historical remains –

Ketting – 5, 7, 17 and 30

  • Iron Age –

Ketting – 3

  • No (or secondary) impact is foreseen on the following sites:
  • Grave sites –

Ketting – 1, 13-16, 18 and 22

Disseldorp – 24, 26-29

Goedetrouw – 25-26

Early Dawn – 14-22

Old Langsine – 12-13

Norma – 27

  • Historical remains –

Ketting – 4, 10-12, 23 and 25

Disseldorp – 23 and 25

Early Dawn – 23

  • Iron Age –

Early Dawn – 24

The following is recommended:

 

  • The project may continue, but only after receiving the necessary comments from SAHRA as well as the implementation of the mitigation measures indicated below.
  • All the graves are regarded as being of a high cultural significance. There are two possibilities of handling these. It should be handled as follows:
  • Option 1 would be to fence the graves in and have a management plan drafted for the sustainable preservation thereof (“Option 1”). This should be written by a heritage expert. Option 1 is implemented when indirect or secondary impact is foreseen. This Option needs to be implemented with all grave sites that will remains on the premises.

The mine should however ensure that this situation remains unchanged. Therefore Option 1 should be implemented which would provide at least a monitoring plan for as long as the mine is operational in the area. Such a plan should be drafted by a heritage expert

  • Option 2 is implemented when a direct impact is foreseen. Should any danger be posed to the graves, Option 2 will have to be taken. This option is to exhume the mortal remains and then to have it relocated (“Option 2”). For this a detailed motivation will have to be written and applied for to SAHRA. If approved, the specific procedure should be followed which includes social consultation.  For graves younger than 60 years, only an undertaker is needed.  For those older than 60 years and unknown graves an undertaker and archaeologist is needed.  Permits should be obtained from the Burial Grounds and Graves unit of SAHRA. This procedure is quite lengthy and involves social consultation.

This would be for the following sites, all on Ketting: 2, 6, 8-9 and 19-21. However, if possible the layout should rather be changed so that no direct impact is foreseen.

.

  • Most of the historical residential remains are regarded as having low significance. Most of these will not be impacted on. Although this report is seen as ample mitigation and it may be demolished, it should rather be left as it is. Sites are to be included in the provincial heritage register and thus this report needs to be submitted to this institution.
  • However, some are being impacted on and has medium cultural significance, namely sites on Ketting, no. 5, 7, 17 and 30. These sites should also be included in the heritage register and thus the report is to be submitted to this institution. The sites may be mitigated. Mitigation is subject to a permit application lodged with the relevant heritage authority and would consist of mapping and documenting these sites prior to demolition.
  • The two Iron Age Sites (Site 24 on Early Dawn and site 3 on Ketting) have been sufficiently recorded. It may be demolished if in the way of the development as is the case with site no. 3.
  • Buffer zones around any of these sites should be at least 20 m. Depending on individual circumstances, e.g. blasting and dust pollution, such a buffer may have to be increased. This can only be determined once more information is available about the development.

In comparison with the two alternatives on the farm Goedetrouw (Van Vollenhoven 2018), the following can be stated:

  • For development Alternative 1 at Goedetrouw, no direct impact is expected at the following sites – no. 4 (graves) and 10 (historical remains). Definite indirect impact is expected on the following sites – 1-2, 6-9 and 11 (graves), as well as no. 3 (Iron Age) and no. 5 (historical remains).
  • For development Alternative 2 at Goedetrouw, no direct impact is expected at the following sites: no. 4 (graves) and 10 (historical remains). Definite indirect impact is expected on the following sites – 1-2, 6-8 and 11 (graves), as well as no. 3 (Iron Age) and no. 5 (historical remains). Definite direct impact is foreseen at sites 9 (graves).
  • For the Ketting Alternative, no direct impact is foreseen at the following sites – no. 1. 13-16, 18, 22, 24 and 26-29 (graves) and 4, 10-12, 23 and 25 (historical remains). Definite impact is foreseen at the following sites – no. 2, 6, 8-9 and 19-21 (graves), 5, 7, 17 and 30 (historical remains) and 3 (Iron Age).
  • It is specifically recommended that development Alternative 1 at Goedetrouw be chosen, since its impact on heritage sites is less direct and easier to mitigate. The second-best option from heritage perspective would be Alternative 2 at Goedetrouw, with the Ketting alternative being the last one.

Should Alternative 1 at Goedetrouw be chosen:

  • For the graves on the farms Old Langsine (sites 12 and 13), Early Dawn (sites 14-22), Goedetrouw (sites 25-26) and Norma (site 27) no action is needed. The graves are mostly fenced in and well looked after. The mine should however ensure that this situation remains unchanged. Therefore Option 1 should be implemented which would provide at least a monitoring plan for as long as the mine is operational in the area. Such a plan should be drafted by a heritage expert.
  • Option 1 should also be implemented for the following grave sites on the farm Ketting – 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 9 and 11. These will be impacted on indirectly. This means that dust from mining activities or other impacts (e.g. blasting) may impact on the sites and therefore a management plan is required. The plan should be drafted by a heritage expert.
  • All the historical residential remains (Early Dawn site 23; Ketting sites 4*, 5, 10 and 11*) are regarded as having low significance. This report is seen as ample mitigation and it may be demolished. However only secondary impact is expected, and it may therefore just be left as it is.

*Note that sites 4 and 11 are repeated as it contains both graves and historical remains.

  • Site no. 7 on Ketting (historical stone walling) is regarded as having medium cultural significance. It should be documented after which it may be demolished. However, since only secondary impact is expected, it may be left as it is.
  • The two Iron Age Sites (Site 24 on Early Dawn and site 3 on Ketting) have been sufficiently recorded. It may be demolished, but only secondary impact is foreseen, and it may therefore also just be left as it is.
  • The impact of the Project on any new historical and grave sites identified during the course of the mines activities, should be assessed by a heritage specialist to determine impact and propose the needed mitigatory measures.
  • Should the TSF be moved to Norma, the area will need to be physically surveyed, since it was only dealt with as a desktop study for this report.

Should Alternative 2 at Goedetrouw be chosen:

  • For the graves on the farms Old Langsine (sites 12 and 13), Early Dawn (sites 14-15, 17-22), Goedetrouw (sites 25-26) and Norma (site 27) no action is needed. The graves are mostly fenced in and well looked after. The mine should however ensure that this situation remains unchanged. Therefore Option 1 should be implemented which would provide at least a monitoring plan for as long as the mine is operational in the area. Such a plan should be drafted by a heritage expert.
  • Option 1 should also be implemented for the following grave sites on the farm Ketting – 1, 2, 4, 6, 8 and 11. These will be impacted on indirectly. This means that dust from mining activities or other impacts (e.g. blasting) may impact on the sites and therefore a management plan is required. The plan should be drafted by a heritage expert.
  • Option 2 should be implemented for grave sites 9 and 16 on Ketting and Early Dawn respectively.
  • All the historical residential remains (Early Dawn site 23; Ketting sites 4*, 5, 10 and 11*) are regarded as having low significance. This report is seen as ample mitigation and it may be demolished. However only secondary impact is expected, and it may therefore just be left as it is.
  • *Note that sites 4 and 11 are repeated as it contains both graves and historical remains.
  • Site no. 7 on Ketting (historical stone walling) is regarded as having medium cultural significance. It should be documented after which it may be demolished. However, since only secondary impact is expected, it may be left as it is.
  • The two Iron Age Sites (Site 24 on Early Dawn and site 3 on Ketting) have been sufficiently recorded. It may be demolished, but only secondary impact is foreseen, and it may therefore also just be left as it is.
  • The impact of the Project on any new historical and grave sites identified during the course of the mines activities, should be assessed by a heritage specialist to determine impact and propose the needed mitigatory measures.
  • Should the TSF be moved to Norma, the area will need to be physically surveyed, since it was only dealt with as a desktop study for this report.

Should the Ketting alternative be chosen:

  • For the grave sites on Ketting (no. 2, 6, 8-9 and 19-21) Option 2 will need to be implemented, unless it is possible to change the layout so that no direct impact is foreseen.

.

  • Historical remains being impacted on, namely sites no. 5, 7, 17 and 30 should be mapped and documented before it may be demolished, but only after receiving the necessary permits from SAHRA.
  • The two Iron Age Sites (Site 24 on Early Dawn and site 3 on Ketting) have been sufficiently recorded. It may be demolished if in the way of the development as is the case with site no. 3.
  • All other sites are not being impacted on, but for grave sites (no. 1, 13-16, 18 and 22) it means that Option 1 should be implemented.
  • It should always be noted that the subterranean presence of archaeological and/or historical sites, features or artefacts is always a distinct possibility. In this instance it is possible that some grave sites are also not known yet. 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. The impact of the Project on any new historical and grave sites identified during the course of the mines activities, should be assessed by a heritage specialist to determine impact and propose the needed mitigatory measures.
  • In this regard the following ‘Chance find Procedure’, also allowing for the handling of Human Remains, should be followed:
  • Upon finding any archaeological or historical material (including graves and skeletal material) all work at the affected area must cease.

o  The area should be demarcated to prevent any further work there until an investigation has been completed.

o  An archaeologist should be contacted immediately to provide advice on the matter.

  • The archaeologist will decide on future action. Depending on the nature of the find, it may include a site visit.
  • SAHRA’s BGG Unit should be notified in the case of human remains.

o  If needed, the necessary permit will be applied for with SAHRA. This will be done in conjunction with the appointed archaeologist.

o  The appropriate action will be determined by the nature of the find and the possibilities given the restriction placed upon it by mining activities. This may therefore include exhumation and relocation or that this management plan be adapted to include such finds.

o  The possible removal of such skeletal remains will be done by the archaeologist in lieu of the approval given by SAHRA, including any conditions stipulated by the latter.

o  Work on site will only continue after the archaeologist/ SAHRA has agreed to such a matter.

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

Accredited member of SASCH

Report by