Foskor Merensky Power line Heritage Feedback Heritage Contracts and Archaeological Consulting CC

Study objectives and methodology The aim of the report is to conduct a desktop study to identify possible heritage resources within the project area and to assess their importance within a Local, Provincial and National context. The study furthermore aims to assess the impact of the proposed project on non - renewable heritage resources and to identify no go areas  

Methodology Literature search Archaeological database at Wits Published articles on the archaeology and history of the area Information collection The SAHRA report mapping project (Version 1.0). Consultation Google Earth and mapping survey Genealogical Society of South Africa

Legislation Grave yards and graves older than 60 years National Heritage Resources Act, 1999 (Act No. 25 of 1999). The following sites and features are protected: Archaeological artefacts, structures and sites older than 100 years Ethnographic art objects (e.g. prehistoric rock art) and ethnography Objects of decorative and visual arts Military objects, structures and sites older than 75 years Historical objects, structures and sites older than 60 years Proclaimed heritage sites Grave yards and graves older than 60 years Meteorites and fossils Objects, structures and sites or scientific or technological value. The National Estate

Legislation Landscapes and features of cultural significance The national estate includes the following: Places, buildings, structures and equipment of cultural significance Places to which oral traditions are attached or which are associated with living heritage Historical settlements and townscapes Landscapes and features of cultural significance Geological sites of scientific or cultural importance Archaeological and palaeontological importance Graves and burial grounds Sites of significance relating to the history of slavery Movable objects (e.g. archaeological, palaeontological, meteorites, geological specimens, military, ethnographic, books etc.)

Previous work Consultant Date Portion of: Birkholtz 2005 Route 3 Coetzee 2008 Route 2 Fourie Route 4 Gaigher 2007 Huffman & Calabrese 1997 Murimbika 2006 Route 4 and Route 2 Pistorius Route 1 2003 Pelser & van Vollenhoven Roodt 2002 van Schalkwyk 2000 2001

Genealogical Society No grave sites are indicated within the study area although one grave site is located on the farm Doornbosch 294. This site is located approximately 750m from Route 1 and consists of at least three graves

Wits Archaeological Database

Archaeological Background Stone Age - MSA Iron Age – EIA Historic Timeframe – Fortifications (Fort Burger) – Railway lines – Old ox wagon roads

Results Route 1: 9 Sites – Historical and EIA Route 2: 3 Sites – Historical/recent Route 3: 8 Sites – Historical and recent Route 4: 7 Sites – Informal settlements and Historic

Conclusions Route option 3 is the least preferred option from a heritage point of view. From the other alternatives route 4 is the preferred option while route 1 and 2 is satisfactory. Route 2 would be the better option of the two. In order of preference from best to worst it would be Route 4, Route 2, Route 1 and then Route 3.

Plan of study Archaeological – Mitigation Historical Sites and Cultural landscape – Preservation? (Option 3) Burials and cemeteries – Preservation Walk down of final route