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

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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.)

6. 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

7. 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

8. Wits Archaeological Database

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

10. 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

11. 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.

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