A Phase 1 Heritage Impact Assessment for the Transnet Engineering’s proposed

Koedoespoort Landfill Site in Silverton, Pretoria East Gauteng Province.

MSEI

MBVISENI SUSTAINABLE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT INITIATIVE [MSEI]

May 25, 2015

Authored by: Foreman Bandama Ph.D. (UCT) Professional Archaeologist and Heritage

Management Specialist (ASAPA member)

1 | P a g e

1. Document Synopsis (Executive Summary)

Item Description

Proposed development

and location

The development of a landfill site on Portion 201 of the Farm

Hartebeestpoort 328 in the Koedoespoort area of Silverton, Pretoria

East.

Purpose of the study Phase 1 Archaeological Impact Assessment to determine the presence

of cultural heritage sites and the impact of the proposed project on

these resources within the area demarcated for the proposed landfill

site development.

1:50 000 Topographic

Map

2528 CA

Coordinates South 25 43 ꞌ 34.94; East 28 17 ꞌ 15.64ꞌ

Municipalities Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality.

Predominant land use

of surrounding area

Vacant, industrial, residential, road and transport

Developer Transnet Engineering (TE)

Heritage Consultant Mbviseni Sustainable Environmental Management Initiative (MSEI)

Date of Report Final report 25 May 2015

Contact person Foreman Bandama (fbandama@yahoo.co.uk)

This document serves to inform and guide the developer (Transnet Engineering) and its

contractors about the possible impacts that the development (the proposed Koedoespoort Landfill

Site) may have on heritage resources (if any) located in the study area. In the same light, the

document must also inform South African heritage authorities about the presence, absence and

significance of heritage resources located in the study area. As required by South African

heritage legislation, developments such as this require pre-development assessment by a

competent heritage practitioner in order to identify record and if necessary salvage the

irreplaceable heritage resources that may be impacted upon by the development. In compliance

with these laws Mawenje Consulting Africa (Pty) Ltd (MCA) contracted Mbviseni Sustainable

Environmental Initiative (MSEI) to carry out a Phase 1 Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) of the

2 | P a g e

proposed landfill area located on the highly industrialized zone in the Koedoespoort area of

Silverton, Pretoria East. Desktop studies, drive-throughs and limited fieldwalking were

conducted in order to identity heritage landmarks on and around the proposed development area.

The study area is not on pristine ground, having seen significant transformations owing to

industrial developments and illegal dumping. Although the area is known for historical and LIA

occurrences, no archaeological resources were identifiable on the surface, even though this may

be due to the tall grass that inhibits ground surface visibility. In terms of the built environment of

the area, isolated structures of unknown age (but possibly not older than 60 years) occur in the

surrounding areas. Should the development encroach into these areas, a trained heritage

practitioner should be appointed to study them before they are destroyed because if they are

older than 60 years, then they would be protected under the NHRA and a demolition permit will

be required for these structures. However, in terms of the archaeology of the area under study, no

mitigation will be required prior to construction. Nonetheless, sub-surface archaeological

material and unmarked graves may still exist and when encountered during construction, work

must be stopped forth-with and the finds must be reported to the South African Heritage

Resource Agency (SAHRA) or the heritage practitioner. This report must also be submitted to

the SAHRA or the relevant PHRA for review.

3 | P a g e

Table of contents

1. Document Synopsis (Executive Summary)…………………………………………………………………………2

2 Abbreviations………………………………………………………………………………………………………...5

3 Key concepts and terms……………………………………………………………………………………………...6

3.1 Periodisation…………..……………………………………………………………………………………………6

3.2 Definitions………………………………………………………………………………………………………….6

3.3 Assumptions and disclaimer. ……………………………………………………………………………………...8

4 Terms of Reference (ToR)………………. ………………………………………………………………………….8

5 Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………………………………..8

6 Project descriptions…………………………………………………………………………………………………10

7 Legislative context……………………….…………………………………………………………………………11

8 Methodology………………………………………………………………………………………………………..14

9 Results: The archaeology of the proposed development area………………………………………………………14

9.1 Stone Age Archaeology…………………………………………………………………………………………..21

9.2 Iron Age Archaeology ……………………………………………………………………………………………21

9.3 Historical (~ AD 1840 to 1950) Archaeology……………………………………………………………………22

9.4 Intangible Heritage……………………………………………………………………………………………….25

9.5 Summary of findings……………………………………………………………………………………………..25

10 Chance finds procedures………………………………………………………………………………………….26

11 Conclusions……………………………………………………………………………………………………….26

12 References………………………………………………………………………………………………………...26

List of figures

Figure 1 Showing the location of the study area……………………………………………………………………..10

Figure 2A&B Showing the study area and some of the industrial activities in the background……………………..15

Figure 2C&D Showing more of the industrial activities in the vicinity of the proposed development area…………16

Figure 2E&F Showing study area and one of the nearby dilapidated structures……………………………………..17

Figure 2G&H Showing some of the characteristic developments in the vicinity of the study area………………….18

Figure 2I&J Showing some of the industrial activities in the development footprint………………………………..19

Figure 2K&L Showing functional and non-functional railway lines in the vicinity of the study area……………….20

Figure 3 Showing a reconstruction of a wagon shelter type called Waenhause…………………………………...…23

Figure 4 Showing the distribution of silver mines in the Pretoria region between 1856 and 1999…………………..24

4 | P a g e

2. Abbreviations

AIA Archaeological Impact Assessment

ASAPA Association of South African Professional Archaeologists

EIA Environmental Impact Assessment

EIA Early Iron Age (EIA refers to both Environmental Impact Assessment and the

Early Iron Age but in both cases the acronym is internationally accepted. This

means that it must be read and interpreted within the context in which it is used.)

EIAR Environmental Impact Assessment Report

ESA Early Stone Age

GPS Global Positioning System

HIA Heritage Impact Assessment

ICOMOS International Council of Monuments and Sites

LIA Late Iron Age

LFC Late Farming Community

LSA Late Stone Age

MCA Mawenje Consulting Africa (Pty) Ltd

MIA Middle Iron Age

MSA Middle Stone Age

MSEI Mbviseni Sustainable Environmental Initiative

NEMA National Environmental Management Act 107 of 1998

NHRA National Heritage Resources Act 25 of 1999

PHRA Provincial Heritage Resource Agency

5 | P a g e

SAHRA South African Heritage Resources Agency

TE Transnet Engineering

ToR Terms of Reference

6 | P a g e

3. Key concepts and terms

3.1 Periodization Archaeologists divide the different cultural epochs according to the

dominant material finds for the different time periods. This periodization is usually region-

specific, such that the same label can have different dates for different areas. This makes it

important to clarify and declare the periodization of the area one is studying. These periods are

nothing a little more than convenient time brackets because their terminal and commencement

are not absolute and there are several instances of overlap. In the present study, relevant

archaeological periods are given below;

Early Stone Age (~ 2.6 million to 250 000 years ago)

Middle Stone Age (~ 250 000 to 40-25 000 years ago)

Later Stone Age (~ 40-25 000, to recently, 100 years ago)

Early Iron Age (~ AD 200 to 1000)

Late Iron Age (~ AD1100-1840)

Historic (~ AD 1840 to 1950, but a Historic building is classified as over 60 years old)

3.2 Definitions Just like periodization, it is also critical to define key terms employed in

this study. Most of these terms derive from South African heritage legislation and its ancillary

laws, as well as international regulations and norms of best-practice. The following aspects have

a direct bearing on the investigation and the resulting report:

Cultural (heritage) resources are all non-physical and physical human-made occurrences, and

natural features that are associated with human activity. These can be singular or in groups and

include significant sites, structures, features, ecofacts and artefacts of importance associated with

the history, architecture or archaeology of human development.

Cultural significance is determined by means of aesthetic, historic, scientific, social or spiritual

values for past, present or future generations.

7 | P a g e

Value is related to concepts such as worth, merit, attraction or appeal, concepts that are

associated with the (current) usefulness and condition of a place or an object. Although

significance and value are not mutually exclusive, in some cases the place may have a high level

of significance but a lower level of value. Often, the evaluation of any feature is based on a

combination or balance between the two.

Isolated finds are occurrences of artefacts or other remains that are not in-situ or are located

apart from archaeological sites. Although these are noted and recorded, but do not usually

constitute the core of an impact assessment, unless if they have intrinsic cultural significance and

value.

In-situ refers to material culture and surrounding deposits in their original location and context,

for example an archaeological site that has not been disturbed by farming.

Archaeological site/materials are remains or traces of human activity that are in a state of disuse

and are in, or on, land and which are older than 100 years, including artefacts, human and

hominid remains, and artificial features and structures. According to the National Heritage

Resources Act (NHRA) (Act No. 25 of 1999), no archaeological artefact, assemblage or

settlement (site) and no historical building or structure older than 60 years may be altered, moved

or destroyed without the necessary authorisation from the South African Heritage Resources

Agency (SAHRA) or a provincial heritage resources authority.

Historic material are remains resulting from human activities, which are younger than 100 years,

but no longer in use, including artefacts, human remains and artificial features and structures.

Chance finds means archaeological artefacts, features, structures or historical remains

accidentally found during development.

A grave is a place of interment (variably referred to as burial) and includes the contents,

headstone or other marker of such a place, and any other structure on or associated with such

place. A grave may occur in isolation or in association with others where upon it is referred to as

being situated in a cemetery (contemporary) or burial ground (historic).

A site is a distinct spatial cluster of artefacts, structures, organic and environmental remains, as

residues of past human activity.

8 | P a g e

Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) refers to the process of identifying, predicting and assessing

the potential positive and negative cultural, social, economic and biophysical impacts of any

proposed project which requires authorisation of permission by law and which may significantly

affect the cultural and natural heritage resources. Accordingly, an HIA must include

recommendations for appropriate mitigation measures for minimising or circumventing negative

impacts, measures enhancing the positive aspects of the proposal and heritage management and

monitoring measures.

Impact is the positive or negative effects on human well-being and / or on the environment.

Mitigation is the implementation of practical measures to reduce and circumvent adverse

impacts or enhance beneficial impacts of an action.

Mining heritage sites refer to old, abandoned mining activities, underground or on the surface,

which may date from the prehistorical, historical or the relatively recent past.

Study area or „project area' refers to the area where the developer wants to focus its

development activities (refer to plan).

Phase I studies refer to surveys using various sources of data and limited field walking in order

to establish the presence of all possible types of heritage resources in any given area.

3.3. Assumptions and disclaimer

The investigation has been influenced by the unpredictability of buried archaeological remains

(absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence) and the difficulty in establishing

intangible heritage values. It should be remembered that archaeological deposits (including

graves and traces of mining heritage) usually occur below the ground level. Should artefacts or

skeletal material be revealed at the site during construction, such activities should be halted

immediately, and a competent heritage practitioner, SAHRA or PHRA must be notified in order

for an investigation and evaluation of the find(s) to take place (see NHRA (Act No. 25 of 1999),

Section 36 (6). Recommendations contained in this document do not exempt the developer from

complying with any national, provincial and municipal legislation or other regulatory

9 | P a g e

requirements, including any protection or management or general provision in terms of the

NHRA. MSEI assumes no responsibility for compliance with conditions that may be required by

SAHRA in terms of this report.

4. Terms of Reference (ToR)

MCA, on behalf of Transnet Engineering, appointed MSEI to carry out a scoping and Phase 1

AIA/ HIA study of the proposed landfill site in Koedespoort, Silverton Pretoria.

5. Introduction

MSEI was appointed by MCA to carry out a scoping and Phase 1 AIA/ HIA of the proposed

landfill site in Koedespoort for Transnet Engineering. The study area is in Silverton, about 6.5

kilometres east of Pretoria‟s CBD and also immediately to the east of the N1 highway within

Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality in Gauteng Province. The Koedoespoort site is

approximately 13.7 hectares and situated on Portion 201 of the Farm Hartebeestpoort, which is a

highly industrialized area (Figure 1). The site is zoned as S.A.R (South African Railway

services), therefore the site can be developed in any way the Transnet Engineering intends to, as

long as it is in line with Transnet Engineering business. However, as prescribed by SAHRA and

stipulated by legislation, a HIA is a pre-requisite for this kind of development. The overall

purpose of this heritage report is to identify, assess any heritage resources that may be located in

the study area and evaluate the positive and negative impacts of the proposed development on

these resources in order to make recommendations for their appropriate management. To achieve

this, we conducted background research of published literature, maps and databases (desktop

studies) which was then followed by ground-truthing by means of drive-through surveys and

field walking. Desktop studies had intimated that Iron Age and historical sites were a possibility

in the study area but no such sites were recorded during ground-truthing. While heritage

resources may have been located in the study area, subsequent developments such as industrial

work and dumping have either obliterated these materials or reduced them to isolated finds that

can only be identifiable as chance finds during construction. If the recommendations of this

10 | P a g e

report are adopted, there is no archaeological reason why construction cannot proceed, taking

full cognizance of clear procedures to follow in the event of chance findings.

11 | P a g e

Figure 1: Location of the study area

12 | P a g e

6. Project descriptions

TE intends to develop a new landfill site at a site (named Site 5) approximately 13.7 hectares in

extent at its Koedoespoort Centre which consists of a hazardous waste disposal site and a

recycling facility for all other waste material that will service Koedoespoort operations,

Germiston and Bloemfontein regions. The hazardous waste generated include asbestos,

chemicals, oils, batteries, lead, medical waste, chemical sludge etc, Non-hazardous or general

waste include food waste, metal, plastic, rubber, paper, PPE, brake blocks and other material.

This waste needs to be treated and managed efficiently and this is the reason for the need to

develop the Koedoespoort landfill Site. The proposed landfill site will not be accessible to the

public. In summary, the works will focus mainly on construction of:

• Hazardous waste disposal site of approximately 28 800sq with following characteristics:

Total airspace of approximately 360 000 cubic meters to cater for estimated 1.26m

tons of waste

Class A barrier system

Estimated life: 15-20 years.

• Leachate dam for contaminated storm water and landfill leachate.

• Storm water management system for clean and contaminated storm water.

Since the proposed site is 13.7 hectares and entails the development and upgrading of a property

greater than 0.5 hectares, the National Heritage Resources Act, 1999 (Act No. 25 of 1999)

demands that an AIA/HIA of the development site be undertaken in terms of Section 38 (3) of

the Act. Various other legislations also mandate that development such as this should be

preceded by an AIA as shown below.

13 | P a g e

7. Legislative context

Two main pieces of legislations are relevant to the present study and there are presented here.

Under the National Heritage Resources Act (Act 25 of 1999) (NHRA) and the National

Environmental Management Act (NEMA), an AIA or HIA is required as a specialist sub-section

of the EIA.

Heritage management and conservation in South Africa is governed by the NHRA and falls

under the overall jurisdiction of the SAHRA and its PHRAs. There are different sections of the

NHRA that are relevant to this study. The present proposed development is a listed activity in

terms of Section 38 of the NHRA which stipulates that the following development categories

require a HIA to be conducted by an independent heritage management consultant:

• Construction of a road, wall, power line, pipeline, canal or other linear form of

development or barrier exceeding 300m in length

• Construction of bridge or similar structure exceeding 50m in length

• Development or other activity that will change the character of a site -

Exceeding 5000 sq m

Involving three or more existing erven or subdivisions

Involving three or more erven or divisions that have been consolidated

within past five years

Rezoning of site exceeding 10 000 sq m

The costs of which will exceed a sum set in terms of regulations by

SAHRA or a provincial heritage resources authority

• Any other development category, public open space, squares, parks, recreation grounds

14 | P a g e

Thus any person undertaking any development in the above categories, must at the very earliest

stages of initiating such a development, notify the responsible heritage resources authority and

furnish it with details regarding the location, nature and extent of the proposed development.

Section 38 (2) (a) of the same act also requires the submission of a heritage impact assessment

report for authorization purposes to the responsible heritage resources agencies

(SAHRA/PHRAs). Because, the proposed landfill site development will change the character of

a site exceeding 5000 sq m, then an HIA is required according to this section of act.

Related to Section 38 of the NHRA are Sections 34, 35, 36 and 37. Section 34 stipulates that no

person may alter damage, destroy, relocate etc any building or structure older than 60 years,

without a permit issued by SAHRA or a provincial heritage resources authority. This section

may not apply to present study since none were identified. Section 35 (4) of the NHRA stipulates

that no person may, without a permit issued by SAHRA, destroy, damage, excavate, alter or

remove from its original position, or collect, any archaeological material or object. This section

may apply to any significant archaeological sites that may be discovered before or during

construction. This means that any chance find must be reported to the heritage practitioner or

SAHRA, who will assist in investigating the extent and significance of the finds and inform

about further actions. Such actions may entail the removal of material after documenting the find

site or mapping of larger sections before destruction. Section 36 (3) of the NHRA also stipulates

that no person may, without a permit issued by the South African Heritage Resources Agency

(SAHRA), destroy, damage, alter, exhume or remove from its original position or otherwise

disturb any grave or burial ground older than 60 years, which is situated outside a formal

cemetery administered by a local authority. This section may apply in case of the discovery of

chance burials, which is unlikely. The procedure for reporting chance finds also applies to the

unlikely discovery of burials or graves by the developer or his contractors. Section 37 of the

NHRA deals with public monuments and memorials but this may not apply to this study because

closest example is the reconstructed „Waenhuise‟ at the Pioneer Museum (East of Pretoria) will

not be physically affected by the proposed landfill site (Naude 2010).

15 | P a g e

In addition, the new EIA Regulations (21 April 2006) promulgated in terms of NEMA (Act 107

of 1998) determine that any environmental reports will include cultural (heritage) issues. The

new regulations in terms of Chapter 5 of the NEMA provide for an assessment of development

impacts on the cultural (heritage) and social environment and for Specialist Studies in this

regard. The end purpose of such a report is to alert the developer (TE in this case), the

environmental consultant (MCA), SAHRA and interested and affected parties about existing

heritage resources that may be affected by the proposed development, and to recommend

mitigatory measures aimed at reducing the risks of any adverse impacts on these heritage

resources.

Evaluation of the proposed development as guided by the criteria in NHRA and NEMA

ACT Stipulation for developments Requirement details

NHRA Section 38 Construction of road, wall, power line, pipeline,

canal or other linear form of development or

barrier exceeding 300m in length

No

Construction of bridge or similar structure

exceeding 50m in length

No

Development exceeding 5000 sq m Yes

Development involving three or more existing

erven or subdivisions

No

Development involving three or more erven or

divisions that have been consolidated within past

five years

No

Rezoning of site exceeding 10 000 sq m Not available

Any other development category, public open

space, squares, parks, recreation grounds

No

NHRA Section 34 Impacts on buildings and structures older than 60

years

Subject to identification

during Phase 1

NHRA Section 35 Impacts on archaeological and palaeontological

heritage resources

Subject to identification

during Phase 1

16 | P a g e

NHRA Section 36 Impacts on graves Subject to identification

during Phase 1

NHRA Section 37 Impacts on public monuments Subject to identification

during Phase 1

Chapter 5

(21/04/2006)

NEMA

HIA is required as part of an EIA Yes

8. Methodology

This documents falls under the screening and basic assessment phase of the HIA and therefore

aims at providing an informed heritage-related opinion about the proposed development. This is

usually achieved through a combination of a review of any existing literature and a basic site

inspection. As part of the desktop study, published literature and cartographic data, as well as

archival data on heritage laws, the history and archaeology of the area were studied. The desktop

study was followed by field surveys. The field assessment was conducted according to generally

accepted HIA practices and aimed at locating all possible objects, sites and features of cultural

significance on the development footprint. Initially a drive-through was undertaken around the

proposed development as a way of acquiring the archaeological impression of the general area.

This was then followed by a walk down survey in the study area, with a hand held Global

Positioning System (GPS) for recording the location/position of each possible site. Detailed

photographic recording was also undertaken where relevant. The findings were then analysed in

view of the proposed development in order to suggest further action. The result of this

investigation is a report indicating the presence/absence of heritage resources and how to manage

them in the context of the proposed development.

17 | P a g e

9. Results: The archaeology of the proposed development area

The literature survey suggests that prior to the 20th

century modern residential and on-going

industrial developments; the general area where the proposed development is located would have

been a rewarding region to locate heritage resources related to Stone Age and particularly Iron

Age and historical sites (Bergh 1999: 4). However, the situation today is totally different. The

study area now lies on a clearly modified landscape that has previously been cleared of

vegetation but is now dominated by a continuous sweep of tall grass and shrubs that limit ground

visibility. Several industrial and illegal dumping are also on-going on and around the

development footprint (Figure 2A-L)

18 | P a g e

Figure 2A & B Showing the study area and some of the ongoing industrial activities in the background

A

B

19 | P a g e

Figure 2C &D Showing more of the industrial activities in the vicinity of the proposed development.

D

C

20 | P a g e

Figure 2E &F Showing the study area and one of the nearby dilapidated structures (outside the

development fooprint) that does not appear to be older than 60 years

F

E

21 | P a g e

Figure 2G & H Showing some of the characteristic developments in the vicinity of the study area

G

H

22 | P a g e

Figure 2I & J Showing some of the industrial activities within the development footprint. Clearly these

activities must have destroyed most of the surface archaeological material (if there was any).

I

J

23 | P a g e

Figure 2K &L showing functional and non-functional (but not necessarily older than 60 years) railway

lines in the vicinity of the study area.

K

L

24 | P a g e

9.1. Stone Age Archaeology

In the larger geographical area there is material manifestation of Stone Age people but generally,

Highveld area did not attract much of habitation in these early times due to lack of rock-shelters

and domination of exposed environments. Thus, it is mostly in the vicinity of large watercourses

and lower parts of mountains that some ESA (~ 2.6 million to 250 000 years ago) materials

(crude chopper and other unifacial tools of the Oldowan industry and the characteristic

Acheulian hand axes and cleavers) and MSA (~ 250 000 to 40-25 000 years ago) materials are

generally found. The MSA is a flake-technological stage characterized by faceted platforms,

produced from prepared cores, as distinct from the core tool-based ESA technology. More

technological and behavioural changes than those witnessed in the MSA, occurred during the

LSA (~ 40-25 000, to recently, 100 years ago), which is also associated with Homo Sapiens

(Barham and Mitchell 2008). For the first time we get evidence of people‟s activities derived

from material other than stone tools (ostrich eggshell beads, ground bone arrowheads, small

bored stones and wood fragments) (Deacon and Deacon 1999). The LSA people are also credited

with the production of rock art (engravings and paintings), which is an expression of their

complex social and spiritual beliefs (Parkington et al. 2008). However, it is important to note that

no Stone Age material was recorded during the limited field walking, perhaps due to the

presence of tall grass. Nonetheless, it is possible to encounter isolated finds of these objects in

the study area, even though these would most likely be out of context due to the modern

disturbances.

9.2. Iron Age Archaeology

Metal using communities entered southern Africa from West and East Africa around AD 200 and

brought with them settled agriculture, metal working, animal husbandry, pottery making and

social stratification (Huffman 2007). The movement and spread of these EIA (~ AD200-1000)

people within southern Africa seem to have been restricted to the summer rainfall (because of

sorghum and millet farming) and they did not occupy much of the central interior Highveld area

in South Africa. Ecologically, they preferred to settle on the alluvial soils near rivers for

agricultural purposes and access to water. Thus, it was not until the mid-second millennium AD

25 | P a g e

that serious Iron Age occupation began in the larger geographical area (including the study area)

of the South African Highveld. The study area falls within the known distribution of LIA (~

AD1100-1840) people who made Uitkomst facies (AD1650-1820 and associated with a mixture

of the Ntsuanatsatsi facies (ancestral Nguni speakers) and Olifantspoort facies (ancestral Sotho-

Tswana speakers) (Huffman 2007: 173). Olifantspoort facies (AD1500-1700) represents the

second phase of the Moloko sequence and settlements with people that made this type of

ceramics are known in the area between the Vaal River and Pretoria. The people, just like the

markers of Buispoort facies (third phase of the Moloko sequence AD1700-1840), settled in

aggregated clusters where space was also demarcated by extensive stone walling. The

distribution of Buispoort facies also covers the Pretoria area. The post 1600s coincided with dry

spells that saw an incursion of the Pretoria area by Nguni-speaking groups such as the Manala

and Ndzundza Ndebeles from KwaZulu Natal (Huffman 2007: 448). The early 19th

century also

saw another invasion of the Pretoria area by Nguni-speakers who were running away from the

widespread upheaval perpetuated by the reign of the Zulu king, Shaka. One of the escapees was

Mzilikazi, the Ndebele king briefly settled north west of Pretoria, extensively raided the plateau

between 1825 and 1837 and displaced various Sotho-Tswana groups (Bergh 1999: 109-119).

Most of the LIA sites also tend to cluster around the hills and ridges as well as on the more open

flatlands, especially in areas where outcrops (dolerite, etc.) occur. All the same, none of these

LIA sites were identified in the study area. If any of these sites were available, they have since

been destroyed by subsequent modern developments that took place since the mid-20th

century.

9.3. Historical (~ AD 1840 to 1950) Archaeology

Although southern Africa was networked with the literate world for several centuries, the period

of written history in the study area corresponds to the arrival of the Voortrekkers in the 1830s.

The period was preceded by isolated northwards migrations of white travellers, missionaries and

adventurers from the Cape who passed through Pretoria area, some as early as the 1720‟s.

Notable amongst them include the Scottish travellers Robert Scoon and William McLuckie,

Robert Moffat, James Archbell, Andrew Smith and Captain William Cornwallis Harris (Bergh

1999: 12-13). Some of them kept diaries that today form part of invaluable history about

indigenous communities which these travellers interacted with. But permanent and mass-

26 | P a g e

movement of white settlers only took root in the 1830s with the arrival of Dutch speaking

farmers who were protesting and escaping British rule in the Cape Colony (Ross 2002: 39).

Because, these first white colonists who settled on the Highveld were farmers, they were also

interested in water and grazing for cattle, water for crop-farming, trees, thatching grass, clay for

making bricks and pots, mild climate, wildlife and the presence of the mountains as shelter and

protection. The area claimed by the Voortrekkers after the conquest of Mzilikazi was declared at

a public meeting on 16 October 1840 held in Potchefstroom and initially included the

Suikerbosrant (Heidelberg), Schoonspruit (Klerksdorp), Mooirivier (Potchefstroom) and

Magaliesberg but by 1855 settlements had been established beyond the originally claimed area. It

is within this early expansion that Pretoria was founded in 1855 and became the capital of South

Africa, then known as the Zuid-Afrikaanse Republiek (ZAR), in 1860 (Theron 1984: 1-3). These

white farmers brought with them, several lifeways that were notably different from indigenous

farming communities. New types of transport and houses emerged in the Pretoria area and their

surviving examples form part of historical archaeology. For instance, the only part of the farm

Hartbeestpoort in Silverton that has remained is the farmstead currently used as a site museum

called “Pioneer Museum”, which is managed by Ditsong: Museums of South Africa. On this

farm, a reconstruction of the characteristic „waenhuise‟ (a type of wagon shelter) that were

common in historical times was attempted in 1994 (Figure 3).

27 | P a g e

Figure 3 showing a reconstructed wagon shelter type called waenhuise (Naude 2010: 188).

Significant urban development in Pretoria only began in the 1890s, when the first townships or

suburbs outside central Pretoria were established as residential extensions of the town. One of

the main reasons for this development relates to industrial developments as Eerste Fabrieken in

the east, PPC in the Moot valley, lime works in the south and prospects for silver mining at

Silverton. The latter is very relevant to the study area because it may have left heritage footprints

and landmarks that may occur buried in the proposed development area for the present study.

Silver mining in South African has an uneasy history that dates back to the 1860s and is

intimately associated with Pretoria East (Reeks 2012) within which the proposed development is

located (Figure 4).

28 | P a g e

Figure 4 showing the distribution of early silver mines around Pretoria region between 1856 and 1999

(Reeks 2012: XVI).

In Silverton area deposits of copper, lead and silver ores were ultimately discovered in the 1880s

and 1890s on a number of the farms that surrounded „The Willows‟, and the cluster of mines and

prospects in the area gave the town of Silverton its name. Surface workings or dumps and similar

remains of mines such as the Willows mine, no longer exist because most sites were cleared in

the late 1990s to construct the suburbs such as Nellmapius (Reeks 2012: 44) but sub-surface

mining heritage may still occur and these should be reported immediately when found.

Parallel to the mining history, urban development in Pretoria accelerated after the Anglo-Boer

War, in particular after 1910 when Pretoria became the executive and administrative capital of

the Union of South Africa. Ten years earlier, Pretoria had fallen into the hands of the British

forces following several encounters of Anglo-Boer wars and skirmishes (Bergh 1999: 54, 250;

Theron 1984: 273-279). Significantly, these wars may have left a trail of marked and unmarked

29 | P a g e

graves and battlegrounds that may fall within the development footprint of the proposed landfill

site in Koedespoort and the developer and his contractors should take cognizance of these

possibilities.

Related to mining and urban history is the transport history. The establishment of the NZASM

railway line in the 1880s, linking Pretoria with Lourenço Marques (now Maputo) and the world

at large, brought much infra-structural and administrative development to the area. This railway

development continued and in 1943 a new railway line that connected with the Pretoria-

Pietersburg (now Polokwane) railway (the Hercules-Koedoespoort line). Several other railway

lines have since been developed to service the industries around Silverton. The proposed project

area is also close to functional and non-functional railway lines (Figure 2K &L) and full

cognizance must be taken when considering the expansion of the development into these areas.

9.4. Intangible Heritage

As defined in terms of the UNESCO Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural

Heritage (2003) intangible heritage includes oral traditions, knowledge and practices concerning

nature, traditional craftsmanship and rituals and festive events, as well as the instruments,

objects, artefacts and cultural spaces associated with group(s) of people. Thus intangible heritage

is better defined and understood by the particular group of people that uphold it. In the present

study area, very little intangible heritage remains because no historically known groups occupied

the study area and most of the original settler descendants moved away from the area.

30 | P a g e

9.5. Summary of findings

Heritage resource Status/Findings

Buildings, structures, places and equipment

of cultural significance

None exists with the development

footprint

Areas to which oral traditions are attached or

which are associated with intangible heritage

None exists

Historical settlements and townscapes None survives in the proposed area

Landscapes and natural features of cultural

significance

None

Archaeological and palaeontological sites None

Graves and burial grounds None exists or are identifiable on

the basis of a surface survey

Movable objects None

Overall comment The surveyed area has no

identifiable heritage resources on

the surface but sub-surface chance

finds are still possible.

10. Chance finds procedures

It has already been highlighted that sub-surface materials may still be lying hidden from surface

surveys. Therefore, absence (during surface survey) is not evidence of absence all together. The

following monitoring and reporting procedures must be followed in the event of a chance find, in

order to ensure compliance with heritage laws and policies for best-practice. This procedure

applies to the developer‟s permanent employees, its subsidiaries, contractors and subcontractors,

and service providers. Accordingly, all construction crews must be properly inducted to ensure

they are fully aware of the procedures regarding chance finds.

If during the construction, operations or closure phases of this project, any person

employed by the developer, one of its subsidiaries, contractors and subcontractors, or

service provider, finds any artefact of cultural significance, work must cease at the site of

31 | P a g e

the find and this person must report this find to their immediate supervisor, and through

their supervisor to the senior on-site manager.

The senior site Manager must then make an initial assessment of the extent of the find,

and confirm the extent of the work stoppage in that area before informing MSEI.

MCA will then contact a professional archaeologist for an assessment of the finds who

will in turn inform SAHRA/PHRA.

11. Conclusion

MSEI was appointed by MCA to carry out a HIA of the proposed TE landfill site in Koedespoort

(Silverton, Pretoria East), as required by heritage legislation. The proposed development lies on

disturbed ground that is within a highly industrialized zone. Desktop research intimated that the

rich history and archaeology of the general area prior to several industrial and residential

developments after the mid-20th

century but field surveys on and around the proposed area did

not yield any heritage material. The potential for chance finds, still remains and the developer

and his contractors are requested to be diligent and observant during construction of the land site.

The procedure for reporting chance finds has clearly been laid out and if this report is adopted by

SAHRA, then there are no archaeological reason why construction cannot proceed.

32 | P a g e

12. References

Barham, L. and Mitchell, P.2008. The first Africans: African archaeology from the earliest

toolmakers to most recent foragers. Cambridge: Cambridge university press

Deacon, H. J. and Deacon, J.1999. Human beginnings in South Africa: Uncovering the secrets of

the Stone Age. Cape Town: David Philip

Bergh, J.S. (ed.) 1998. Geskiedenisatlas van Suid-Afrika. Die vier noordelike provinsies.

Pretoria: J.L. van Schaik.

Huffman, T.N. 2007 Handbook to the Iron Age: The archaeology of pre-colonial farming

societies in southern Africa. Scottville: University of KwaZulu Natal Press

Mawenje Consulting Africa. 2015. Draft Scoping Report: Development of new Landfill site at

Koedoespoort in Pretoria. Unpublished report

National Environmental Management Act 107 of 1998

National Heritage Resources Act NHRA of 1999 (Act 25 of 1999)

Parkington, J, Morris, D, & Rusch, N. 2008. Karoo Rock Engravings: Follow the San. Cape

Town: Creda Communications.

Pelser, A.J. 2012. A final report on a heritage impact assessment (HIA) for the city of Tshwane

Bus RAPID TRANSIT LINE 2A Tshwane, Gauteng. Unpublished report

Ross, R. 2002. A concise history of South Africa. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Reeks, G.W. 2012. A History of Silver Mining in the greater Pretoria region, 1885-1999.

Unpublished MA thesis, University of South Africa.

Theron, B. M. 1984. The social history of Pretoria during the first phase of the Anglo-Boer War:

October 1899 - June 1900. MA Thesis, Pretoria: University of South Africa

Van der Walt, J. 2014. Archaeological Impact Assessment For the proposed K97 Road in Bon

Accord, Pretoria North, Gauteng Province. Unpublished report

33 | P a g e

Van Schalkwyk, J.A. 2002. A Survey Of Cultural Resources For Ext. 34, 36 & 38 Of The Farm

Hartebeesfontein 324JR, Pretoria. Unpublished report.

Van Schalkwyk, J.A. 2002. Heritage impact survey report for The Proposed Housing

Development On Portions 212-215 Of The Farm Kameeldrift 298jr, Gauteng Province.

Unpublished report.