HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT:
PROPOSED 400 kV POWER LINE, BEAUFORT WEST
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT, WESTERN CAPE
Required under Section 38(8) of the National Heritage Resources Act (No. 25 of 1999).
HWC Case No.: 19090610SB1017E
Report for:
Red Cap Nuweveld North (Pty) Ltd
Unit B2, Mainstream Centre, Main Road, Hout Bay, 7806
Tel: 021 790 1392
Email: [email protected]
Dr Jayson Orton
ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd
40 Brassie Street, Lakeside, 7945
Tel: (021) 788 1025 | 083 272 3225
Email: [email protected]
1st draft: 14 April 2020
Revised: 01 October 2020
ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 v
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1. Site Name
n/a
2. Location
• Off N1 and DR02311
• The powerline corridor includes a total of 97 properties in the Beaufort West Magisterial District (see
Appendix 2).
• Its northern end point is at approximately S31°45'37.77" E22°24'50.23"” , centre point is S32° 5'29.60"
E22°41'11.36" and the southern end point (at the Droërivier Substation) is at S32° 24’ 23” E22° 31’ 50”.
3. Locality Plan
Extract from 1:250 000 mapsheets 3122 & 3222 showing the location of the proposed power line corridor
(blue shaded polygon). The yellow area is Beaufort West and the R381 runs northwards from there passing
west of the northern end of the corridor.
0 8 16 24 km
ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 vi
4. Description of Proposed Development
It is proposed to construct a powerline of up to 120 km in length within a defined corridor that would
evacuate electricity from three proposed windfarms (each the subject of a separate application) to be
located about 65 km north of Beaufort West. The project components are as follows;
Project
Components
Description
Specifications Approximate
Disturbance areas
(WCS)
Switching stations
(x3)
• Each wind farm will have a Switching Station yard of 150m x 75m located next
to the Wind Farm Substation. The Switching Station will consist of a
Switchgear building and High Voltage Gantry.
• The switching stations form part of the Gridline infrastructure and will be
handed to Eskom in the operations phase (i.e. becoming part of the National
Grid)
3.4ha
132kV collector
transmission lines
• Up to approximately ≤15km of overhead 132kV high voltage monopole pylon
powerline is required to link the switching stations (x3) to the Collector
switching station/substation. The pylon types that maybe used are illustrated
in the report and on average will be about 260m apart (estimate 65 pylons x
80m2= 0.5ha)
0.5ha
Collector switching
station/substation
• 132kV scenario: 150m x 150m - 132kV collector switching station with
collector & switchgear building and High Voltage gantry (2.25ha)
• 400kV scenario: 300m x 400m – 400kV collector substation with collector &
switchgear building and High Voltage gantry (12ha)
12.0ha
132/400kV Gridline • 132kV scenario: Up to approximately ≤105km of overhead 132kV overhead
powerline (440 x 80sqm = 3.5ha):
o the 132kV pylons types that may be used are depicted in the report
o Monopole spans, without stays, are on average 260m
o Triple pole (‘twin tern’) spans for valleys can be up to 800m
o Pylon type and span distance is determined by topography but the
majority will be the single monopole structures
• Up to approximately 105km of 400kV overhead powerline (estimate 290 pylons
X 100sqm = 2.9ha):
o The lattice pylon types that may be used are depicted in the report
o Cross-rope suspension spans, with stays, are on average 400m
o Self-supporting suspension spans, without stays, are on average 400m
o Pylon type and span distance is determined by topography but the
majority will be the cross-rope suspension structures
3.5ha
Temporary
laydown, staging
and yards areas
and access
roads/tracks
required for the
construction /
decommissioning
phase
• Temporary laydown areas will be identified along the power line route, with
the main equipment and construction yards being based in one of the
surrounding towns or at the wind farm site camp & laydown areas.
• Existing access roads and tracks (upgraded to ± 2-4m wide where needed)
will be used as far as possible and new access tracks would be created where
needed – these would be 2-4m wide (wider than 2m when side drains are
needed or due to the topography).
5ha
56ha
Total disturbance footprint (WCS) 81ha
The reason that two different capacities are being applied for is that it is as yet unknown what the Eskom
requirements for this corridor will be and Eskom will not take a decision at this juncture. The applicant is
thus seeking authorisation for both a 400 kV power line and a 132 kV power line to run from the collector
switching station or collector substation to Droërivier. Although approval for both capacities will be sought,
it is important to note that only one line would be built under the authorisation (if granted). For the purpose
of this assessment, the specialist must also identify, assess and report on the Worst-Case Scenario (WCS).
The WCS considers the impact significance of the development of the 132 kV and 400 kV power line,
identifies which one of the options has the highest negative impact (pre and post mitigation) for each
ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 vii
particular impact, and presents this as the significance rating for that impact. It is argued that if the residual
overall impact of the WCS is deemed acceptable and mitigatable, then the development of either a 132 kV
or 400 kV powerline within this corridor would also be acceptable.
5. Heritage Resources Identified
Palaeontological resources are patchily distributed across the study area but most areas have not been
studied in the field due to the size of the study area. Late Stone Age (LSA) and particularly historical
archaeological sites occur widely across the study area. Some of them have associated graves. Many areas
have not been studied in the field but aerial photography has also informed the assessment. Built heritage
resources are rare and tend to be clustered in the few farm complexes present. The cultural landscape is
largely a natural/rural one with anthropogenic interventions barely visible. The main exceptions are rare
farm complexes that are characterised by the presence of many trees. The landscape views from the N1 and
De Jager’s Pass as well as from within the KNP are considered to be the most significant because of their
accessibility.
6. Anticipated Impacts on Heritage Resources
There is the potential for fossils, archaeological sites and/or graves to be directly impacted, although given
that a pre-construction survey will inform the final layout, the chances of such impacts occurring are small.
Contextual impacts to built structures might occur but heritage structures are very rare on the landscape.
The landscape itself will also experience impacts through the presence of the powerlines and substations in
what is otherwise a natural/rural landscape.
7. Recommendations
Because there are no significant impediments to development of a powerline of either 132 kV or 400 kV
within the proposed corridor, it is recommended that the proposed corridor be authorised but authorisation
should be subject to the following conditions:
• The final alignment of the gridline must be subjected to a pre-construction archaeological survey.
This would be to determine whether any micrositing of infrastructure is required to ensure in situ
protection of heritage resources or, if this is not possible, whether any mitigation should be
implemented;
• In areas where palaeontological sensitivity is inferred to be high, the final alignment of the powerline
must be subjected to a pre-construction palaeontological survey. This must determine whether any
recording and/or collection of fossils might be required or if any areas should be avoided;
• A palaeontological chance finds procedure must be incorporated into the EMPr;
• The final alignment must be determined in consultation with a visual specialist to ensure that:
o the final escarpment crossing minimises visual impacts, especially as seen from De Jager’s
Pass; and
o visual impacts to scenic valleys and ridgelines along the final route are minimised as far as
practical;
• Pre-construction planning must allow for buffers around archaeological and palaeontological sites
and graves of at least 30 m and of 200 m for Grade IIIB and up structures and 100 m for Grade IIIC
structures. Alternatively the implementation of mitigation measures may be required and these
would be determined as part of the pre-construction survey;
• If any archaeological material or human burials are uncovered during the course of development
then work in the immediate area should be halted. The find would need to be reported to the
heritage authorities and may require inspection by an archaeologist. Such heritage is the property of
the state and may require excavation and curation in an approved institution.
ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 viii
8. Author/s and Date
Heritage Impact Assessment: Jayson Orton, ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd, 01 October 2020
Archaeological specialist study: Jayson Orton, ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd, (included within HIA)
Palaeontological specialist study: John Almond, ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd, October 2020
Visual impact assessment: Bernie Oberholzer and Quinton Lawson, March 2020
ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 ix
NEMA EIA regulations, 2014 as amended, Appendix 6: Requirements of Specialist reports
Requirement Reference
(1) A specialist report prepared in terms of these Regulations must contain—
(a) details of—
(i) the specialist who prepared the report; and Section 1.4
(i) the expertise of that specialist to compile a specialist report including a curriculum
vitae;
Section 1.4 &
Appendix 1
(b) a declaration that the specialist is independent in a form as may be specified by the
competent authority;
Page ii
(c) an indication of the scope of, and the purpose for which, the report was prepared; Section 1.3
(cA) an indication of the quality and age of base data used for the specialist report; n/a
(cB) a description of existing impacts on the site, cumulative impacts of the proposed
development and levels of acceptable change;
Sections 6.5-
6.7
(d) the duration, date and season of the site investigation and the relevance of the season to
the outcome of the assessment;
Section 3.2
(e) a description of the methodology adopted in preparing the report or carrying out the
specialised process inclusive of equipment and modelling used;
Section 3
(f) details of an assessment of the specific identified sensitivity of the site related to the
proposed activity or activities and its associated structures and infrastructure, inclusive of
a site plan identifying site alternatives;
Section 1.1.2
(g) an identification of any areas to be avoided, including buffers; Section 10 &
Appendix 4
(h) a map superimposing the activity including the associated structures and infrastructure on
the environmental sensitivities of the site including areas to be avoided, including buffers;
Section 10
(i) a description of any assumptions made and any uncertainties or gaps in knowledge; Section 3.8
(j) a description of the findings and potential implications of such findings on the impact of
the proposed activity or activities;
Sections 5 & 6
(k) any mitigation measures for inclusion in the EMPr; Sections 6 & 7
(l) any conditions for inclusion in the environmental authorisation; Section 11
(m) any monitoring requirements for inclusion in the EMPr or environmental authorisation; Section 7
(n) a reasoned opinion—
(i) whether the proposed activity, activities or portions thereof should be authorised; Section 10.1
(iA) regarding the acceptability of the proposed activity or activities; and
(ii) if the opinion is that the proposed activity, activities or portions thereof should be
authorised, any avoidance, management and mitigation measures that should be
included in the EMPr, and where applicable, the closure plan;
Section 11
(o) a description of any consultation process that was undertaken during the course of
preparing the specialist report;
Sections 3.7 &
9
(p) a summary and copies of any comments received during any consultation process and
where applicable all responses thereto; and
Section 9
(q) any other information requested by the competent authority. n/a
(2) Where a government notice gazetted by the Minister provides for any protocol or minimum
information requirement to be applied to a specialist report, the requirements as indicated in
such notice will apply.
Government
Notice No. 320
has been
gazetted, and a
verification
report aligned
with the
requirements are
appended
(Appendix 2). No
protocol for a
heritage
assessment has
been gazetted.
ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 x
Glossary
Background scatter: Artefacts whose spatial position is conditioned more by natural forces than by human agency.
Brakdak: A roof made with poles overlaid by sticks/bamboo which is in turn overlaid with small vegetation (often
reeds) and then a layer of mud.
Early Stone Age: Period of the Stone Age extending approximately between 2 million and 200 000 years ago.
Holocene: The geological period spanning the last approximately 10-12 000 years.
Hominid: a group consisting of all modern and extinct great apes (i.e. gorillas, chimpanzees, orangutans and humans)
and their ancestors.
Later Stone Age: Period of the Stone Age extending over the last approximately 20 000 years.
Middle Stone Age: Period of the Stone Age extending approximately between 200 000 and 20 000 years ago.
Pleistocene: The geological period beginning approximately 2.5 million years ago and preceding the Holocene.
ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 xi
Abbreviations
amsl: above mean sea level
APHP: Association of Professional Heritage
Practitioners
ASAPA: Association of Southern African
Professional Archaeologists
AZ: assemblage zone
CRM: Cultural Resources Management
DEA: Department of Environment Affairs
DRC: Dutch Reformed Church
ECO: Environmental Control Officer
EIA: Environmental Impact Assessment
ESA: Early Stone Age
GPS: global positioning system
HIA: Heritage Impact Assessment
HWC: Heritage Western Cape
HV: High Voltage
KNP: Karoo National Park
NCW: Not Conservation Worthy
NEMA: National Environmental Management
Act (No. 107 of 1998)
LSA: Later Stone Age
MSA: Middle Stone Age
NHRA: National Heritage Resources Act (No.
25) of 1999
NID: Notification of Intent to Develop
PHS: Provincial Heritage Site
PPP: Public Participation Process
REDZ: Renewable Energy Development Zone
SAHRA: South African Heritage Resources
Agency
SAHRIS: South African Heritage Resources
Information System
VOC: Dutch East India Company
WCS: Worst-Case Scenario
ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 xii
Contents
Glossary ......................................................................................................................................... x
Abbreviations ............................................................................................................................... xi
1. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1
1.1. Project description.................................................................................................................... 1
1.1.1. Aspects of the project relevant to the heritage study ................................................. 4
1.2. Consideration of alternatives ................................................................................................... 5
1.3. Terms of reference ................................................................................................................... 5
1.4. Scope and purpose of the report ............................................................................................. 8
1.5. The author ................................................................................................................................ 8
1.6. Declaration of independence ................................................................................................... 9
2. HERITAGE LEGISLATION .............................................................................................................. 9
3. METHODS................................................................................................................................. 10
3.1. Literature survey and information sources ............................................................................ 10
3.2. Field survey ............................................................................................................................. 10
3.3. Specialist studies..................................................................................................................... 11
3.4. Screening assessment ............................................................................................................. 11
3.5. Impact assessment ................................................................................................................. 11
3.6. Grading ................................................................................................................................... 11
3.7. Consultation ............................................................................................................................ 11
3.8. Assumptions and limitations .................................................................................................. 12
4. PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONTEXT ...................................................................................... 12
4.1. Site context ............................................................................................................................. 12
4.2. Site description ....................................................................................................................... 12
5. FINDINGS OF THE HERITAGE STUDY .......................................................................................... 16
5.1. Palaeontology ......................................................................................................................... 16
5.2. Archaeology ............................................................................................................................ 17
5.2.1. Desktop study............................................................................................................. 17
5.2.2. Site visit ...................................................................................................................... 20
5.3. Graves ..................................................................................................................................... 27
5.4. Historical aspects and the built environment ........................................................................ 27
5.4.1. Desktop study............................................................................................................. 27
5.4.2. Site visit ...................................................................................................................... 31
5.5. Cultural landscape .................................................................................................................. 33
5.6. Visual impact assessment ....................................................................................................... 36
5.7. Statement of significance and provisional grading ................................................................ 40
5.8. Summary of heritage indicators ............................................................................................. 41
6. ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS ........................................................................................................ 45
6.1. Impacts to palaeontological resources ................................................................................... 46
6.2. Impacts to archaeological resources ...................................................................................... 46
6.3. Impacts to graves .................................................................................................................... 47
6.4. Impacts to the cultural landscapes ......................................................................................... 48
6.5. Existing impacts to heritage resources ................................................................................... 50
ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 xiii
6.6. Cumulative impacts ................................................................................................................ 50
6.7. The No-Go option ................................................................................................................... 51
6.8. Levels of acceptable change ................................................................................................... 51
7. INPUT TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM .................................................... 51
8. EVALUATION OF IMPACTS RELATIVE TO SUSTAINABLE SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC BENEFITS ......... 52
9. CONSULTATION WITH HERITAGE CONSERVATION BODIES ........................................................ 52
10. CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................................................................ 52
10.1. Reasoned opinion of the specialist ....................................................................................... 54
11. RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................................. 54
12. REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................... 55
APPENDIX 1 – Curriculum Vitae .................................................................................................... 59
APPENDIX 2 – Farm portions and erven forming part of the powerline corridor ............................ 61
APPENDIX 3 – Inventory of finds ................................................................................................... 64
APPENDIX 4 – Mapping ................................................................................................................ 82
APPENDIX 5 – Palaeontological specialist study ............................................................................ 92
APPENDIX 6 – Visual impact assessment ....................................................................................... 93
ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 1
1. INTRODUCTION
ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd was appointed by Red Cap Nuweveld North (Pty) Ltd to conduct an assessment of the
potential impacts to heritage resources that might occur through the proposed construction of a 132 kV or
400 kV powerline and associated infrastructure. The line would run from an area 65 km north of Beaufort West
to the existing Eskom Droërivier Substation which lies about 10 km southwest of Beaufort West (Figures 1 & 2).
The project falls entirely within the Beaufort West Magisterial District and a total of 97 properties are involved
(Appendix 3). Its northern end point is within a cluster of three proposed wind farms (each being assessed
separately) at approximately S31°45'37.77" E22°24'50.23", centre point at S32° 5'29.60" E22°41'11.36" and the
southern end point at the Droërivier Substation is at S32° 24’ 23” E22° 31’ 50”.
This specialist assessment has been produced as part of an iterative design process being undertaken for this
project. As part of this process, various corridor options have been considered, assessed and further refined to
ensure adherence to the environmental and technical constraints present on site. Previous processes include a
Screening Phase and a Pre-Application Scoping Phase which included the production of a Pre-application
Scoping Report. Specialist recommendations made to further refine the corridor were included in the Pre-
application Scoping Report. The refined corridor that resulted from the Pre-application Scoping Phase is
assessed in the present report and the findings of this report will inform the outcomes of the Scoping Phase of
the project.
1.1. Project description
It is proposed to construct a powerline and associated infrastructure of 120 km length that would evacuate
electricity from three proposed windfarms (each the subject of a separate application) to be located about
65 km north of Beaufort West. The application seeks authorisation of a corridor in which the powerline would
be located. The project components are as follows;
Project
Components
Description
Specifications Approximate
Disturbance
areas (WCS)
Switching stations
(x3)
• Each wind farm will have a Switching Station yard of 150m x 75m located next to the
Wind Farm Substation. The Switching Station will consist of a Switchgear building and
High Voltage Gantry.
• The switching stations form part of the Gridline infrastructure and will be handed to
Eskom in the operations phase (i.e. becoming part of the National Grid)
3.4ha
132kV collector
transmission lines
• Up to approximately ≤15km of overhead 132kV high voltage monopole pylon
powerline is required to link the switching stations (x3) to the Collector switching
station/substation. The pylon types that maybe used are illustrated in Figures 3 and
4 and on average will be about 260m apart (estimate 65 pylons x 80m2= 0.5ha)
0.5ha
Collector
switching
station/substation
• 132kV scenario: 150m x 150m - 132kV collector switching station with collector &
switchgear building and High Voltage gantry (2.25ha)
• 400kV scenario: 300m x 400m – 400kV collector substation with collector &
switchgear building and High Voltage gantry (12ha)
12.0ha
ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 2
Project
Components
Description
Specifications Approximate
Disturbance
areas (WCS)
132/400kV
Gridline
• 132kV scenario: Up to approximately ≤105km of overhead 132kV overhead powerline
(440 x 80sqm = 3.5ha):
o the 132kV pylons types that may be used are depicted in Figures 3 and 4
o Monopole spans, without stays, are on average 260m
o Triple pole (‘twin tern’) spans for valleys can be up to 800m
o Pylon type and span distance is determined by topography but the majority will be
the single monopole structures
• Up to approximately 105km of 400kV overhead powerline (estimate 290 pylons X
100sqm = 2.9ha):
o The lattice pylon types that may be used are depicted in Figure 5
o Cross-rope suspension spans, with stays, are on average 400m
o Self-supporting suspension spans, without stays, are on average 400m
o Pylon type and span distance is determined by topography but the majority will be
the cross-rope suspension structures
3.5ha
Temporary
laydown, staging
and yards areas
and access
roads/tracks
required for the
construction /
decommissioning
phase
• Temporary laydown areas will be identified along the power line route, with the main
equipment and construction yards being based in one of the surrounding towns or at
the wind farm site camp & laydown areas.
• Existing access roads and tracks (upgraded to ± 2-4m wide where needed) will be used
as far as possible and new access tracks would be created where needed – these
would be 2-4m wide (wider than 2m when side drains are needed or due to the
topography).
5ha
56ha
Total disturbance footprint (WCS) 81ha
The reason that two different capacities are being applied for is that it is as yet unknown what the Eskom
requirements for this corridor will be. The applicant is thus seeking authorisation for both a 400 kV power line
and a 132 kV power line to run from the collector switching station or collector substation to Droërivier.
Although approval for both capacities will be sought, it is important to note that only one line would be built
under the authorisation (if granted). For the purpose of this assessment, the specialist also must identify, assess
and report on the Worst-Case Scenario (WCS). The WCS considers the impact significance of the development
of the 132 kV and 400 kV power line, identifies which one of the options has the highest negative impact (pre
and post mitigation) for each particular impact, and presents this as the significance rating for that impact. It is
argued that if the residual overall impact of the WCS is deemed acceptable and mitigatable, then the
development of either a 132 kV or 400 kV powerline within this corridor would also be acceptable
ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 3
Figure 1: Extract from 1:250 000 mapsheets 3122 & 3222 showing the location of the proposed power line corridor (green polygon).
The corridor runs south of Beaufort West and the R381 runs northwards from there passing west of the northern end of the corridor.
Source of basemap: Chief Directorate: National Geo-Spatial Information. Website: www.ngi.gov.za.
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 km
ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 4
Figure 2: Aerial view of the study area (blue outlined polygon) showing its relationship to the escarpment and Nuweveld Mountains.
1.1.1. Aspects of the project relevant to the heritage study
All aspects of the proposed development are relevant since excavations for foundations and/or services may
impact on archaeological and/or palaeontological remains, while all above-ground aspects create potential
ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 5
visual (contextual) impacts to the cultural landscape and any significant heritage sites that might be visually
sensitive.
1.1.2. Consideration of alternatives
No alternatives – apart from the No-Go option – are being assessed for the gridline. However, the following
points should be noted:
• A different corridor alignment following the R381 and including the Molteno and Roseberg Passes was
originally proposed but, due to the many constraints and sensitivities identified by a number of
specialists, including heritage, it was not pursued further (screened out) and has been replaced in its
entirety by the present corridor;
• An iterative approach to the shape and alignment of the gridline corridor has been followed and the
corridor has been, and will continue to be, refined through the process as information becomes
available, where needed.
• Due to the large size of the study area (corridor), full surveys for every discipline were not possible. A
wide corridor is being assessed so that there will be ample scope for micrositing of the alignment after
pre-construction surveys have taken place;
• The 132 kV and 400 kV powerlines are not alternatives. Authorisation is being sought for both, but with
the condition that only one of them may be constructed. The assessment therefore reports on the worst-
case scenario in every case; and
• Although the overall position of the powerline in the landscape is fixed at the regional scale, the corridor
approach effectively provides alternatives for the powerline route at the local scale through pre-
construction micrositing (but not for comparative assessment purposes during the EIA).
1.2. Terms of reference
ASHA Consulting was requested to produce a Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) that would meet the
requirements of Heritage Western Cape (HWC) and Appendix 6 of the NEMA EIA regulations, 2014, as amended
(refer to the table in the front of this report for the detailed list requirements and where this has been
addressed). Key requirements for the assessment are:
• Fieldwork must be done to collect data from the proposed corridor;
• A full project description must be included;
• A detailed baseline description of the study area must be provided indicating no-go areas and other sensitive
localities;
• A description of the methodology applied to the assessment must be provided;
• The legal context of the assessment must be indicated;
• Potentially significant impacts must be described;
• An impact assessment must be provided for the before and after mitigation scenarios and for both the
132 kV and 400 kV powerlines and the Worst Case Scenario;
• Cumulative impacts and the no-go option must be considered; and
• Provide a reasoned opinion on whether the project or parts of it may be authorised from a heritage point
of view.
ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 6
Figure 3: Example of structure Types 1 to 3 under consideration for the 132 kV powerlines. Maximum heights are 26-31 m (left), 26-
32 m (centre and right).
Figure 4: Example of structure Types 4 to 6 under consideration for the 132 kV powerlines. Maximum heights are 22-26 m (left), 24-
26 m (centre) and 16-18 m (right).
ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 7
Figure 5: Example of structure Types 1 to 3 under consideration for the 400 kV powerlines. Maximum heights are 27-42 m (top), 27-
40 m (bottom left) and 28-41 m (bottom right).
A Notification of Intent to Develop (NID) form was submitted to HWC on 17th October 2019. They responded
with a request for an HIA to be submitted as follows:
ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 8
It should also be noted, however, that following S.38(3) of the National Heritage Resources Act (No. 25 of 1999),
even though certain specialist studies may be specifically requested, all relevant heritage resources should be
identified and assessed.
1.3. Scope and purpose of the report
A heritage impact assessment (HIA) is a means of identifying any significant heritage resources before
development begins so that these can be managed in such a way as to allow the development to proceed (if
appropriate) without undue impacts to the fragile heritage of South Africa. This HIA report aims to fulfil the
requirements of the heritage authorities such that a comment can be issued by them for consideration by the
National Department of Environmental Affairs who will review the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and
grant or refuse authorisation. The HIA report will outline any management and/or mitigation requirements that
will need to be complied with from a heritage point of view and that should be included in the conditions of
authorisation should this be granted.
1.4. The author
Dr Jayson Orton has an MA (UCT, 2004) and a D.Phil (Oxford, UK, 2013), both in archaeology, and has been
conducting Heritage Impact Assessments and archaeological specialist studies in South Africa (primarily in the
Western Cape and Northern Cape provinces) since 2004 (please see curriculum vitae included as Appendix 1).
He has also conducted research on aspects of the Later Stone Age in these provinces and published widely on
the topic. He is an accredited heritage practitioner with the Association of Professional Heritage Practitioners
(APHP; Member #43) and also holds archaeological accreditation with the Association of Southern African
Professional Archaeologists (ASAPA) CRM section (Member #233) as follows:
ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 9
• Principal Investigator: Stone Age, Shell Middens & Grave Relocation; and
• Field Director: Colonial Period & Rock Art.
1.5. Declaration of independence
ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd and its consultants have no financial or other interest in the proposed development
and will derive no benefits other than fair remuneration for consulting services provided. The NEMA Declaration
of independence will be included in the EIA and submitted to the Competent Authority along with this report.
2. HERITAGE LEGISLATION
The National Heritage Resources Act (NHRA) No. 25 of 1999 protects a variety of heritage resources as follows:
• Section 34: structures older than 60 years;
• Section 35: prehistoric and historical material (including ruins) more than 100 years old as well as military
remains more than 75 years old, palaeontological material and meteorites;
• Section 36: graves and human remains older than 60 years and located outside of a formal cemetery
administered by a local authority; and
• Section 37: public monuments and memorials.
Following Section 2, the definitions applicable to the above protections are as follows:
• Structures: “any building, works, device or other facility made by people and which is fixed to land, and
includes any fixtures, fittings and equipment associated therewith”;
• Palaeontological material: “any fossilised remains or fossil trace of animals or plants which lived in the
geological past, other than fossil fuels or fossiliferous rock intended for industrial use, and any site which
contains such fossilised remains or trace”;
• Archaeological material: a) “material remains resulting from human activity which 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”; b) “rock art, being any form of painting, engraving or
other graphic representation on a fixed rock surface or loose rock or stone, which was executed by
human agency and which is older than 100 years, including any area within 10m of such representation”;
c) “wrecks, being any vessel or aircraft, or any part thereof, which was wrecked in South Africa, whether
on land, in the internal waters, the territorial waters or in the maritime culture zone of the Republic, as
defined respectively in sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Maritime Zones Act, 1994 (Act No. 15 of 1994), and any
cargo, debris or artefacts found or associated therewith, which is older than 60 years or which SAHRA
considers to be worthy of conservation”; and d) “features, structures and artefacts associated with
military history which are older than 75 years and the sites on which they are found”;
• Grave: “means a place of interment and includes the contents, headstone or other marker of such a
place and any other structure on or associated with such place”; and
• Public monuments and memorials: “all monuments and memorials a) “erected on land belonging to any
branch of central, provincial or local government, or on land belonging to any organisation funded by or
established in terms of the legislation of such a branch of government”; or b) “which were paid for by
public subscription, government funds, or a public-spirited or military organisation, and are on land
belonging to any private individual.”
Section 3(3) describes the types of cultural significance that a place or object might have in order to be
considered part of the national estate. These are as follows:
ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 10
a) its importance in the community, or pattern of South Africa’s history;
b) its possession of uncommon, rare or endangered aspects of South Africa’s natural or cultural heritage;
c) its potential to yield information that will contribute to an understanding of South Africa’s natural or
cultural heritage;
d) its importance in demonstrating the principal characteristics of a particular class of South Africa’s natural
or cultural places or objects;
e) its importance in exhibiting particular aesthetic characteristics valued by a community or cultural group;
f) its importance in demonstrating a high degree of creative or technical achievement at a particular
period;
g) its strong or special association with a particular community or cultural group for social, cultural or
spiritual reasons;
h) its strong or special association with the life or work of a person, group or organisation of importance in
the history of South Africa; and
i) sites of significance relating to the history of slavery in South Africa.
While landscapes with cultural significance do not have a dedicated Section in the NHRA, they are protected
under the definition of the National Estate (Section 3). Section 3(2)(c) and (d) list “historical settlements and
townscapes” and “landscapes and natural features of cultural significance” as part of the National Estate.
Furthermore, some of the points in Section 3(3) speak directly to cultural landscapes.
Section 38(8) of the NHRA states that if an impact assessment is required under any legislation other than the
NHRA then it must include a heritage component that satisfies the requirements of S.38(3). Furthermore, the
comments of the relevant heritage authority must be sought and considered by the consenting authority prior
to the issuing of a decision. Under the National Environmental Management Act (No. 107 of 1998), as amended
(NEMA), the project is subject to an EIA. The present report provides the heritage component. HWC is required
to provide comment on the proposed project in order to facilitate final decision making by the DEA.
3. METHODS
3.1. Literature survey and information sources
A survey of available literature was carried out to assess the general heritage context into which the
development would be set. This literature included published material, unpublished commercial reports and
online material, including reports sourced from the South African Heritage Resources Information System
(SAHRIS). The 1:250 000 maps and historical aerial images were sourced from the Chief Directorate: National
Geo-Spatial Information, while CapeFarmMapper (http://gis.elsenburg.com/apps/cfm/#) was also used for
current aerial imagery and cadastral details. Mapping was carried out in Google Earth but using Bing aerial
imagery or Google terrain.
3.2. Field survey
Due to the extreme size of the study area, only targeted fieldwork was carried out in most of the corridor. The
northern section within the wind farm study area was more intensively examined though. The target areas were
determined through a combination of driving the public road that runs in and close to the corridor and
examining aerial photography to look for potentially sensitive areas. These areas were then subjected to foot
surveys. Fieldwork in the grid corridor occurred on 17th and 18th March 2019, 6th and 7th April 2019, 13th, 14th
and 17th May 2019 and 17th to 19th September 2019. The surveys were conducted in autumn, winter and spring
ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 11
but in this relatively dry area seasonality makes no difference to the visibility of heritage resources on the
ground. During the survey the positions of finds and survey tracks were recorded on a hand-held Global
Positioning System (GPS) receiver set to the WGS84 datum. Photographs were taken at times in order to capture
representative samples of both the affected heritage and the landscape setting of the proposed development.
3.3. Specialist studies
Specialist assessments of archaeology, palaeontology and visual impacts were required by HWC. While the
archaeological study was carried out by the present author, the palaeontological work was done by Dr John
Almond and the visual assessment by Quinton Lawson and Bernard Oberholzer.
3.4. Screening and pre-scoping assessment
Although the screening assessment has not been submitted to HWC, it is pertinent to note that much fieldwork
occurred prior to design of the corridor layout and that all finds and their buffers (minimum 30 m) were rated
with high, medium or low sensitivity. These sensitivity classes were then assigned development criteria that
described whether the sites and/or buffers were no-go. This informed the shape and alignment of the corridor
and will allow the project team to determine an alignment of the powerlines with minimal impacts. The findings
from the field surveys were also rated and assigned development criteria. These have been captured in the pre-
app scoping phase as well as this phase.
3.5. Impact assessment
For consistency among specialist studies, the impact assessment was conducted through application of a
methodology and rating scale supplied by Aurecon.
3.6. Grading
S.7(1) of the NHRA provides for the grading of heritage resources into those of National (Grade I), Provincial
(Grade II) and Local (Grade III) significance. Grading is intended to allow for the identification of the appropriate
level of management for any given heritage resource. Grade I and II resources are intended to be managed by
the national and provincial heritage resources authorities respectively, while Grade III resources would be
managed by the relevant local planning authority. These bodies are responsible for grading, but anyone may
make recommendations for grading.
It is intended under S.7(2) that the various provincial authorities formulate a system for the further detailed
grading of heritage resources of local significance but this is generally yet to happen. Heritage Western Cape
(2016), however, uses a system in which resources of local significance are divided into Grade IIIA, IIIB and IIIC.
These approximately equate to high, medium and low local significance, while sites of very low or no significance
(and generally not requiring mitigation or other interventions) are referred to as Not Conservation Worthy
(NCW).
3.7. Consultation
The draft HIA will be submitted to registered interested and affected parties and key stakeholders as required
by HWC in their response to the NID application (Section 10). The report is also included in the main public
participation process (PPP) required under the NEMA as part of the EIA.
ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 12
3.8. Assumptions and limitations
The field studies were carried out at the surface only and hence any completely buried archaeological sites and
fossils would not be readily located. Similarly, it is not always possible to determine the depth of archaeological
material visible at the surface. Due to the very large area covered by the corridor, it was not possible to cover
it comprehensively. However, because (1) the survey aimed to target areas that appeared most sensitive and
(2) an extensive desktop study also informed the assessment it is assumed that a high degree of confidence in
the prediction of impacts will still be attained. It is assumed that the recorded heritage sites are in fact
representative of the broader area and, furthermore, the higher density survey coverage of the wind farm study
areas provides an excellent understanding of the nature and typical distribution of heritage resources on the
landscape.
Because it is as yet unknown whether a 132 kV or 400 kV powerline will be built, it has been requested that a
worst case scenario be presented. The present study finds little or no difference in heritage impacts between
the two and assumes therefor that similar impacts would accrue from each type of powerline.
4. PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONTEXT
4.1. Site context
The powerline corridor is located in a largely rural/natural context used for livestock (sheep and cattle) and
game rearing, although the very southern part is alongside the town of Beaufort West with the ultimate end
point being in the large existing Eskom Dröerivier Substation. All local roads are gravel and farm complexes are
few and far between. Outside of the Beaufort West area, human modification of the environment, aside from
roads and occasional farm complexes, some of which have associated agricultural lands, is limited to wind
pumps, small reservoirs and farm fences. A small powerline supplying local farms runs along the DR02311 in
places. Several existing High Voltage (HV) powerlines traverse the area south of Beaufort West, running east-
west, and form part of the national transmission framework for the country. The proposed corridor lies almost
completely within the gazetted central Electricity Grid Infrastructure corridor (DEA 2016) but the northern end
(within the wind farm site) is not included.
The corridor very roughly follows the alignment of the gravel DR02317 and DR02311 (De Jager’s Pass Road) but
completely excludes De Jager’s Pass itself. The DR02317 meets the R381 (which links the Karoo towns of Loxton
[in Northern Cape] and Beaufort West [in Western Cape]), but the northern end of the powerline corridor starts
about 3.6 km away from the R381. In the far south the corridor crosses the N1 and passes to the south of
Beaufort West.
4.2. Site description
The powerline corridor is about 100 km long and varies in width. From the wind farm area in the north it runs
over undulating terrain dominated visually by dolerite hills. Then it loosely follows a river valley and a relatively
flat plain before once more entering an area of undulating dolerite hills. It then approaches and descends the
escarpment before turning towards the southwest along flat terrain at the base of the escarpment towards
Beaufort West.
The corridor is located on land varying in elevation from about 850 m above mean sea level (amsl) in the far
south to about 1800 m just north of the escarpment. It is generally very hilly and rocky, although the majority
of the rocks (especially the shales and dolerite) do not form cliffs but break into pieces through erosion and
ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 13
weathering. The exception to this is are the bands of sandstone that occur in places and are more resistant to
weathering. These create low cliffs in the order to 1 to 5 m high and sometimes result in the formation of rock
shelters. There are many stream beds in the study area, some of which are quite substantial. Vegetation tends
to be relatively sparse due variably to the elevation and exposure, limited rainfall and the often very rocky
substrates. Some of the rivers have sandy terraces in places and these often host slightly denser vegetation.
Figures 6 to 13 provide a series of views across the study area to show its general character, as well as some
specific aspects and features of the environment. Note that Figures 11 and 12 were taken outside the corridor
(it was shifted eastwards after the screening phase) but still show the general nature of the study area.
Figure 6: View towards the southwest along a small escarpment within the northern part of the powerline corridor. This is also within
the wind farm study area.
Figure 7: A river in the northern part of the corridor as seen from the DR02317.
ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 14
Figure 8: View towards the northwest across the flat plain in the northern part of the corridor.
Figure 9: View towards the northwest along the DR02311 in a river valley about 10 km north of the escarpment. This is right on the
eastern edge of the corridor.
Figure 10: View towards the southwest from above the escarpment.
ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 15
Figure 11: View towards the southeast off the edge of the escarpment in the eastern part of the corridor.
Figure 12: View towards the northeast along the DR02311 with the escarpment to the left. The corridor has been shifted eastwards
and would cross this road in the far distance.
Figure 13: View towards the southwest (and towards Beaufort West) along the DR02311 at the foot of the escarpment. The escarpment
lies out of view to the right. The corridor has been shifted eastwards and would cross this road behind the viewer.
ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 16
Figure14: View towards the west towards the Dröerivier Substation and showing the many powerlines that connect to this substation.
Source: Orton (2011: fig. 7).
5. FINDINGS OF THE HERITAGE STUDY
This section contains a brief summary of the heritage resources located on site and highlights some of the better
examples. A full listing is presented in Appendix 4 and mapping is provided in Appendix 5. Note that the finds
from this and the neighbouring projects are all listed together. This is because there are no other heritage
records for the northern and central parts of the study area and these neighbouring projects provide an
indication of the type and density of heritage resources that might be expected within the powerline corridor.
There is also much overlap at the northern end of the corridor with the wind farm projects.
5.1. Palaeontology
The SAHRIS Palaeosensitivity map shows that the study area is largely of three different sensitivities. The
igneous rocks (i.e. the dolerite) is of zero sensitivity (grey in Figure 15), while the bedrocks are of very high
sensitivity (red). Surface sediments are of low sensitivity (blue).
Figure 15: Extract from the SAHRIS Palaeosensitivity map showing the study area (yellow polygon) to be of variable low to very high
palaeontological sensitivity (blue and red shading shading). Some areas are of zero sensitivity (grey).
Almond (2020) notes that gridline corridor is underlain by continental sediments of the Teekloof Formation
(Lower Beaufort Group, Karoo Supergroup) of Middle to Late Permian age. They were deposited in a range of
fluvial and shallow lacustrine settings in the main Karoo Basin. The Teekloof beds are assigned to five
stratigraphic subunits (members) of the Teekloof Formation, viz. the Poortjie, Hoedemaker, Oukloof,
ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 17
Steenkampsvlakte and Javanerskop Members. They are associated with a succession of four or five fossil
assemblage zones (AZs), viz. the Tapinocephalus, Pristerognathus, Tropidostoma, Cistecephalus and
Daptocephalus AZs, that are largely defined on the basis of their distinctive vertebrate faunas.
Dense fossil concentrations of small-bodied dicynodonts (herbivorous “mammal-like reptiles”) are recorded
from riverine exposures of the Poortjie and Hoedemaker Members within the gridline corridor where this
crosses the Nuweveld Wind Farm project area (e.g. on Annex Bultfontein 17, Gert Adriaanskraal (Rocklands)
RE/18). Elsewhere within the corridor, away from main drainage lines, the potentially-fossiliferous mudrocks of
the Teekloof Formation are often poorly-exposed due to extensive cover by Late Caenozoic superficial deposits
(alluvium, colluvium, surfaced gravels, soils, calcretes etc). More resistant-weathering sandstone facies are
usually fossil-poor, although locally abundant bone fragments and teeth as well as transported woody plant
stems occur within channel breccio-conglomerates of the Poortjie Member. A low palaeontological sensitivity
is associated with low-relief gridline sectors located between the WEF project area and the Nuweveldberge as
well as in the piedmont zone along the foot of the Nuweveld Escarpment. Major dolerite intrusions underlie
more mountainous portions of the corridor, such as the Harpuisberg, Rooiberg and the Nuweveldberge / Great
Escarpment. The dolerites are unfossiliferous while baking and secondary mineralisation of the adjacent
sedimentary country rocks has often compromised fossil preservation.
Despite poor bedrock exposure levels within the majority of the gridline corridor, available databases of Karoo
palaeontology (e.g. Nicolas, 2007) record a high density of vertebrate fossil sites between Beaufort West and
Loxton. It is highly likely that unrecorded, scientifically-valuable vertebrates and other fossil remains (e.g.
petrified wood and other plants, trace fossils such as tetrapod and invertebrate burrows) are widely present
within the gridline corridor, especially in areas with good hillslope and riverine mudrock exposures. These sites
can only be located and documented through further palaeontological fieldwork. Most high-density fossil sites
are likely to occur along drainage lines.
5.2. Archaeology
5.2.1. Desktop study
The broader Karoo region generally contains sparse archaeological traces from the Early (ESA), Middle (MSA)
and Later Stone Ages (LSA). The vast majority of material tends to be what is referred to as background scatter.
This can be defined as “widespread isolated artefacts whose distribution results from either primary or
secondary causes” (Orton 2016:121). In this dry landscape, archaeological sites are known to be focused most
strongly on water sources. These are usually scatters of stone artefacts and possibly ostrich eggshell fragments
and pottery but may also, in exceptional circumstances, include bone and even archaeological deposits. Rare
rock art sites are also expected to occur. These could be painted or engraved and might be part of the ‘fine line’
or geometric tradition’ styles. It is noted, however, that geometric tradition art – thought to have been
produced by the Khoekhoen – is not yet known from the northern part of the study area but has been recorded
along the escarpment to the south (Figure 16) as well as more recently about 100 km to the east (Hart 2016).
Parkington et al. (2008) have documented many engravings in the Karoo region. They do not map their work
but do provide a historical map of engraving distribution which shows the densest concentration being to the
northeast around the Kimberley region. An interesting aspect of Karoo archaeology is rock gongs. These are
dolerite rocks that are naturally perched in such a way that when struck they release a ringing musical note.
The gongs are identified by heavily worked patches where they have been repeatedly struck. Parkington et al.
(2008) have studied a number of gongs from Nelspoort and Vosburg, some 27 km to the east and 135 km to the
north-north east of the powerline corridor respectively. There are many engravings at Nelspoort (Orton,
personal observation 2010).
ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 18
Figure 16: Extract from a map showing the distribution of geometric tradition rock art. Source: Smith & Ouzman (2005: fig. 9). The
present study area is in the red circle with Hart’s (2016) observation being just to the east.
No previous impact assessments have been carried out in close proximity to the northern part of the powerline
corridor but a few other studies from further afield can be cited. A fairly major area of recent study is the
Komsberg Renewable Energy Development Zone (REDZ) which is located some 150 km southwest of the present
study area. Like the present study area, it encompasses the escarpment as well as land just south and just north
of it; the environments are, therefore, physiologically similar to the present study area. Van der Walt (2016)
found an area just above the escarpment there to have very few stone artefacts but a rock shelter with fineline
paintings was recorded at the head of a river valley leading off the escarpment. Hart (2015), working just south
of the escarpment edge, noted in his study that precolonial remains were entirely absent and cited the lack of
suitable stone for artefact manufacture as the main reason. Orton (2017) working both above and below the
escarpment (north and east of Hart’s (2015) study area) also noted a remarkable paucity of Stone Age materials
but did record a very impressive precolonial kraal complex on high ground above the escarpment (with minimal
associated LSA materials) and one small geometric tradition rock painting at the base of the escarpment closer
to Merweville. Webley and Hart (2010) examined a site to the east of Loxton and located just two flakes that
they considered to be of MSA origin. Some 70 km northeast of the present study area, Halkett and Webley
(2011) noted fairly widespread background scatter artefacts all of which they attributed to the MSA. About
100 km east of the present study area, Hart (2016) recorded many rock art sites, the majority of which were
engravings of varying age. He also found an exceptional painted site that was layered with paintings of various
ages. Unusually, this site also included engravings on its walls. Hart (2016) noted that the distribution of
engravings did not match that of other aspects of archaeology (including painted sites) which were all focused
along water courses. Other Stone Age traces were rare and generally limited to artefact scatters close to rivers.
Historical archaeological resources, too, are little known from above the escarpment but some inference can
be made from studies carried out further afield. At the southern end of the Nuweveld Mountains, in the KNP,
Kaplan (2005, 2006, 2007) recorded several small ruined stone structures which were said to be kraals, a
homestead and shepherd’s huts. One of them had a small scatter of late 19th to early 20th century historical
artefacts associated with it. A stone-built lime kiln and some animal traps are also on record (SANParks 2017).
Other stone walled ruins are known from the KNP and, according to Anonymous (2016) some were demolished
in order to reuse the stone to build the Klipspringer Pass. This pass was built from 1986 to 1992 (Goetze 1993).
To the west, in the Komsberg REDZ, Hart (2015) found the remains of stone ruins to be very common. He
attributed these to the Trekboers who colonised the area in the 18th and 19th centuries. He noted kraals,
ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 19
stockposts and occasional farmsteads. Also in that area, Van der Walt (2016) found very few ruins but some
were the remains of Anglo-Boer War fortifications. Not far to the east, Orton (2017) recorded several stone-
built ruined structures above the escarpment and also two small ruined farm complexes at the foot of the
escarpment.
These early packed stone structures are invariably collapsed reducing them to archaeological sites in terms of
the NHRA definitions. While some with taller walls may have had a formal or informal and/or temporary roof
over them, others may have been hartebeeshuise with A-frame-type roofs made of branches and reeds placed
above low stone or mud walls. Governor van Plettenberg, during his travels east to inspect the Colony, noted
near the Sneeuwberg Mountains that the houses of the colonists consisted only of one room structures with
low walls and straw roofs (Theal 1896-1911 cited in Böeseken 1975). In 1811 William Burchell illustrated a
trekboer farmhouse (Van Zyl 1975), while Schoeman (2013) shows an image of such a historical stone dwelling
still in use in the early 20th century (Figures 17 & 18).
Figure 17: Drawing of an early 19th century trekboer farmhouse by William Burchell. Source: Van Zyl (1975:103)
Figure 18: A shepherd’s hut photographed near Beaufort West in the early 20th century. Note the low, narrow doorway. Source:
Schoeman (2013:48).
Several surveys have been carried out below the escarpment around Beaufort West though. Because of the
generally eroding nature of the substrate, Stone Age materials are often found in secondary context or as
background scatter. Artefacts of varying age and generally low significance have been reported around Beaufort
West by Dreyer (2005), Halkett (2009), Kaplan (2008), Nilssen (2011) and Webley and Lanham (2011), while
Deacon (2007) found MSA and LSA scatters nearer to Three Sisters.
The Karoo has been a highly contested landscape at various times in the past. The Khoekhoen first migrated
into South Africa about 2000 years ago. That they lived in the Karoo in precolonial times is testified to by the
ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 20
presence of geometric tradition rock art and precolonial kraals, while many historical records of their presence
also exist. The only study to attempt to date the Khoekhoe occupation was by Sampson (2010) in an area about
160 km northeast of the present study area. Through dating potsherds associated with kraals he determined
that the kraals – and by implication herding – dated to between about AD 1000 and AD 1750, shortly before the
arrival of the Trekboers. Sampson (2010:847) suggests that there would have been tension between the
indigenous San and the incoming Khoekhoen but considers that their interactions resulted in “a millennium of
(probably uneasy) space-sharing with the locals.”
5.2.2. Site visit
A range of archaeological resources was found. Stone Age material tends to be rare but when present can have
quite high significance. Only occasional isolated artefacts dating to the Pleistocene (i.e. MSA) were seen but LSA
artefacts, always concentrated into scatters were also rarely seen. None of the latter were of much significance
in the powerline corridor. Figure 19 shows an example that included some artefacts in hornfels and
sandstone/quartzite as well as two fragments of pottery and a piece of ostrich eggshell. As expected, it was
located alongside a stream bed.
Figure 19: LSA stone artefacts, pottery and an ostrich eggshell fragment from Waypoint 1703. Scale in cm.
Of more importance are rock art sites. Although some paintings were seen in the wind farm study area (to be
reported separately), none have yet been found in the powerline corridor. Two engravings have, however, been
found. They were very close to one another but yet completely different in age and subject matter. One was a
scraped eland engraving (Figure 20) located on a smooth, flat bounder on the edge of a dolerite plateaux. Figure
6 shows the location with the engraving located at the figures seen standing on the skyline. This engraving is
undoubtedly from the LSA. The second engraving was a pair of scratched images which were very faint and not
discernible. They were located in a similar location to the scraped eland but 140 m to the northeast and on the
other side of a small watercourse. The style suggests that they are quite recent, probably historical.
ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 21
Figure 20: Scraped eland engraving at Waypoint 1437.
Historical archaeology was very commonly encountered with many ruined stone structures seen. The examples
described and illustrated here come from three old farm complexes. The first is a very dispersed complex and
is located in the northern end of the powerline corridor. It consists of a number of stone-built structures and
related features. Figure 21 shows a small house ruin and Figure 22 some associated artefacts – there were very
few artefacts at this ruin. The artefacts included a fragment of typical late 19th century transfer printed refined
white earthenware. Figures 23 and 24 show two other ruined structures of indeterminate function that are
located 210 and 260 m southeast of the house ruin. Two stone kraals were located to the south of the house
ruin. One was 150 m away and associated with a small rock shelter that contained LSA materials. Being a rather
ephemeral kraal it may well date to the LSA. The other was more obviously historical and lay some 410 m south
of the house ruin (Figure 25).
Figure 21: A stone-walled house ruin at Waypoint 1387.
ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 22
Figure 22: Ceramic, glass and metal artefacts from
Waypoint 1387.
Figure 23: A stone-walled ruin at Waypoint 035.
Figure 24: A stone-walled ruin at Waypoint 036. Figure 25: A stone kraal at Waypoint 1389.
The second farm complex was probably the most significant one seen in the entire survey. It was very large and,
according to a retired farm labourer still living in the area, was still in use until the 1950s. His grandfather had
lived there. He noted that one of the structures was a shop that supplied the region. A few kraals were present
with Figures 26 and 27 showing an example that was built up against a south-facing rock outcrop. A livestock
dip with associated enclosures was also present (Figures 28 & 29). The most visually impressive structure is a
large northeast-facing house (19 m by 11 m) built with three different materials (Figures 30 to 32). It has stone,
sun-dried mud bricks and fired clay bricks in its walls. Various additions have been made to the structure over
the years. A widespread scatter of glass and ceramics occurs on the rocky ground surface around this ruin
(Figure 33). A long terrace-like wall runs along the side of the river valley in front of this house. The wall supports
the access road into the farm complex. Towards the east another wall protrudes at 90 degrees and runs down
the slope towards the river. The west face of this wall has a number of small built-in cavities (like muurkaste).
Their function is unknown since the wall does not appear to be part of a building (Figure 34). To the south of
this is another long building (20 m by 7 m). It too was built of a mixture of stone, sun-dried mud bricks and fired
clay bricks (Figures 35 & 36). Its long axis runs north south and entrances in the northern and southern walls
were larger than normal, perhaps indicating the structure to have been a barn. The southern entrance, however,
was later reduced to the size of a normal door by extending both the stonework and the brickwork. In Figure
36 the two different types of bricks are evident – the sun-dried mud bricks have started washing away leaving
spaces between the harder and far better-preserved fired clay bricks.
ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 23
Figure 26: The entrance to a stone-walled kraal at Waypoint
1976.
Figure 27: A side wall of the kraal at Waypoint 1976.
Figure 28: Stone walling associated with a livestock dip at
Waypoint 1986.
Figure 29: View into the livestock dip at Waypoint 1986. It has
become invaded by poplar trees.
Figure 30: A structure built of stone, sun-dried mud bricks and fired clay bricks at Waypoint 1993.
ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 24
Figure 31: Interior of the front wall of the house at Waypoint
1993. The front door is at the left edge of this photograph.
Figure 32: Interior of the front wall of the house at Waypoint
1993. The front door is at the right edge of this photograph.
Figure 33: Artefacts at Waypoint 1992 and associated with the
house at Waypoint 1993.
Figure 34: The stone wall at Waypoint 1994 with built-in cavities
on its north-western face.
Figure 35: View of the east-facing structure at Waypoint 2000. Figure 36: Detail of the walling at Waypoint 2000 showing stone,
fired clay bricks and sun-dried mud bricks.
ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 25
A small south-facing rock shelter was found to have some low walling in it (Figure 37). The walling is almost
certainly related to the main farm complex, but it could also be older. Some small patches/motifs of thick, black
pigment were found on a vertical wall in the west side of the shelter (Figure 38). What the motifs mean is
unknown but they are somewhat reminiscent of the black-painted motifs at Kangnas, east of Springbok (Orton
2013).
Figure 37: The small rock shelter at Waypoint 1984 with low
stone walling in it and black pigment on one wall.
Figure 38: Black pigment on the wall of the rock shelter at
Waypoint 1984.
The third example is far less well-preserved than the other two and is located just above the edge of the
escarpment in the southern part of the powerline corridor. It follows a particular pattern which, to the present
author’s knowledge, is seen only in the Karoo. It consists of a walled valley (Figures 39 & 40) with structures and
enclosures built either against the wall or very close to it. The entire length of the wall was about 700 m with
the area enclosed being about 2.6 ha. Most associated enclosures were built along the south-western wall, both
inside and outside of it, but a large kraal was built a short distance up the slope, also to the southwest of the
main valley wall (Figures 39 & 41).
Figure 39: Aerial view of the stone-walled valley at Waypoint 1930. A large kraal (at Waypoint 1936) is visible to the west. Source:
CapeFarmMapper.
ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 26
Figure 40: View towards the northwest up the valley with an enclosing stone wall at Waypoint 1930.
Figure 41: View towards the northeast across the stone kraal at Waypoint 1936 and looking towards the enclosed valley in the
background. The river valley runs off the edge of the escarpment at the red arrow.
Some stone features and structures were found in isolated positions. These included some long stone walls at
the top of the escarpment, one of which was 360 m long and placed right at the edge of the escarpment
(Figure 42). Another was about 1.3 km long. Figure 43 shows an example of a small stone-walled structure
located on its own. It was probably a shepherd’s hut and would have had a temporary roof structure of sticks
and vegetation or mats.
Figure 42: A long stone wall placed right at the edge of the
escarpment at Waypoint 1927.
Figure 43: An isolated small stone-walled structure, probably a
shepherd’s hut, at Waypoint 1929.
ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 27
5.3. Graves
A stone-walled graveyard was found associated with the second farm complex described above. Its entrance
faces east. There are eight east-facing graves marked only by stone mounds and unmarked headstones in the
western part of the graveyard (Figure 45), while a single west-facing grave lies just inside the entrance. A further
twelve similar graves lie outside the western wall of the graveyard. About 300 m to the west (upstream) and on
the opposite side of the river, there was a line of eight graves on the river terrace. Like those just described,
they were identified by stone-packed mounds and small unmarked headstones. They were very overgrown with
bush though. A single grave at Waypoint 1429 was also associated with a farm complex. There is always a small
chance of finding unmarked precolonial graves, especially in river terraces which can be excavated by hand.
Figure 44: View towards the northeast of the stone-walled
graveyard at Waypoint 1987.
Figure 45: Looking southwest at the graves in the graveyard at
Waypoint 1987.
5.4. Historical aspects and the built environment
5.4.1. Desktop study
For various reasons including changes to the structure of the Cape Colony, and the desire to seek new grazing
and independence from Dutch East India Company (VoC) rule, farmers started to leave the Cape Colony during
the early 18th century. This process ultimately had its beginnings with the creation of a class of farmers referred
to as free burghers who moved into the region surrounding Cape Town (e.g. Wellington, Paarl, Stellenbosch and
Franschhoek). Willem Adriaan van der Stel, governor of the Colony from 1699 to 1707, abused his power as
governor by favouring his own farming activities when supplying ships with food, thereby making the free
burgher farmers unhappy. The Colonists were also initially not allowed to trade with the Khoekhoen but this
rule was changed in February 1700. Around this time Van der Stel gave grazing licences further from the Colony
in order to increase pastoral production (Penn 20051). These factors were the ultimate start of Colonial
expansion after the Colony had remained confined to the Cape Town area for the first several decades and in
fact perpetuated it during the following decades.
The colonists soon realised that the best way to survive in the relatively arid interior was to be as close to the
year-round rainfall zone as possible. This allowed for seasonal movement into the summer rainfall region to the
1Note that this section on the 18th century trekboers of the Nuweveld and the San and Khoekhoe resistance is based on the
extensive archival and historical research of Nigel Penn (2005) and that his many secondary sources have not been individually cited
here.
ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 28
northeast or the winter rainfall region to the southwest. In this way they could maximise the availability of water
and grazing for their livestock. The mountains lying within this zone – essentially the escarpment edge – were
also better watered due to their elevated rainfall and more frequent permanent springs. Between about 1740
and 1770 there was a rapid expansion into this zone which extended from the Kamiesberg of Namaqualand,
through the Onder Bokkeveld and the Hantam, to the Roggeveld Mountains, but possibly not yet all the way to
the far northern end of the powerline corridor (Figure 46). This, then, along with the Nuweveld2 Mountains just
east of the Roggeveld constituted the mid-18th century northern frontier zone. The Nuweveld saw 75 farms
being granted in this 30 year period (Penn 2005). According to Botha (1926), the Nuweveld was so named
because it was a new area to be colonised. Note also that the limits of the area under discussion are unknown.
It seems likely, though, that it did not extend very much beyond (north of) the crest of the escarpment. Walker
(1928) maps the 1798 colonial boundary as being just north of the crest of the escarpment (Figure 47).
Figure 46: Map showing the mid-18th century trekboer expansion in the Karoo. Source: Botha (1926: opposite preface). The wind farm
study area is indicated by the red circle.
The Nuweveld Mountains were actually within the summer rainfall area which made occupation slightly more
tenuous because trekking west into the winter rainfall Roggeveld Mountains meant moving into areas already
occupied by other trekboers. The Nuweveld area was thus never properly occupied by colonists during the 18th
century with the local San and Khoekhoen frequently stealing livestock from the colonists. A series of robberies
in December 1775 and January 1776 in the Camdeboo and Swartruggens areas (some 200 km southeast of the
present study area) resulted in a vicious commando being led against the San and Khoekhoen. Forty-five people
were killed and thirty-six prisoners taken by the commando. This attack resulted in the passing of a resolution
by the landdrost that no further commandos be undertaken without his express permission. Soon afterwards,
many hostile San and Khoekhoen began assembling in the Koup, Sak River and Nuweveld areas, protecting
themselves in fortified rock shelters. Although a request was made to mount a commando, the Nuweveld
farmers could not await the outcome but found their small commando to be too weak to make any impact. A
2 Note that the earlier spelling of Nuweveld is Nieuweveld (as used by Penn [2005]) but the modern version is used here.
ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 29
commando from the Sneeuwberg came to their assistance and the two together killed 111 San and Khoekhoen.
Despite this success, many farmers vacated the Nuweveld area (Penn 2005).
Figure 47: Map showing the extent of the Cape Colony by 1798. Source: Walker (1928:201). The wind farm study area is indicated by
the red circle.
In July of 1779 a group of twelve farmers decided to risk moving back into the Nuweveld area. The result was
an increased intensity of San raids and commando activity that resulted in many deaths. This fighting continued
and by September 1781 the farmers had too few cattle left to be able to sell to the VoC butchers. Commando
activity also ceased because of a shortage of ammunition. By 1786 drought and San resistance resulted in the
colonists once again vacating the Nuweveld and leaving it almost completely free of trekboers until 1793 (Penn
2005).
In June 1792 a large group of about 300 people – described as San by the colonists – attacked the Van Reenen
brothers (who had the contract to deliver livestock to Cape Town) and stole about 600 sheep and 253 cattle.
This act finally prompted the Government to take more serious action and two very well organised commandos
were raised under the direction of two proven local leaders (N. Smit & J. van der Walt) and sent to the Nuweveld
region where they killed more than 500 San. Owing to the lack of surface water, the area was still seen as
marginal and could not support sufficient farmers to withstand or expel the San and/or Khoekhoen. In 1793 Van
der Walt was permitted to move into the Nuweveld and was given two farms rent-free and the power to send
out commandos as he saw fit (Penn 2005).
By the time the British took control of the Cape, the trekboers “had already acquired the characteristics of an
embryo nation” (Van Zyl 1975:125). This was because the VoC had largely left them to look after themselves
which resulted in them becoming quite independent of the Company and its rather weak rule. Due to various
changes implemented under British rule, a growing unease developed amongst the colonists and this eventually
led to a large-scale migration of farmers further north and east, beyond the borders of the Colony; this was the
so-called ‘Great Trek’ of 1834 to 18543 (Muller 1975). Walker (1928), however, comments that this event could
actually be seen merely as an acceleration of a process that had long been underway. The Cape Colony
meanwhile expanded as shown in Figure 48 with the study area fully incorporated by 1825.
3 Authors vary on the dates ascribed to this event with Walker (1928) giving dates of 1835 to 1848.
ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 30
Figure 48: Map showing the expanding boundaries of the Cape Colony under British Rule. Source: Van Zyl (1975:102). The wind farm
study area is indicated by the red circle.
There appears to have been limited action in the Nuweveld area during the Second South African War (Anglo-
Boer War). Lieutenant-Colonel EMS Crabbe made use of a farm called Waterval along the R381 and just north
of the crest of the escarpment. On 5th February 1902 he moved west to join Major H.W.G. Crofton at
Uitspannen but found that Crofton had been killed by the Boers and his force captured (Watt 2013). This action
occurred west of the R381. Beaufort West did not feature prominently in the war but the railway was, of course,
an important feature relied on heavily by the British for moving supplies around.
Historical buildings occur widely across the Karoo with most dating to the 19th century. Orton et al. (2016:15-8)
noted the following:
In the harsh, resource-scarce Karoo environment with its restricted range of materials, necessity often was the mother of
invention when it came to constructing shelter, resulting in a unique regional vernacular building tradition that displays the
creative and technical achievement required to fashion an existence there. This relied on both traditional and conventional
artisanal skills since buildings were hand-crafted from sun-baked bricks, locally occurring timber and quarried or collected
stone. The result was a variety of local styles that we refer to collectively as Karoo vernacular.”
This varied architecture is evident not only in the towns but also in remote areas. Two building traditions are
unique to the Karoo. Corbelled buildings, which occur to the north and west of the present study area and date
between about 1813 and 1870, evolved from the need to build roofs without wooden beams (Kramer 2012).
Isolated examples are mapped in the Karoo National Park and just to the southwest of the northern end of the
corridor, but none are known from within it. The second tradition is known as Karoostyle and has been
described by Marincowitz (2006). These buildings are typically simple rectangular structures with flat roofs and
parapets. Flat roofs were often of the type referred to as ‘brakdak’ which consists of beams overlaid by sticks,
reeds and then mud mixed with other materials such as manure or vegetation (Fagan 2008).
In rural areas buildings tend to be clustered into farm complexes with relatively few isolated structures. The
complexes can include a variety of styles, while isolated structures are often small Karoostyle labourer’s
cottages. Due to the consolidation of farms into larger holdings in order to increase commercial viability, there
are fewer farmsteads present today than would have been present in the past.
ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 31
The Molteno Pass, which lies along the R381 between Beaufort West and Loxton, was built by Thomas Bain
from 1875 to 1880. Another section through a steep valley – also built by Bain – is referred to as the Roseberg
Pass. The route is known to have been in use since 1830 when it was just a path. In 1837 local farmers improved
the route to allow for the passage of wagons (Willis 1994 cited in Ross 2013). Storrar and Konick (1984) suggests
that the entire route was originally called Rose’s Berg Pass. The R381 has had a number of sections realigned
during modern upgrades but the steepest section through the Molteno Pass is almost unchanged – just one
obvious short realignment is evident there. De Jager’s Pass lies along the DR02311 about 46 km southeast of
the study area. It too was built by Thomas Bain with completion in 1880 and was known as Wagenaar’s Kloof
until 1899 when it was reconstructed and renamed. It had its origins in an early wagon track into the interior,
also dating back to about 1830 (Ross 2013). Aerial photography also suggests a few sections to have been
realigned over the years.
The town of Beaufort West has a history going back just over 200 years. It was established on the farm
Hooivlakte (originally granted in 1760) in 1818 as a sub-drosty of Graaff-Reinett. The main reason for the
establishment of the town was an attempt to curb the lawlessness in the vicinity of the ill-defined northern
boundary of the Cape Colony. The original streets were on a narrow strip of land between the Gamka River in
the west and the Kuils River in the east (Fransen 2004). It was originally named Beaufort, but the ‘West’ was
added later to avoid confusion with Fort Beaufort and Port Beaufort. The Dutch Reformed Church (DRC) in the
town was established in 1825 under Reverend Colin Fraser. The Parish was vast and included mostly trek boers
moving in and out of the area (Frandsen 2018). The first church of 1826 was replaced by the present one in
1891 (Fransen 2004). Beaufort West became the first municipality in South Africa, having been established on
3rd February 1837 (Frandsen 2018). With the railway from the Cape reaching the town in 1880, it became an
important railway marshalling yard and locomotive depot, especially once the railways had been extended to
the diamond fields of Kimberley and the gold mines at Johannesburg (Bulpin 2001; Frandsen 2018). A number
of important historical buildings occur in Beaufort West (Fransen 2004) but unfortunately, due to the regular
addition of modern structures in between them, significant streetscapes are uncommon.
From the late 18th century onwards many Xhosa moved into the Karoo. This was partly as a result of the Eastern
Cape Frontier Wars but was accelerated after the 1856-57 cattle killing that occurred as a result of a prophecy
(see Frandsen 2018 for further details) and resulted in the subsequent death (through starvation) of some
40 000 people. The people were migrating in a search for employment and food.
5.4.2. Site visit
The main historical features of the study area are buildings. While some farmsteads do fall within the corridor,
the powerline would be routed to avoid them for visual reasons and it is thus isolated, and often now
uninhabited, structures that are of far greater concern. Nevertheless, some significant structures occur in the
farmsteads with Figures 49 to 51 showing examples. In general, there are very few standing structures in the
broader area located away from farm complexes. Such structures were only seen in one place, but this was in
fact an old farm complex (Modderfontein) located just above the edge of the escarpment that has long since
been abandoned (Figures 52 to 55). However, some use has been made of the structures in recent years with
one having been added to and renovated (Figure 54). This complex also has a number of archaeological features
which suggests it was in use for a long time before its eventual abandonment, probably due to being bought by
a farmer who resided elsewhere. Interestingly, that a stone kraal had been in relatively recent use was
demonstrated by wire fencing and a gate added to its entrance to facilitate the corralling of livestock (Figure
55).
ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 32
Figure 49: Structure in the Leeukloof Farm complex at Waypoint 1850. Figure 50: Structure in the Leeukloof Farm complex at
Waypoint 1850
Figure 51: An unusual double story structure in the Booiskraal Farm complex at Waypoint 1794
Figure 52: A structure at Waypoint 1956 that was probably a humble
farm house at some point.
Figure 53: Interior of the house at Waypoint 1956.
ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 33
Figure 54: An old stone structure at Waypoint 1959 that was raised with
low-fired clay bricks and turned into a Karoostyle cottage and then far
more recently extended through the addition of a fireplace.
Figure 55: An old circular stone kraal that has been
recently used at Waypoint 1961. A recent wire enclosure
and gate lie at the far side.
Another aspect of built heritage is the mountain passes. De Jager’s Pass, although not falling within the actual
corridor, is only about 2.5 km east of its eastern edge and users of the pass would likely be able to see the
powerline. It is likely, however, that the powerline will cross the escarpment more than 7 km away from the
pass.
Figure 56: Looking northeast along the De Jager’s Pass at a
characteristic stone retaining wall. Recent repairs in the
background feature concrete railway sleepers.
Figure 57: The view towards the southwest from near the top of
De Jager’s Pass. Beaufort West lies in the distance some 35 km
away.
5.5. Cultural landscape
Cultural landscapes are the product of the interactions between humans and nature in a particular area. Sauer
(1925) defined them thus: “The cultural landscape is fashioned from a natural landscape by a cultural group.
Culture is the agent, the natural area is the medium, the cultural landscape the result”. There are four aspects
that require discussion here.
The oldest is the landscape inhabited for thousands of years by the indigenous Bushmen hunter-gatherers and
more recent Khoekhoe herders who left little trace of their passing but did mark the landscape with engravings,
paintings and rock gongs (these aspects of the archaeological landscape have been discussed in Section 5.2
above). This precolonial archaeological landscape is essentially a natural or primeval landscape because it has
experienced so little human modification.
ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 34
The second aspect is the Trekboer landscape which includes somewhat more permanent traces in the form of
stone-built residential and farming structures (now in ruin) along with related features like threshing floors and
graves. This is again essentially an archaeological cultural landscape with the features having been discussed
above. These early farmers also fitted into the natural landscape but created small enclaves of “domesticated
space” where they chose to place their farm complexes. The earliest trekboers probably left very little trace at
all since they would have lived in their ox wagons before eventually settling down and building the stone
structures that characterise this aspect of the cultural landscape. Some farm complexes in the region are
marked by the presence of small forests of grey poplar (Populus x canescens). These fast-growing trees were
grown for their branches which were used for poles in construction.
The third aspect is the modern cultural landscape of livestock and game farming. This landscape is comprised
of widely spaced farm complexes, and a network of farm fences and tracks. The farm complexes are generally
marked by the presence of many trees (Figure 58). Wind pumps are still in use but some farmers are, for
convenience, replacing them with solar pumps. Small areas of arable land are usually associated with each farm
complex. These are situated along rivers where the alluvial sand is easier to till. These lands are visible in Figure
58 and also in Figure 59 which shows some of the fields associated with the now abandoned Modderfontein
farmstead just above the escarpment. There were even a number of very large and untended fruit trees present
in one area.
Figure 58: 1959 (Job 434, strip016, photograph 6256) and modern (Google Earth with Bing overlay) aerial photographs of the
Booiskraal farm complex. The complex is visually dominated by trees and has seen very little change over 60 years.
Figure 59: View of the old agricultural fields at the abandoned Modderfontein Farm. The farm structures are in the distance at far
right.
ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 35
The fourth aspect is those parts of the landscape that have high visual sensitivity. These are both natural and
cultural landscapes and include the escarpment edge, KNP and mountain passes of the area. The escarpment is
a highly significant landscape feature in South Africa with part of it being protected within the KNP. The
Nuweveld Mountains have been rated as having provincial significance by Winter and Oberholzer (2013), a
rating that is well justified. The escarpment offers some spectacular views, although many are not publicly
accessible (e.g. Figure 60). Their scenic splendour is appreciated both from the N1 highway that passes them on
the plains to the south (Figure 61) as well as from the various mountain passes that lead to the Upper Karoo to
the north. Because of its National Park status, views within the KNP are also considered significant. It is noted
that the KNP extends virtually to the north-western edge of the urban area of Beaufort West. This area is
characterised by modern affordable housing, modern and historical quarrying, and the town golf course. The
Molteno and Roseberg Passes (R381) are too far away from the proposed corridor to be relevant but De Jager’s
Pass (DR02311) is of concern as it has direct line of sight to part of the power line corridor, including where it
crosses the escarpment. Winter and Oberholzer (2013) have rated the R381 as being a locally significant route
but this significance can certainly be extended to the De Jager’s Pass road as well, since it too is scenic and
shares a similar history, although it is a far less used road.
Part of all the above is the relatively undisturbed wilderness atmosphere that pervades the region in all
directions once one is away from Beaufort West. Driving its public roads, in this case the R381, DR02317 and
DR02311 and N1, leaves one marvelling at the tremendous sense of wide open space and, away from the hills
of the escarpment, the endless Karoo plains.
Figure 60: View towards the east into a canyon on the edge of the escarpment. This is an example of a view that is not publicly
accessible and was seen near the abandoned Modderfontein Farm complex.
ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 36
Figure 61: View towards the north from the approximate point where the centre of the powerline corridor crosses the N1. The corridor
crosses the escarpment approximately between the two red arrows. De Jager’s Pass is approximately below the green arrow. Source:
Google Earth Street View.
5.6. Visual impact assessment
The visual impact assessment was prepared for this project by Lawson and Oberholzer (2020). It appears in Appendix 7 of
the present report. It lists a variety of resources that are sensitive to visual intrusion. These include topographic features,
water features, cultural landscapes, protected areas, game and nature reserves, human settlements, scenic routes and
arterial roads and specific visually sensitive heritage sites.
The viewshed prepared for the project (Figures 62-64) shows that the grid line could be quite widely visible in the
landscape up to about 5 km away but that in places topography severely restricts the sightlines (Lawson & Oberholzer
2020: maps 13-15). Note that separate viewsheds were prepared for the 400 kV and 132 k powerlines but that because
they are so similar only the 400 kV one has been presented here. It should also be noted that although a corridor is being
assessed for authorisation purposes, the visual consultants used the currently favoured alignment within the corridor in
the preparation of their maps and illustrations.
The generally high degree of intactness of the Karoo landscape is noted, but in the area around Beaufort West there has
been a significant intrusion of visual clutter originating from industrial activity, the railway line, Droërivier Substation and
the many existing powerlines. The VIA identifies the escarpment edge along the Oshoekberg as the main topographic
feature in the grid corridor. When all factors that contribute to visual impact intensity are considered, Lawson and
Oberholzer (2020: table 7) find that the powerlines would have a medium intensity impact in the case of the 132 kV pylons
and medium-high intensity impact in the case of the 400 kV pylons. The associated switching stations would have a
medium-low intensity impact.
A number of photomontages have been prepared showing the appearance of the proposed powerline in the landscape.
It will vary from quite prominently visible to very marginally visible on distant skylines. The southern area around Beaufort
West naturally has a higher degree of visibility because there are many roads in or close to the powerline corridor and
viewers would at times find themselves in close proximity to the powerlines. From a heritage point of view, the
escarpment is the key landscape element of concern. Two photomontages of the escarpment area are shown in Figures
65 and 66 but more images showing other parts of the landscape can be consulted in Lawson and Oberholzer (2020:
figures 3-9).
Lawson and Oberholzer (2020: fig. 2) also provide a comparative view of pylons at various distances. These views make it
clear that the pylons would be very small in the distance and would likely merge with surrounding landscape features.
ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 37
Importantly, the escarpment crossing point is far enough from most public viewpoints that the pylons would probably not
be readily noticeable.
Figure 1: Viewshed of the northern section of the Nuweveld grid corridor using 132 kV pylons between the wind farm substations and
400 kV pylons for the rest of the line. The wind farm sites are shaded in light blue and do not form part of this study. Source: Lawson
and Oberholzer (2020: map 13).
ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 38
Figure 2: Viewshed of the central section of the Nuweveld grid corridor using 400 kV pylons. The escarpment edge is visible in the
southern part of the map. Source: Lawson and Oberholzer (2020: map 14).
ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 39
Figure 3: Viewshed of the southern section of the Nuweveld grid corridor using 400 kV pylons. The escarpment edge is visible in the
northern part of the map and the KNP to the northwest. Source: Lawson and Oberholzer (2020: map 15).
Figure 4: Viewpoint panorama from the mid-slopes of De Jager’s Pass to the northeast of the point where the powerline would cross
the escarpment edge. The powerline is located 7.8 km to 8.0 km away and the escarpment crossing is screened by a nearer section of
mountain. Source: Lawson & Oberholzer (2020: fig. 6).
ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 40
Figure 5: Photomontage from the De Jager’s Pass road to the southeast of the point at which the powerline would cross the escarpment
edge. The powerline is located 2.4 km away to the left side in this view, while the escarpment crossing is 5.2 km away and openly
visible from this point. Source: Lawson & Oberholzer (2020: fig. 6).
Figure 6: Schematic image showing the appearance of powerlines and pylons at distance. Source: Lawson & Oberholzer (2020: fig. 2).
5.7. Statement of significance and provisional grading
Section 38(3)(b) of the NHRA requires an assessment of the significance of all heritage resources. In terms of
Section 2(vi), ‘‘cultural significance’’ means aesthetic, architectural, historical, scientific, social, spiritual,
linguistic or technological value or significance. The reasons that a place may have cultural significance are
outlined Section 3(3) of the NHRA (see Section 2 above).
ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 41
The palaeontological resources are deemed to have high cultural significance for their scientific value, although
it is noted that this significance rating applies to certain parts of the corridor only with the rest being of low or
medium significance. Areas crossing the dolerite are of zero significance. The most important palaeontological
resources of the study area are considered to be Grade IIIA resources.
Archaeological resources are also highly variable in their cultural significance. The most important sites are
considered to have high local significance for their scientific and social values and are assigned Grade IIIA. The
vast majority of archaeological resources, however, are of low significance (IIIC or NCW).
Graves are deemed to have high cultural significance for their social value and are accorded Grade IIIA.
Outside of Beaufort West there are few structures of high significance. Certainly the most significant would be
no more than Grade IIIA but most are considered IIIC. Within the town of Beaufort West there are structures
up to Grade II, including some declared Provincial Heritage Sites (PHSs), but these would not be impacted by
the current application.
5.8. Summary of heritage indicators
Palaeontological resources are patchily distributed across the study area and will be impacted by the proposed
powerline. Due to their nature (i.e. buried in hard rock), it is accepted that not all fossils can be rescued but a
representative sample should be retained from the study area.
• Indicator: Uncontrolled damage to fossils should be minimised as far as possible.
LSA and particularly historical archaeological sites occur widely across the study area. Such sites, and graves
where they are associated, should be avoided, although it is acceptable that the powerline may need to span
above such sites in order to reduce other impacts. Buffers of at least 30 m from archaeological resources are
desirable for the pylon footings and service track. Historical sites are generally more difficult and/or time-
consuming to mitigate which makes it strongly desirable to avoid direct impacts.
• Indicator: Buffers of at least 30 m should be maintained around archaeological sites as far as possible.
• Indicator: Direct damage to archaeological sites should be avoided as far as possible and, where some
damage to significant sites is unavoidable, scientific/historical data should be rescued.
• Indicator: Direct impacts to graves must be avoided with a 30 m buffer.
Built heritage resources are rare in the study area and it is anticipated that all buildings will be buffered for non-
heritage reasons. Nevertheless, heritage buffers are proposed to assist with planning.
• Indicator: No structures should be directly impacted.
• Indicator: As far as possible, structures of Grade IIIA or IIIB heritage significance should be avoided with
a buffer of at least 200 m, while Grade IIIC structures should be avoided with a 100 m buffer.
The cultural landscape will be impacted and, because of the scale of the proposed development, reducing
impacts is generally difficult. The landscape views from the N1 and De Jager’s Pass as well as from within the
KNP are considered to be the most significant because of their accessibility. Determination of appropriate
buffers can be guided by the visual recommendations that stipulate wider visual buffers to protect the more
visually sensitive parts of the landscape. While the powerline will have to cross the escarpment edge itself, this
must occur in an area of reduced visual prominence.
• Indicator: The powerline, should not dominate significant views.
• Indicator: Avoid ridgelines and scenic valleys.
• Indicator: Service tracks to avoid steep slopes as far as possible.
ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 42
• Indicator: The powerline should cross the escarpment away from the skylines as seen from significant
viewpoints and scenic routes.
Figures 68 to 71 map the high, medium and low sensitivity buffers in and around the powerline corridor. Note
that full mapping of archaeological heritage resources is presented in Appendix 5, while palaeontological
mapping is contained in the specialist study in Appendix 6. The entire area is regarded as a cultural landscape
of at least low-medium significance, although the Karoo National Park (mapped in green in Figure 64), the
escarpment and the mountain passes are the most important parts.
Figure 7: Aerial view of the powerline corridor (white outline) and substation locations (purple polygons) showing areas of high
(red), medium (orange) and low (yellow) heritage sensitivity. Source: Google earth with Bing overlay.
ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 43
Figure 8: Aerial view of the powerline corridor (white outline) showing areas of high (red), medium (orange) and low (yellow)
heritage sensitivity. Source: Google earth with Bing overlay.
ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 44
Figure 9: Aerial view of the powerline corridor (white outline) showing areas of high (red), medium (orange) and low (yellow)
heritage sensitivity. Note that the KNP (high sensitivity) is mapped in green to distinguish it from the escarpment. Source: Google
earth with Bing overlay.
ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 45
Figure 10: Aerial view of the powerline corridor (white outline) showing areas of high (red), medium (orange) and low (yellow)
heritage sensitivity. Note that the KNP (high sensitivity) is mapped in green to distinguish it from the escarpment. Source: Google
earth with Bing overlay.
6. ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS
Based on the project description and baseline the specialist has determined the following key impacts may
arise and should undergo assessment:
• Construction phase
o Palaeontological resources may be damaged or destroyed during all construction-related
activities
o Archaeological resources may be damaged or destroyed during all construction-related
activities
o Graves may be damaged or destroyed during any construction-related activities.
o The rural/natural cultural landscape may be impacted through the addition to it of construction
vehicles and large, industrial-type structures.
• Operation phase
o The rural/natural cultural landscape may be impacted through the addition to it of large,
industrial-type structures.
ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 46
• Decommissioning phase
o None – as the impacts would have occurred through the construction and operations phases
and decommissioning activities should result in no further impact of heritage resources.
The impact assessment below considers both the 132kV and 400kV powerlines. The impact to heritage would
not differ between the two powerline capacities and therefore, the same significance ratings and mitigation
measures would apply and are presented in consolidated tables in the section below. The main reasons for
this lack of difference are:
• Although the 400 kV pylons are larger, the increased size is offset by their lattice towers that are less
visible from a distance than the a 132 kV monopoles; and
• Although 400 kV pylons have more foundations, they are far smaller than the single foundation
required for a 132 kV monopole.
6.1. Impacts to palaeontological resources
The palaeontological sensitivity of the corridor is highly variable but some areas of high sensitivity have been
located. Almond (2020) notes that many of the known or unrecorded fossil sites will be protected within the
buffer zone along water courses. A full impact assessment is provided in his report but it is noted here that
the significance of impacts before mitigation is considered to be moderate negative while with mitigation they
would reduce to minor negative. Suggested mitigation includes a pre-construction survey of the development
footprint, avoidance of any areas found to be very rich in fossil heritage, monitoring and possibly professional
sampling of fossils from sensitive areas that cannot be avoided. A fossil chance finds procedure must be in
place throughout the construction period.
6.2. Impacts to archaeological resources
Archaeological resources occur widely on the ground surface in the study area and can be easily damaged or
destroyed during construction activities. Even driving over an archaeological site can cause significant damage.
Because of their unique and non-renewable nature, impacts to archaeological resources are permanent (Table
1). Extent and intensity of impacts are guided largely by heritage significance. Overall, the impact significance
before mitigation is likely to be minor (-). Most archaeological sites can be fairly easily mitigated if avoidance is
impossible but for the larger historical sites mitigation can be difficult and in situ protection is strongly advisable.
The final routing will be guided by specialist findings made during the impact assessment and pre-construction
surveys. A pre-construction archaeological survey will thus be required to identify any less obvious sites that
have not yet been found and that might still be impacted. Such sites are likely to be mostly LSA sites which,
generally, are very easily mitigated if required. With mitigation the overall impact significance will be reduced
to negligible (-).
Table 1: Assessment of archaeological impacts. Project phase Construction
Impact Impacts to archaeological resources
Description of impact Archaeological resources may be damaged or destroyed during all construction-related activities.
Mitigatability High Mitigation exists and will considerably reduce the significance of impacts
Potential mitigation • Pre-construction survey of the final powerline and service track alignments and electrical yards.
• Micrositing of pylons and service tracks where needed to minimize impacts to heritage resources.
• Recording and/or sampling of any archaeological sites in the final footprint and that that cannot be
avoided.
• Cordoning off of sensitive sites that can be protected but whose buffers will be intruded upon.
Assessment Without mitigation With mitigation
Nature Negative Negative
ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 47
Duration Permanent Impact may be permanent, or in excess of
20 years Permanent Impact may be permanent, or in excess of 20
years
Extent Local Extending across the site and to nearby
settlements Limited Limited to the site and its immediate
surroundings
Intensity Low Natural and/ or social functions and/ or
processes are somewhat altered Very low Natural and/ or social functions and/ or processes
are slightly altered
Probability Probable The impact has occurred here or
elsewhere and could therefore occur Rare /
improbable
Conceivable, but only in extreme circumstances,
and/or might occur for this project although this
has rarely been known to result elsewhere
Confidence High Substantive supportive data exists to
verify the assessment High Substantive supportive data exists to verify the
assessment
Reversibility Low The affected environment will not be able
to recover from the impact - permanently
modified
Low The affected environment will not be able to
recover from the impact - permanently modified
Resource
irreplaceability High The resource is irreparably damaged and
is not represented elsewhere High The resource is irreparably damaged and is not
represented elsewhere
Significance Minor - negative Negligible - negative
Comment on
significance Impact significance is rated as minor largely because of the limited extent and low intensity of the impacts.
These were rated that way because the majority of archaeological resources were of low or medium
heritage significance and should be fairly easy to avoid sites through micrositing of pylons and service tracks
which is included in the project design through the application for a corridor.
Cumulative impacts Cumulative impact in the central part of the corridor is likely to be negligible because there is only a 22 kV
powerline present. However, in the far north three proposed wind farms would be constructed, while in the
far south numerous powerlines cross the landscape around Beaufort West. Because significant
archaeological remains are likely to be rare, the cumulative impact of transmission lines in this region is
likely to be Minor (-). Overall the cumulative impact associated with the construction of powerlines is rated
as Minor (-).
Impacts are not expected during the operation and decommissioning phases, since all disturbance would have
already occurred and the ensuing maintenance and decommissioning activities would occur in these same
disturbed areas.
6.3. Impacts to graves
Very few graves were found in the study area which means that the chances of impacts occurring are very
limited. Impacts would be permanent if they happened and, because human remains are involved, the intensity
is considered to be extremely high (Table 2). Because of the local extent and very low likelihood of impacts, the
impact significance is negligible (-). A pre-construction survey will serve to identify any graves that may still be
in the project footprint and with protection or exhumation the impact intensity would reduce but the
significance remains negligible(-).
Table 2: Assessment of impacts to graves. Project phase Construction
Impact Impacts to graves
Description of impact Graves may be damaged or destroyed during any construction-related activities.
Mitigatability High Mitigation exists and will considerably reduce the significance of impacts
Potential mitigation • Pre-construction survey of the final powerline and service track alignments.
• It is always best that graves are avoided and protected.
• In the event of accidental discovery or if a grave cannot be avoided then it is possible to exhume the
grave and remove it to safety. Reburial may or may not be required.
Assessment Without mitigation With mitigation
Nature Negative Negative
Duration Permanent Impact may be permanent, or in excess of 20
years Permanent Impact may be permanent, or in excess of 20
years
Extent Local Extending across the site and to nearby
settlements Local Extending across the site and to nearby
settlements
ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 48
Intensity Extremely
high
Natural and/ or social functions and/ or
processes are severely altered Moderate Natural and/ or social functions and/ or
processes are moderately altered
Probability Rare /
improbable
Conceivable, but only in extreme
circumstances, and/or might occur for this
project although this has rarely been known
to result elsewhere
Rare /
improbable
Conceivable, but only in extreme
circumstances, and/or might occur for this
project although this has rarely been known
to result elsewhere
Confidence High Substantive supportive data exists to verify
the assessment High Substantive supportive data exists to verify
the assessment
Reversibility Low The affected environment will not be able to
recover from the impact - permanently
modified
Low The affected environment will not be able to
recover from the impact - permanently
modified
Resource irreplaceability High The resource is irreparably damaged and is
not represented elsewhere High The resource is irreparably damaged and is
not represented elsewhere
Significance Negligible - negative Negligible - negative
Comment on significance Although impacts to graves are of high heritage significance, the very low probability of such impacts
occurring (because of the very small number of graves likely to be present) results in an impact significance
of negligible before mitigation. Rescuing graves reduces the intensity of impacts after mitigation and the
pre-construction survey with the corridor reduces the chances of impacts occurring.
Cumulative impacts Because of the generally very low likelihood of intersecting graves during development, the cumulative
impacts are likely to be of Negligible (-) significance.
Impacts on graves are not expected during the operation and decommissioning phases, since all disturbance
would have already occurred and the ensuing maintenance and decommissioning activities would occur in these
same disturbed areas.
6.4. Impacts to the cultural landscapes
The cultural landscapes of the region are broad and encompass archaeological, contemporary rural and natural
landscapes. The archaeological aspects are included within the assessment of impacts to archaeology (Section
6.2) but the rural and natural landscapes are assessed here. In the broadest sense, the entire study area and all
surrounding land are part of the local cultural landscape. It is impossible to not impact the cultural landscape
when constructing structures such as powerlines, because it is largely the presence of the powerline that causes
the impacts. The impacts will occur during all phases of the development. The specific nature of the landscape,
whether it competes directly with the development and how much landscape scarring would be required (e.g.
from cut-and-fill work) are key in determining the expected intensity of the impacts. In this instance, where the
landscape is almost entirely undisturbed and lacks similar developments, the intensity is rated as moderate and,
because the probability of the impact occurring is definite, the expected impact significance in the construction
phase is moderate (-). There is little that can be done to mitigate the visual intrusion of a powerline and the
construction vehicles in the landscape. At ground level there are various measures that can be taken to reduce
landscape scarring. Altogether, with mitigation, it is expected that the impact significance will remain at the
moderate (-) level. The moderate (-) impact significance is in accord with the rating provided by the visual
specialists for the operation of both types of powerlines (Lawson & Oberholzer 2020: tables 11 & 12).
Table 3: Assessment of impacts to the cultural landscape (construction). Project phase Construction
Impact Impacts to the cultural landscape.
Description of impact The rural/natural cultural landscape may be impacted through the addition to it of construction vehicles and
large, industrial-type structures.
Mitigatability Low Mitigation does not exist; or mitigation will slightly reduce the significance of impacts
Potential mitigation • Avoid exposed ridgelines and scenic valleys, except where the visual consultants have allowed it.
• Minimise overall construction footprint.
• Minimise cut-and-fill, avoid steep slopes for roads and avoid landscape scarring.
• Final routing to be approved by the visual consultants.
ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 49
• Minimise the duration of the construction period.
Assessment Without mitigation With mitigation
Nature Negative Negative
Duration Permanent Impact may be permanent, or in excess of
20 years Permanent Impact may be permanent, or in excess of
20 years
Extent Municipal
area
Impacts felt at a municipal level Municipal area Impacts felt at a municipal level
Intensity Moderate Natural and/ or social functions and/ or
processes are moderately altered Low Natural and/ or social functions and/ or
processes are somewhat altered
Probability Certain /
definite
There are sound scientific reasons to expect
that the impact will definitely occur Certain /
definite
There are sound scientific reasons to expect
that the impact will definitely occur
Confidence High Substantive supportive data exists to verify
the assessment High Substantive supportive data exists to verify
the assessment
Reversibility Medium The affected environment will only recover
from the impact with significant
intervention
High The affected environmental will be able to
recover from the impact
Resource irreplaceability Medium The resource is damaged irreparably but is
represented elsewhere Medium The resource is damaged irreparably but is
represented elsewhere
Significance Moderate - negative Moderate - negative
Comment on significance The significance is driven largely by the permanence of impacts and the certainty that they will occur if the
project goes ahead, regardless of whether mitigation measures are applied or not. Mitigation will slightly
reduce the extent and intensity but the significance will still be moderate (-). Impacts are rated as
permanent because of the difficulty of achieving adequate rehabilitation in dry areas and also that
transmission lines are likely to become part of the national estate as far as grid infrastructure is concerned,
decommissioning is therefore unlikely.
Cumulative impacts With multiple powerlines built in the same area (in the southern section of the corridor) the impacts would
be felt over a wider area but, as long as the lines are grouped and avoid the KNP and prominent locations
along the escarpment edge then the cumulative impacts will remain within acceptable limits. There are no
similar large developments in the central part of the corridor, but in the north, where three proposed wind
farms would be constructed, it is anticipated that the powerline would make a relatively minor contribution
to the overall impacts. Again, and because of the prominence of the wind farms, the cumulative impacts
from the proposed gridline would be within acceptable limits.
Operational phase impacts would essentially be the same as the post-mitigation construction phase impacts
and are considered likely to be of moderate (-) significance (Table 4). The only mitigation that can be applied
during operation is to ensure that no new impacts occur. Since new impacts are highly unlikely, the significance
of impacts will remain moderate (-).
Table 4: Assessment of impacts to the cultural landscape (operation).
Project phase Operation
Impact Impacts to the cultural landscape.
Description of impact The rural/natural cultural landscape may be impacted through the addition to it of large, industrial-
type structures.
Mitigatability Low Mitigation does not exist; or mitigation will slightly reduce the significance of
impacts
Potential mitigation • Avoid any new impacts by ensuring that all maintenance vehicle stay within designated areas.
Assessment Without mitigation With mitigation
Nature Negative Negative
Duration Permanent Impact may be permanent, or in
excess of 20 years Permanent Impact may be permanent, or in
excess of 20 years
Extent Municipal
area
Impacts felt at a municipal level Municipal area Impacts felt at a municipal level
Intensity Low Natural and/ or social functions and/
or processes are somewhat altered Low Natural and/ or social functions and/
or processes are somewhat altered
ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 50
Probability Certain /
definite
There are sound scientific reasons to
expect that the impact will definitely
occur
Certain /
definite
There are sound scientific reasons to
expect that the impact will definitely
occur
Confidence High Substantive supportive data exists to
verify the assessment High Substantive supportive data exists to
verify the assessment
Reversibility High The affected environmental will be
able to recover from the impact High The affected environmental will be
able to recover from the impact
Resource irreplaceability Medium The resource is damaged irreparably
but is represented elsewhere Medium The resource is damaged irreparably
but is represented elsewhere
Significance Moderate - negative Moderate - negative
Comment on significance Once the powerline is operational there is nothing that can reduce impacts. Nevertheless, best
practice measures to ensure that no new impacts occur must be applied. Impacts are rated as
permanent because of the difficulty of achieving adequate rehabilitation in dry areas.
Cumulative impacts With multiple powerlines built in the same area the impacts would be felt over a wider area but so
long as the lines are grouped and avoid the KNP and prominent locations along the escarpment
edge then the cumulative impacts will remain within acceptable limits. There are no similar large
developments in the central part of the corridor, but in the north, where three proposed wind
farms would be constructed, it is anticipated that the powerline would make a relatively minor
contribution to the overall impacts. Again, and because of the prominence of the wind farms, the
cumulative impacts from the proposed gridline would be within acceptable limits.
With the reintroduction of large construction vehicles to the landscape for decommissioning, the impacts would
be the same as the construction phase. However, it is considered unlikely that decommissioning would occur
since long term maintenance of the powerlines would likely be more desirable.
6.5. Existing impacts to heritage resources
There are currently no obvious significant threats to heritage resources on the site aside from the natural
degradation, weathering and erosion that will affect rock art and archaeological materials and the trampling
from grazing animals and/or farm vehicles that affects artefact scatters.
6.6. Cumulative impacts
There are no existing substations, large power lines or renewable energy facilities in the part of the study area
located above the escarpment and the landscape has a rural/natural sense of place. However, three wind farms
have been proposed at the northern end of the gridline corridor and these will, if approved and constructed,
alter the sense of place considerably. A new electrical ‘layer’ would be added to the cultural landscape. The
Droërivier Substation southwest of Beaufort West is a major or backbone substation and has many HV
powerlines running into and around it (Figure 14). Two other smaller substations also occur to the east and
northeast of Beaufort West. Cumulative impacts are thus better considered in two parts: (1) the central part of
the corridor and (2) its northern and southern ends. Above the escarpment, in the central part of the corridor,
the lack of other electrical infrastructure (aside from small, local electricity distribution lines) means that
cumulative impacts will be minimal with the impacts essentially being no different to those for the present
project. Below the escarpment the many powerlines present means that further impacts from this type of
development will accrue. Likewise, with construction of the wind farms, further impacts would accrue in the
north.
Given the generally low density of archaeological and palaeontological materials in the broader area, it is
expected that the cumulative impacts for these aspects will be of relatively minor (-) significance. Cumulative
impacts to the cultural landscape are expected to be slightly more significant, though in the central part of the
corridor where no other large powerlines and electrical facilities exist, the cumulative impacts should be minor
(-). To the south of the escarpment most powerlines running to Droërivier are clustered to the south of the N1
ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 51
and Beaufort West and fall within the proposed corridor. The proposed wind farms in the north would have a
greater impact than the gridline. Because of these other impacts and potential impacts, the cumulative impacts
in the north and south will also be of minor (-) significance. The cumulative impacts are deemed to be within an
acceptable range.
6.7. The No-Go option
If no development of neither the 132 kV or 400 kV powerlines occurred, then the only expected impacts would
be the continuation of natural processes such as erosion and weathering which affect archaeology and fossils,
and the possible addition of new farm tracks and infrastructure (dams or buildings) over time.
Table 5: Assessment of impacts to heritage resources.
Project phase All phases
Impact Impacts to heritage resources
Description of impact Destruction of or damage to heritage resources and visual intrusion into the cultural landscape
Mitigatability High Mitigation exists and will considerably reduce the significance of impacts
Potential mitigation • None
Assessment Without mitigation With mitigation
Nature Negative
NA
Duration Permanent Impact may be permanent, or in excess of 20 years
Extent Limited Limited to the site and its immediate surroundings
Intensity Very low Natural and/ or social functions and/ or processes are slightly altered
Probability Likely The impact may occur
Confidence High Substantive supportive data exists to verify the assessment
Reversibility Low The affected environment will not be able to recover from the impact -
permanently modified
Resource irreplaceability High The resource is irreparably damaged and is not represented elsewhere
Significance Minor - negative
Comment on significance Only minor impacts are likely to occur since the intensity of land use from farming activities is quite low.
Cumulative impacts No significant cumulative impacts are expected and all impacts would be within acceptable limits.
6.8. Levels of acceptable change
Any impact to an archaeological or palaeontological resource or a grave is deemed unacceptable until such time as
the resource has been inspected and studied further if necessary. Impacts to the landscape are difficult to quantify
but in general a powerline that visually dominates the landscape from important viewpoints is undesirable. Areas
that are important visual landscapes/viewpoints have been indicated by the visual specialists and will inform the
final routing of the line.
Although the DR02311 and N1 run through the southern part of the corridor, visual impacts would be of brief
duration because the line is unlikely to run parallel to either road. Views from De Jager’s Pass of the powerline
crossing the escarpment will likely be quite long and thus of minor or even negligible significance. These impacts
are thus all deemed to be within acceptable limits.
7. INPUT TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
The Environmental Control Officer (ECO) will need to be briefed by the project archaeologist as to which sites
require monitoring, management or protection. Sites located close to development activities may require
ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 52
cordoning off and the ECO will need to ensure that these areas remain protected and undisturbed throughout
the construction phase. The EMPr must contain a chance finds procedure which must be communicated to all
earthworks equipment operators or other staff that may inadvertently unearth fossils, artefacts or graves and
know to stop work and report such finds to the ECO.
8. EVALUATION OF IMPACTS RELATIVE TO SUSTAINABLE SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC
BENEFITS
Section 38(3)(d) of the NHRA requires an evaluation of the impacts on heritage resources relative to the
sustainable social and economic benefits to be derived from the development. The project will mostly create
construction phase jobs but a small number of long terms jobs may also be provided to run and maintain the
substations and powerlines. The powerline and associated infrastructure will be ceded to Eskom after
construction and will be serviced by the local Eskom resources. The greater economic benefit, however, lies in
the provision of electricity which is needed to drive the national economy. The project would only be
constructed if the associated wind farms are approved and constructed and the powerline will thus be essential
in getting the electricity into the national grid. Aside from the unavoidable landscape impacts, other heritage
impacts are likely to be minimal. As such, the socio-economic benefits do very likely outweigh the overall
heritage impacts.
9. CONSULTATION WITH HERITAGE CONSERVATION BODIES
At the EIA stage the present report will be sent to the Beaufort West Municipality and the Simon van der Stel Foundation
Southern Cape for comment. Their comment will be recorded here and responded to as appropriate.
10. CONCLUSIONS
Although not well surveyed, enough information exists to know that many heritage resources will be present
within the powerline corridor. The vast majority are archaeological. Because micrositing of powerline pylons is
feasible and a pre-construction survey will be required, very few impacts – significant or otherwise – are
expected to occur. The main exception, of course, is the impact to the landscape. Table 6 lists the heritage
indicators and how these have been or will be responded to. Outstanding concerns are also listed and it is these
that guide the overall recommendations in Section 11. Archaeological issues are mapped and discussed in
Figures 59 to 63. Because the applicant is seeking authorisation for a corridor rather than a specific alignment,
many of the indicators (see below) will only be resolved during during the pre-construction detailed design
phase. However, given the knowledge of the landscape gained during the course of the project and the width
of the corridor, it is expected that all indicators will be reasonably resolved.
Table 6: Heritage indicators and design responses.
Indicator Project Response
Uncontrolled damage to fossils should
be minimised as far as possible.
A pre-construction survey when the final powerline route is planned
will guide any mitigation and/or monitoring requirements.
Buffers of at least 30 m should be
maintained around archaeological
sites as far as possible.
A pre-construction survey when the final powerline route is planned
will locate any sites requiring buffers.
ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 53
Direct damage to archaeological sites
should be avoided as far as possible
and, where some damage to
significant sites is unavoidable,
scientific/historical data should be
rescued.
A pre-construction survey when the final powerline route is planned
will locate any sites requiring monitoring and/or mitigation. This
expected to be minimal since micrositing of pylons should result in
avoidance in most instances.
Direct impacts to graves must be
avoided with a 30 m buffer.
A pre-construction survey when the final powerline route is planned
will locate any graves requiring buffers.
No structures should be directly
impacted.
This will be easily assessed from aerial photography during planning
of the final route.
As far as possible, structures of Grade
IIIA or IIIB heritage significance should
be avoided with a buffer of at least
200 m, while Grade IIIC structures
should be avoided with a 100 m buffer.
Houses outside of farm complexes are virtually absent and, because
the land owners have to consent to the location of the powerline
the farm complexes should be avoided by more than 200 m. Impacts
are thus considered unlikely. Any additional buffering required (e.g.
around abandoned but still standing structures) will need to be
investigated during the pre-construction survey.
The powerline, should not dominate
significant views.
The visual consultants have guided the developer towards the best
location for the powerline and significant views are not expected to
be dominated by the powerline.
Avoid ridgelines and scenic valleys. Within technical constraints, the visual consultants have guided the
developer towards the best routing from a visual point of view and
this will be confirmed when the final route is planned. Although it is
likely that a skyline view of the powerline will be observable from
below the escarpment this will only occur along a relatively short
stretch of the road leading north-eastwards towards the base of De
Jager’s Pass.
Service tracks to avoid steep slopes as
far as possible.
The project design is such that service tracks will not follow the
powerline in difficult terrain but will merely aim to access each
individual pylon. This will greatly reduce the need to ascend steep
slopes.
The powerline should cross the
escarpment away from the skylines as
seen from significant viewpoints and
scenic routes.
The visual consultants have guided the developer towards the best
location to cross the escarpment and this will be confirmed when
the final route is planned. As noted above, skyline views should be
very limited.
Although no final alignment is yet available (because this will be decided later), the findings of this assessment,
read together with those of the VIA, are that a powerline can feasibly be constructed within the proposed
corridor without creating impacts of major significance. The key area in this regard is the escarpment. The VIA
has found that locations close to De Jager’s Pass and on exposed ridges (especially those seen from De Jager’s
Pass) are sensitive and the preferred area for crossing the escarpment is in the far western part of the corridor.
For the same reason, the heritage specialist supports this finding.
As already noted, the impacts to be expected from the two different powerline capacities are expected to be of
equal significance for each impact type. The WCS therefore mirrors the ratings. Table 7 shows this in summary
form.
Table 7: Summary of impact significance for each powerline capacity and the WCS.
ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 54
Impact 132 kV powerline 400 kV powerline WCS
Pre-mitigation
Post-mitigation
Pre-mitigation
Post-mitigation
Pre-mitigation
Post-mitigation
Palaeontological impacts
Moderate (-) Minor (-) Moderate (-) Minor (-) Moderate (-) Minor (-)
Archaeological impacts
Minor (-) Negligible (-) Minor (-) Negligible (-) Minor (-) Negligible (-)
Impacts to graves Negligible (-) Negligible (-) Negligible (-) Negligible (-) Negligible (-) Negligible (-)
Impacts to the cultural landscape
Moderate (-) Moderate (-) Moderate (-) Moderate (-) Moderate (-) Moderate (-)
No-Go Minor (-) Minor (-) Minor (-) Minor (-) Minor (-) Minor (-)
10.1. Reasoned opinion of the specialist
Based on the assessment and information available at this point in the process, there is no reason to believe
that the heritage indicators will not be met during pre-construction planning. Impacts to the landscape will be
reduced through careful siting of the final powerline alignment and physical heritage resources on the ground
should be easily avoidable through micrositing of pylons during the pre-construction phase.
The WCS considers the impact significance of the development of the 132 kV and 400 kV power line and
associated infrastructure, identifies which one of the options has the highest negative impact (both pre- and
post mitigation), and presents this as the combined option or WCS to be developed within the corridor.
Although it should be noted that the WCS will not be developed as only one of the scenarios can be developed
within the corridor, it is argued that if the residual overall impact of the WCS is deemed acceptable and
mitigatable, then the development of either a 132 kV or 400 kV powerline within this corridor would also be
acceptable.
Based on this scoping phase assessment and information available at this point in the process, it is likely that t
will be the opinion of the specialist that based on the acceptability of developing the WCS, either the 132 kV or
400 kV can be developed within the corridor, provided that all mitigation measures are implemented.
11. RECOMMENDATIONS
Because no significant impediments to development of a powerline of either 132 kV or 400 kV within the
proposed corridor have been identified to date, is likely that it will be recommended that the project be allowed
to proceed but subject to recommendations along the lines of following:
• The final alignment of the gridline must be subjected to a pre-construction archaeological survey. This
would be to determine whether any micrositing of infrastructure is required to ensure in situ
protection of heritage resources or, if this is not possible, whether any mitigation should be
implemented;
• In areas where palaeontological sensitivity is inferred to be high, the final alignment of the powerline
must be subjected to a pre-construction palaeontological survey. This must determine whether any
recording and/or collection of fossils might be required or if any areas should be avoided;
• A palaeontological chance finds procedure must be incorporated into the EMPr;
• The final alignment must be determined in consultation with a visual specialist to ensure that:
ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 55
o the final escarpment crossing minimises visual impacts, especially as seen from De Jager’s Pass;
and
o visual impact to scenic valleys and ridgelines along the final route are minimised as far as
practical;
• Pre-construction planning must allow for buffers around archaeological and palaeontological sites and
graves of at least 30 m and of 200 m for Grade IIIB and up structures and 100 m for Grade IIIC structures.
Alternatively the implementation of mitigation measures may be required and these would be
determined as part of the pre-construction survey;
• If any archaeological material or human burials are uncovered during the course of development then
work in the immediate area should be halted. The find would need to be reported to the heritage
authorities and may require inspection by an archaeologist. Such heritage is the property of the state
and may require excavation and curation in an approved institution.
12. REFERENCES
Anonymous. 2016. Embark on a historic journey to the Karoo National Park. Website visited on 24 April 2019
at: https://lowvelder.co.za/352763/embark-on-a-historic-journey-to-the-karoo-national-park/.
Böeseken, A.J. 1975. The Company and its subjects. In: Muller, C.F.J. (ed) 500 Years: a history of South Africa:
63-79. Pretoria and Cape Town: Academica.
Botha, C.G. 1926. Place names in the Cape Province. Cape Town & Johannesburg: Juta & Co. Ltd.
Bulpin, T.V. 2001. Discovering Southern Africa. Muizenberg: Discovering Southern Africa Productions cc.
Deacon, H. 2007. Phase 1 archaeological and heritage impact assessment report: Proposed Road Upgrade and
Associated Borrow Pits and Quarries, N1, Section 9, Three Sisters. Unpublished report prepared for
Exigent Engineering Consultants.
Department of Environmental Affairs, 2016. Strategic Environmental Assessment for Electricity Grid
Infrastructure in South Africa. CSIR Report Number: CSIR/02100/EMS/ER/2016/0006/B. Stellenbosch.
Dreyer, C. 2005. Archaeological and historical investigation of the proposed residential developments at the
farms Grootfontein 180 & Bushmanskop 302, Beaufort West, south-western Cape. Unpublished report.
Brandhof.
Fagan, G. 2008. Brakdak: flatroofs in the Karoo. Cape Town: Breestraat Publikasies.
Frandsen, D. 2018. History. Accessed online at https://www.karoo-southafrica.com/koup/beaufort-
west/history-of-beaufort-west/ on 25 October 2019.
Fransen, H. 2004. The old buildings of the Cape. Johannnesburg & Cape Town: Jonathan Ball Publishers.
Goetze, T.M. 1993. Thomas Bain, Road Building and the Zwartberg Pass: with particular emphasis on socio-
economic and civil engineering aspects in the Southern Cape, c. 1843-1962. Unpublished Masters
Dissertation, University of Stellenbosch.
ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 56
Halkett, D. 2009. An Archaeological assessment of uranium prospecting on portions 1,3 and 4 of the farm Eerste
Water 349, and remainder of the farm Ryst Kuil 351, Beaufort West. Unpublished report for Ferret
Mining and Environmental Services (Pty) Ltd.
Halkett, D. & Webley, L. 2011. Heritage Impact Assessment: proposed Victoria West Mini Renewable Energy
Facility on the farm Bultfontein 217, Northern Cape Province. St James: ACO Associates cc.
Hart, T. 2015. Heritage Impact Assessment for the proposed Komsberg East and West Wind Energy Facilities
and grid connections to be situated in the Western Cape Province, Escarpment Area, moordenaars
Karoo. Unpublished report prepared for Arcus Consulting (Pty) Ltd. Diep River: ACO Associates cc.
Hart, T. 2016. Heritage Impact Assessment for the proposed Umsinde Emoyeni Wind Energy Facility.
Unpublished report prepared for Arcus Consulting (Pty) Ltd. Diep River: ACO Associates cc.
Heritage Western Cape. 2016. Grading: purpose and management implications. Document produced by
Heritage Western Cape, 16 March 2016.
Kaplan, J. 2005. Archaeological and Heritage scoping proposed upgrading and construction of new roads Karoo
National Park. Unpublished report prepared for Ecobound Environmental. Riebeek West: Agency for
Cultural Resource Management.
Kaplan, J. 2006 Phase 1 Archaeological Impact Assessment proposed Klavervlei powerline Karoo National Park.
Unpublished report prepared for Enviroafrica. Riebeek West: Agency for Cultural Resource
Management.
Kaplan, J. 2008. Phase 1 archaeological impact assessment proposed development Remainder of Farm 185 (now
called Plot 8419) Beaufort West Western Cape Province Unpublished report prepared for Airpark
Beaufort West (Pty) Ltd. Riebeek West: Agency for Cultural Resource Management.
Kramer, P. 2012. The history, form and context of the 19th century corbelled buildings of the Karoo. MPhil
dissertation. Rondebosch: University of Cape Town.
Lawson, Q. & Oberholzer, B. 2020. Proposed Nuweveld Wind Energy Farms Western Cape Province for Red Cap
Energy (Pty) Ltd. Visual Impact Report: Proposed Grid Connection Scoping Phase. Unpublished report
prepared for Aurecon South Africa (Pty) Ltd.
Muller, C.F.J. 1975. The period of the Great Trek, 1834 – 1854. In: Muller, C.F.J. (ed) 500 Years: a history of South
Africa: 146-182. Pretoria and Cape Town: Academica.
Nilssen, P. 2011. Archaeological Impact Assessment Proposed Beaufort West Photovoltaic (Solar) Park: southern
portion of properties; 2/158 Lemoenkloof, RE 9/161 Kuilspoort, RE 162 Suid-lemoensfontein and RE
1/163 Bulskop, Beaufort West, Western Province. Unpublished report prepared for Cape EAPrac. Great
Brak River: CHARM.
Orton, J. 2011. Heritage Impact Assessment for a proposed Photo-Voltaic Facility on Steenrots Fontein 168/1,
Beaufort West Magisterial District, Western Cape. Unpublished report prepared for CSIR. Archaeology
Contracts Office: University of Cape Town.
ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 57
Orton, J. 2013. Geometric rock art in western South Africa and its implications for the spread of early herding.
South African Archaeological Bulletin 68: 27-40.
Orton, J. 2016. Prehistoric cultural landscapes in South Africa: a typology and discussion. South African
Archaeological Bulletin 71: 119-129.
Orton, J. 2017. Heritage Impact Assessment: proposed construction of a substation and 132 kV distribution line
to support the proposed Sutherland WEF, Sutherland and Laingsburg Magisterial Districts, Northern and
Western Cape. Unpublished report prepared for CSIR. Lakeside: ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd.
Orton, J., Almond, J., Clarke, N., Fisher, R., Hall, S., Kramer, P., Malan, A., Maguire, J. and Jansen, L. 2016. Impacts
on Heritage. In Scholes, R., Lochner, P., Schreiner, G., Snyman- Van der Walt, L. and de Jager, M. (eds.).
2016. Shale Gas Development in the Central Karoo: A Scientific Assessment of the Opportunities and
Risks. CSIR/IU/021MH/EXP/2016/003/A, ISBN 978-0-7988-5631-7, Pretoria: CSIR.
Parkington, J., Morris, D and Rusch, N. 2008. Karoo Rock Engravings. Cape Town: Creda Communications.
Penn, N. 2005. The Forgotten Frontier: Colonist and Khoisan on the Cape’s Northern Frontier in the 18th Century.
Athens: Ohio University Press and Cape Town: Double Storey Books.
PGWC. 2006. Strategic Initiative to Introduce Commercial Land Based Wind Energy Development to the Western
Cape: towards a regional methodology for wind energy site selection. Cape Town: Provincial
Government of the Western Cape & CNdV africa planning & design.
Ross, G.L.D. 2013. Mountain passes, roads & transportation in the Cape: a guide to research. 5th Edition.
Accessed online on 25th April 2019 at:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258376061_Mountain_Passes_Roads_and_Transportation
_in_the_Cape_-_a_Guide_to_Research_Fifth_edition_June_2013_767_pages.
SA Mountain Passes. 2010. Website consulted on 15th April 2019 at:
samountainpasses.co.za/Home/WesternCape/Passes/KAROO/MoltenoPass/tabid/238/language/en-
US/Default.aspx.
Sampson, C.G. 2010. Chronology and dynamics of Later Stone Age herders in the upper Seacow River valley,
South Africa. Journal of Arid Environments 74:842-848.
SANParks. 2017. Karoo National Park: Park Management Plan for the period 2017-2027. Website visited on 24
April 2019 at: https://www.sanparks.org/assets/docs/conservation/park_man/karoo-draft-plan.pdf.
Sauer, C.O. 1925. The Morphology of Landscape. University of California Publications on Geography 2(2): 19-54.
Schoeman, C. 2013. The Historical Karoo: traces of the past in South Africa’s arid interior. Cape Town: Zebra
Press.
Smith, B.W. & Ouzman, S. 2004. Taking stock: identifying Khoekhoen herder rock art in southern Africa. Current
Anthropology 45: 499–526.
Storrar, P. & Komnick, G. 1984. A Colossus of Roads. Cape Tpown: Murray & Roberts/Concor.
ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 58
Van der Walt, J. 2016. Archaeological Impact Assessment report for the proposed Gunstfontein Wind Energy
Facility, Northern Cape. Unpublished report prepared for Savannah Environmental (Pty) Ltd. Modimolle:
HCAC.
Van Zyl, M.C. 1975. Transition, 1795-1806. In: Muller, C.F.J. (ed) 500 Years: a history of South Africa: 101-116.
Pretoria and Cape Town: Academica.
Walker, E.A. 1928. A History of South Africa. London: Longmans, Green and Company Ltd.
Watt, S. 2013. Uitspanfontein, De Pannen 5 February 1902. Military History Journal 16(2). Accessed online at:
http://samilitaryhistory.org/vol162sw.html on 25th April 2019.
Webley, L. & Hart, T. 2010. Scoping Archaeological Impact Assessment: proposed prospecting on
Taaiboschfontein 137 (Site 49), Victoria West, Northern Cape. Unpublished report prepared for Tasman
Pacific Minerals Limited. University of Cape Town: Archaeology Contracts Office.
Webley, L. & Lanham, J. 2011. Heritage Assessment of the Proposed upgrade to the stormwater retention
facilities at Beaufort West, Western Cape. Unpublished report for Kayad Knight Piesold (Pty) Ltd.
Winter, S. & Oberholzer, B. 2013. Heritage and Scenic Resources: Inventory and Policy Framework for the
Western Cape. Report prepared for the Provincial Government of the Western Cape Department of
Environmental Affairs and Development Planning. Sarah Winter Heritage Planner, and Bernard
Oberholzer Landscape Architect / Environmental Planner, in association with Setplan.
ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 59
APPENDIX 1 – Curriculum Vitae
Curriculum Vitae
Jayson David John Orton
ARCHAEOLOGIST AND HERITAGE CONSULTANT
Contact Details and personal information:
Address: 40 Brassie Street, Lakeside, 7945
Telephone: (021) 789 0327
Cell Phone: 083 272 3225
Email: [email protected]
Birth date and place: 22 June 1976, Cape Town, South Africa
Citizenship: South African
ID no: 760622 522 4085
Driver’s License: Code 08
Marital Status: Married to Carol Orton
Languages spoken: English and Afrikaans
Education:
SA College High School Matric 1994
University of Cape Town B.A. (Archaeology, Environmental & Geographical Science) 1997
University of Cape Town B.A. (Honours) (Archaeology)* 1998
University of Cape Town M.A. (Archaeology) 2004
University of Oxford D.Phil. (Archaeology) 2013
*Frank Schweitzer memorial book prize for an outstanding student and the degree in the First Class.
Employment History:
Spatial Archaeology Research Unit, UCT Research assistant Jan 1996 – Dec 1998
Department of Archaeology, UCT Field archaeologist Jan 1998 – Dec 1998
UCT Archaeology Contracts Office Field archaeologist Jan 1999 – May 2004
UCT Archaeology Contracts Office Heritage & archaeological consultant Jun 2004 – May 2012
School of Archaeology, University of Oxford Undergraduate Tutor Oct 2008 – Dec 2008
ACO Associates cc Associate, Heritage & archaeological
consultant Jan 2011 – Dec 2013
ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd Director, Heritage & archaeological
consultant Jan 2014 –
Professional Accreditation:
Association of Southern African Professional Archaeologists (ASAPA) membership number: 233
CRM Section member with the following accreditation:
Principal Investigator: Coastal shell middens (awarded 2007)
Stone Age archaeology (awarded 2007)
Grave relocation (awarded 2014)
Field Director: Rock art (awarded 2007)
Colonial period archaeology (awarded 2007)
Association of Professional Heritage Practitioners (APHP) membership number: 43
Accredited Professional Heritage Practitioner
Memberships and affiliations:
South African Archaeological Society Council member 2004 – 2016
Assoc. Southern African Professional Archaeologists (ASAPA) member 2006 –
UCT Department of Archaeology Research Associate 2013 –
Heritage Western Cape APM Committee member 2013 –
UNISA Department of Archaeology and Anthropology Research Fellow 2014 –
ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 60
Fish Hoek Valley Historical Association 2014 –
Kalk Bay Historical Association 2016 –
Association of Professional Heritage Practitioners member 2016 –
Fieldwork and project experience:
Extensive fieldwork and experience as both Field Director and Principle Investigator throughout the Western and Northern Cape, and also in the
western parts of the Free State and Eastern Cape as follows:
Feasibility studies:
Heritage feasibility studies examining all aspects of heritage from the desktop
Phase 1 surveys and impact assessments:
Project types
o Notification of Intent to Develop applications (for Heritage Western Cape)
o Desktop-based Letter of Exemption (for the South African Heritage Resources Agency)
o Heritage Impact Assessments (largely in the Environmental Impact Assessment or Basic Assessment context under NEMA and
Section 38(8) of the NHRA, but also self-standing assessments under Section 38(1) of the NHRA)
o Archaeological specialist studies
o Phase 1 archaeological test excavations in historical and prehistoric sites
o Archaeological research projects
Development types
o Mining and borrow pits
o Roads (new and upgrades)
o Residential, commercial and industrial development
o Dams and pipe lines
o Power lines and substations
o Renewable energy facilities (wind energy, solar energy and hydro-electric facilities)
Phase 2 mitigation and research excavations:
ESA open sites
o Duinefontein, Gouda, Namaqualand
MSA rock shelters
o Fish Hoek, Yzerfontein, Cederberg, Namaqualand
MSA open sites
o Swartland, Bushmanland, Namaqualand
LSA rock shelters
o Cederberg, Namaqualand, Bushmanland
LSA open sites (inland)
o Swartland, Franschhoek, Namaqualand, Bushmanland
LSA coastal shell middens
o Melkbosstrand, Yzerfontein, Saldanha Bay, Paternoster, Dwarskersbos, Infanta, Knysna, Namaqualand
LSA burials
o Melkbosstrand, Saldanha Bay, Namaqualand, Knysna
Historical sites
o Franschhoek (farmstead and well), Waterfront (fort, dump and well), Noordhoek (cottage), variety of small excavations in central
Cape Town and surrounding suburbs
Historic burial grounds
o Green Point (Prestwich Street), V&A Waterfront (Marina Residential), Paarl
Awards:
Western Cape Government Cultural Affairs Awards 2015/2016: Best Heritage Project.
ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 61
APPENDIX 2 - Site verification report
Government Notice No. 320, dated 20 March 2020, includes the requirement that an Initial Site Sensitivity
Verification Report must be produced for a development footprint. As per Part 1, Section 2.3, the outcome
of the Initial Site Verification must be recorded in the form of a report that-
(a) Confirms or disputes the current use of the land and environmental sensitivity as identified by the
national web based environmental screening tool;
(b) Contains a motivation and evidence of either the verified or different use of the land and
environmental sensitivity;
(c) Is submitted together with the relevant reports prepared in accordance with the requirements of
the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations.
This report has been produced specifically to consider the archaeological and cultural heritage theme and
addresses the content requirements of (a) and (b) above. The report will be appended to the respective
specialist study included in the Scoping and EIA Reports produced for the projects.
Site sensitivity based on the archaeological and cultural heritage theme included in the Screening Tool and
specialist assessment
Based on the DEA Screening Tool, the site contains areas of high and medium sensitivity due to the presence
of important mountain passes, wetlands, heritage sites and protected areas (Figure 1).
Figure 1. DEA Screening Tool outcome for the archaeological and cultural heritage theme
Based on the above outcomes, the specialist disputes the environmental sensitivities identified on site. The
findings of the dispute have been informed by a literature survey and several site visits undertaken by Dr
Jayson Orton to the project site. Due to the extreme size of the study area, only targeted fieldwork was
carried out in parts of the corridor where aerial photography suggested potential sensitivity. The northern
section within the wind farm study area was more intensively examined though. The target areas were
determined through a combination of driving the public road that runs in and close to the corridor and
examining aerial photography to look for potentially sensitive areas. These areas were then subjected to foot
surveys. Fieldwork in the grid corridor occurred on 17th and 18th March 2019, 6th and 7th April 2019, 13th, 14th
and 17th May 2019 and 17th to 19th September 2019. The surveys were conducted in autumn, winter and
spring but in this relatively dry area seasonality makes no difference to the visibility of heritage resources on
ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 62
the ground. During the survey the positions of finds and survey tracks were recorded on a hand-held Global
Positioning System (GPS) receiver set to the WGS84 datum. Photographs were taken at times in order to
capture representative samples of both the affected heritage and the landscape setting of the proposed
development. Various finds were made within the study area and these were allocated a sensitivity rating,
based on the heritage grading of the specific resource in question. The findings are presented in the figure
below.
Figure 2. Environmental sensitivity map produced by the heritage specialist
In conclusion, the DEA Screening Tool identified two sensitivity ratings within the development footprint,
namely, high and medium. Although there is some overlap with the findings on site and the Screening Tool’s
outcome, the development footprint contains various sensitivities (high, medium and low) that were
identified following the undertaking of several site visits and spatial input considerations.
The environmental sensitivity input received from the heritage specialist will be taken forward and
considered within the Scoping and EIA process and the impact to these areas assessed. Appropriate layout
and development restrictions will be implemented within the corridor to ensure that the impact to the
archaeological and cultural heritage environment is deemed acceptable by the heritage specialist.
ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 63
APPENDIX 3 – Farm portions and erven forming part of the powerline corridor
3/120 RE/48 RE/18 9/162 32/170 425 46 1/21 15/162 54/168 2/408 1/112 RE/21 10/162 10/170 156 2/110 13 11/162 17/170 RE/161 RE/424 14 2/162 29/170 RE/45 443 1/16 19/162 30/170 395 RE/1/172 17 5/163 35/170 2/48 27/170 43 6/163 37/170 439 31/170 5/73 4/162 15/170 33/170 3/153 6/73 17/162 26/170 36/170 RE/154 5/54 12/162 25/170 413 RE/1/154 1/113 7/162 3/170 RE/10/170 RE/2/154 2/113 16/162 RE/3/170
4/169 RE/5/154 5/113 RE/3/162
5/169 2/75 RE/1/168 RE/1/163
RE/1/168 8/154 RE/185 4/161
RE/185 RE/76 3/169 RE/7/161
7581 24/154 5/161 27/161
1/75 3/49 6/162 RE/3/161
4/45 396 14/162 8/161
3/45 47 13/162 6/169
ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 64
APPENDIX 4 – Inventory of finds
The following notes assist with the interpretation of the finds and an understanding of their grading:
• The list of heritage sites below includes all sites recorded for all three wind farms (NVN, NVW, NVE) and the
powerline (Grid) proposed as part of the broader Nuweveld wind energy project. Sites recorded for the original
and now abandoned powerline route have been left in the list for the record but are not coloured. Because no
other heritage studies have been carried out close to the wind farm study area, the table below essentially
includes all information required to assess and understand not only the current project but also the potential
cumulative impacts. For this reason, and because some shared infrastructure transgresses the actual project
boundaries, it was deemed appropriate to present all records here but only discuss examples relevant to the
present project in the body of the report. Section 10 of the report addresses the project-specific impacts. The
first two columns show which project areas the heritage sites fall into.
• Because of the large study area, recording of sites was generally performed quite quickly without very much
detail. Essentially, they were examined just long enough to determine significance and grade. However, rough
plans of most of the ruined structures were drawn but, for the sake of space, are not included here. They can be
requested from the author.
• Occasional stone-walled sites along the main roads were recorded from the road and their locations assigned
later from aerial photography.
• Farm complexes in the broader area were mostly recorded from aerial photography for the purposes of
sensitivity mapping.
• The original road alignment of the R381 has been changed in several places. Only the Molteno and Roseberg
Passes themselves were accorded Grade IIIA with the rest of the road (and hence the now abandoned original
sections) considered NCW. Similarly, the de Jager’s Pass and another highly scenic section above the escarpment
were graded IIIA and IIIB respectively with the rest of the road being NCW. Note, however, that the VIA
practitioners assessed these roads differently and dealt more strongly with the scenic aspects of the landscape.
• Grading of historical sites: historical complexes with graves or ash and rubbish dumps are given Grade IIIA,
complexes with no dumps but fairly well-preserved structures are given IIIB, complexes with no dump and
poorly preserved walling are given IIIC. Isolated walling/ruins in poor condition are IIIC or, if so deteriorated as
to be indeterminate clusters of stone, NCW.
• Grading of LSA sites: rock art sites are Grade IIIA, ephemeral stone-walled features and very dense artefact
scatters with organic materials preserved were allocated Grade IIIB, somewhat less dense artefact scatters are
Grade IIIC, while low density and/or ephemeral and/or background scatters are NCW.
NVN NVW NVE Grid Waypoint GPS co-ordinate Description Grade
X 001 S31 50 20.1 E22 22 05.3 Stone walling at entrance to small side kloof, possibly anti-
flooding measure.
NCW
X 003 S31 50 30.0 E22 22 32.2 Concentration of weathered MSA and possibly ESA artefacts. IIIC
X 005 S31 50 30.5 E22 22 40.9 Lower grindstone. NCW
X 029 S31 44 02.0 E22 23 12.0 Stone Alignment from the base of a now-removed fence. NCW
X 030 S31 43 48.6 E22 24 09.6 Quarry for hornfels building blocks. NCW
X 031 S31 43 46.9 E22 24 11.0 Small scatter of hornfels artefacts and a ceramic fragment on
rocky slope.
NCW
X 032 S31 43 46.6 E22 24 10.8 Scatter of glass and ceramic fragments, OES and flaked hornfels. NCW
X 033 S31 43 45.7 E22 24 10.5 Scatter of LSA material – hornfels artefacts, OES – eroded on the
alluvium.
IIIC
X 034 S31 43 44.8 E22 24 10.9 Small stone wall, approx. 1.5m long. NCW
X X 037 S31 45 46.6 E22 24 07.1 Stone kraal, roughly rectangular in shape, made of single large
dolerite boulders. Approx. 6x9m.
IIIC
X 038 S31 46 36.4 E22 23 55.6 Approximate centre of stone-lined dam associated with wind
pump.
IIIC
X 039 S31 47 01.0 E22 24 13.5 Packed stone alignment, probable anti-erosion wall. Age
unknown.
NCW
X 041 S31 46 52.0 E22 21 18.2 Small rectangular house with scatter of old bricks, slag and
historical cultural material. Probably older than 60 years.
IIIB
X X 053 S31 48 06.5 E22 28 35.7 Small scatter of hornfels artefacts, OES, bone fragments, piece of
glass, possibly flaked dolerite on pan floor.
IIIC
X 055 S31 46 21.3 E22 30 14.8 Scatter of artefacts within alluvial gravels – hornfels flakes, cores,
broken upper grindstone. Probably about 3-4m², approx. 8
artefacts per m².
NCW
X 057 S31 44 32.9 E22 28 10.4 Small scatter (1m²) of hornfels LSA and larger sandstone (MSA?)
artefacts on alluvium.
NCW
X 058 S31 44 38.3 E22 27 53.7 Low density background scatter of weathered artefacts. NCW
X 076 S31 45 57.4 E22 29 05.3 Dump area with concentration of glass and ceramic fragments
1621).
IIIA
X 077 S31 45 57.3 E22 29 05.0 Circle of stones surrounding heap of stone blocks, approx. 2x2m.
ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 65
NVN NVW NVE Grid Waypoint GPS co-ordinate Description Grade
X 078 S31 45 57.6 E22 29 04.9 Small kraal, approx. 3x4m, entrance on NE side.
X 079 S31 45 57.4 E22 29 04.6 Rectangular building with rounded corners, approx. 3x5m. Door
on E side, facing SE, and window (or alcove) on W side, facing NW
(1631). Historical ceramic, glass and metal fragments (1630).
X 080 S31 45 59.2 E22 29 04.6 Crude kraal on a northeast-facing slope. Filling in between existing
boulders.
X 081 S31 45 58.9 E22 29 04.3 Rectangular kraal, approximately 5x10m and located on a
northeast-facing slope.
X 1288 S31 50 26.0 E22 21 20.4 Small stone ruin. IIIA
X 1289 S31 50 26.7 E22 21 20.5 Small stone feature of unknown function.
X 1290 S31 50 25.7 E22 21 21.0 Stone feature with historical artefacts in the area.
X 1291 S31 50 26.6 E22 21 22.1 Stone kraal of about 13 m by 20 m. Walls tumbled.
X 1292 S31 50 25.0 E22 21 23.0 Small stone ruin
X 1293 S31 50 25.0 E22 21 21.6 Ash and rubbish midden. Contains much glass and ceramics
typical of late 19th century.
X 1294 S31 50 24.4 E22 21 19.9 Small circular stone feature.
X 1295 S31 50 24.7 E22 21 19.4 Ash and rubbish midden. Includes glass and ceramics typical of
late 19th century. A small medicine bottle has “HEYNES
MATTHEW’ embossed on it.
X 1296 S31 50 25.4 E22 21 18.6 Large circular feature that looks like a trapvloer but is built of two
skins with a rubble fill. There is a square structure attached to it
on its east side.
X 1297 S31 50 26.7 E22 21 18.9 Large depression with stone around the outside. May have been a
dam or a borrow pit type feature.
X 1347 S31 50 25.8 E22 21 15.2 Stone-lined dam wall and nearby a large stone-walled enclosure
of 160 m by 120 m.
X 1867 S31 50 27.1 E22 21 24.0 Remains of a stone kraal from which most stones seem to have
been removed.
X 1298 S31 50 19.2 E22 22 02.8 Light scatter of MSA artefacts on the alluvial river terrace. NCW
X 1299 S31 50 23.7 E22 22 11.8 A river cut exposure of alluvium c. 2.5 m deep with artefacts
embedded at the base of the alluvium just above the weathered
dolerite. Density unknown but probably quite low.
NCW
X 1300 S31 50 24.0 E22 22 25.0 Large down-wasted area with exposed artefacts and dolerite
gravel. Most artefacts are LSA but a few are older, likely MSA.
Includes a hammer stone and two lower grindstones. Most
artefacts are on hornfels but a few were on dolerite. One
quartzite flake with cobble cortex was also seen and must have
been imported to the area. A few pieces of ostrich eggshell were
also present.
IIIC
X 1301 S31 50 26.0 E22 22 24.3 Light scatter of LSA artefacts in hornfels on the alluvial river
terrace.
IIIC
X 1302 S31 50 27.6 E22 22 23.0 LSA kraal. Circular enclosure of about 8 m diameter made from
dolerite cobbles and situated on the lower slope of the hill just
above the alluvial terrace.
IIIB
X 1303 S31 50 28.1 E22 22 25.0 Light scatter of LSA artefacts in hornfels on the alluvial river
terrace.
IIIC
X 1304 S31 50 30.7 E22 22 25.5 Pair of historical ruins. IIIA
X 1305 S31 50 31.3 E22 22 25.4 A two-roomed stone ruin with artefacts of metal, glass and
ceramic alongside it.
X 1306 S31 50 32.0 E22 22 24.8 Larger stone enclosure with glass and ceramics alongside it.
X 1308 S31 50 27.5 E22 22 27.8 Historical stone-packed grave with small head and foot stone and
also a second large cluster of stones that does not seem to be a
grave (maybe stones left over after the grave covering was built?).
X 002 S31 50 29.6 E22 22 24.2 Semi-circular stone structure against a large boulder.
Approximately 3x4m in size.
X 1307 S31 50 29.2 E22 22 29.5 LSA stone-built enclosure with a moderate density hornfels
artefact scatter inside it. It is located on the northwest end of a
rocky ridge overlooking the river.
IIIA
X 1309 S31 50 25.8 E22 22 26.9 An approximately 3 m high alluvial terrace cut through by the
river and revealing artefacts at the base of the alluvium and just
above the weathered dolerite. The density of artefacts cannot be
determined but it is likely very low.
NCW
X 1310 S31 50 24.1 E22 22 31.7 A collection of stones on an alluvial terrace/floodplain. The stones
may represent a grave but this cannot be ascertained with
certainty.
IIIA (?)
X 1311 S31 50 23.6 E22 22 33.0 A light scatter of LSA artefacts in hornfels with a single lower
grindstone (face up). The scatter is located on an alluvial
terrace/floodplain. A large, high flake with scraper retouch was
seen. This artefact may be a core (the so-called ‘high-backed’
core).
NCW
X 1312 S31 50 21.5 E22 22 37.3 An extensive downwasted area with a low density scatter of LSA
hornfels artefacts and four lower grindstones (all face up).
IIIC
X 1313 S31 50 20.7 E22 22 38.6 More of the above scatter with some ostrich eggshell fragments
present. One lower grindstone (face up).
X 1325 S31 50 22.4 E22 22 37.1 More of the above scatter with three lower grindstones (all face
up). One is right at the lip of an erosion gulley and will soon drop
over the edge into the gulley.
ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 66
NVN NVW NVE Grid Waypoint GPS co-ordinate Description Grade
X 1314 S31 50 20.2 E22 22 38.0 Historical track created by clearing dolerite cobbles to the sides. NCW
X 1315 S31 50 18.1 E22 22 41.7 As above.
X 1316 S31 50 14.5 E22 22 46.4 As above. It peters out soon after this and becomes a footpath. It
may cross the river but this was not evident on site.
X 1317 S31 50 07.5 E22 22 52.7 S above but on the east side of the valley.
X 1318 S31 49 58.6 E22 22 54.7 Light scatter of LSA artefacts, mostly in hornfels but with some
dolerite. Two lower grindstones near this point (both face up).
IIIC
X 1319 S31 49 56.4 E22 22 55.1 As above. A lower grindstone at this point (both face up).
X 1320 S31 49 55.1 E22 22 54.5 As above. Two lower grindstones near this point (both face up)
and some ostrich eggshell fragments.
X 1321 S31 49 56.3 E22 22 53.4 As above with a large lower grindstone (face up).
X 1322 S31 50 28.0 E22 22 46.2 Light scatter of LSA hornfels artefacts on a ridge overlooking a
river.
NCW
X 1323 S31 50 25.8 E22 22 38.9 A small historical stone structure on a dolerite slope just above a
river.
IIIC
X 1324 S31 50 24.5 E22 22 38.4 A light scatter of LSA hornfels artefacts on a dolerite slope just
above a river.
NCW
X 1326 S31 50 41.5 E22 22 54.4 A large historical stone-walled structure. Does not seem like a
kraal because of its shape and lack of a large enclosure. There is a
smaller square enclosure of about 8 by 8 m.
IIIC
X 1328 S31 50 39.9 E22 22 56.5 Small stone feature of dolerite cobbles on alluvial terrace.
X 1329 S31 50 40.5 E22 22 57.1 A stone-walled structure, probably was a residential structure.
There is also some metal and ceramics (coarse porcelain seen).
X 006 S31 50 36.9 E22 22 56.7 006 to 009 are points on a kraal. 006 = NE end.
X 007 S31 50 38.2 E22 22 56.2 SE corner of kraal.
X 008 S31 50 38.4 E22 22 54.8 SW corner of kraal.
X 009 S31 50 38.1 E22 22 54.7 NW end of kraal.
X 010 S31 50 38.5 E22 22 56.4 010 and 011 = stone wall.
010 = N end.
X 011 S31 50 38.5 E22 22 56.5 011 = S end.
X 012 S31 50 38.4 E22 22 56.9 012 to 016 = irregular-shaped stone structure. 012 = NW corner.
X 013 S31 50 38.3 E22 22 57.0 013= NE corner.
X 014 S31 50 38.5 E22 22 57.1 014 = SE corner.
X 015 S31 50 38.6 E22 22 57.0 018 = SW corner.
X 016 S31 50 38.8 E22 22 57.0 Extension off southern end of structure.
X 017 S31 50 38.7 E22 22 57.6 Circular heap of stones.
X 018 S31 50 38.4 E22 22 57.7 Rectangular heap of stones.
X 1327 S31 50 40.8 E22 22 55.4 A light scatter of LSA hornfels artefacts on an alluvial terrace
alongside a river.
NCW
X 1330 S31 50 24.2 E22 23 39.5 Historical stone-built kraal of about 10 m by 17 m built up against
a cliff near the top of the dolerite plateau but overlooking a river
valley.
IIIC
X 1331 S31 50 30.3 E22 24 02.7 A gulley created by moving rocks to the side. Seems to be related
to the present road so maybe not old.
NCW
X X 1332 S31 49 46.3 E22 24 43.8 Very low density scatter of weathered hornfels and dolerite
artefacts on a sandy plain on top of the hills.
NCW
X 1333 S31 47 54.1 E22 23 02.3 Stone-packed ruin that was probably residential. There is a
relatively well-preserved central section with two heavily
collapsed outer ‘rooms’.
IIIA
X 1334 S31 47 53.6 E22 23 02.5 Small pile of stones that looks as though it has collapsed. This
suggests there was once a hole beneath them. Possibly a grave
but seems too close to the house ruin. Many glass, ceramic and
metal artefacts in this area including a metal four-holed button
and the lid of a tin that has ‘J. ROSFELL & SONS LTD POWDERED
CAUSTIC SODA’ embossed on it.
X 1335 S31 47 55.8 E22 23 03.6 Small stone enclosure.
X 1336 S31 47 54.8 E22 23 06.9 Pile of dolerite cobbles.
X 1337 S31 47 54.4 E22 23 06.2 A large accumulation of dolerite cobbles that must be
anthropogenic.
X 1338 S31 47 44.9 E22 23 00.8 A small stone-built enclosure/feature largely obscured by bushes.
X 1339 S31 47 45.3 E22 23 00.1 A small circular, stone-built enclosure of about 2 m diameter.
X 1340 S31 47 44.0 E22 23 02.8 A stone-packed grave with three simple dolerite headstones and a
space between two of them suggesting that the stone packing
was large enough for four burials. Two animal burrows have gone
in underneath the stone packing and two rib fragments are
present on the surface (from an image sent to Dr Teresa Steele,
neither bone is human).
X 1341 S31 47 43.8 E22 23 03.1 A cluster of dolerite stones on the alluvial terrace and a scatter of
ceramics and glass.
X 1342 S31 47 44.2 E22 23 04.2 A scatter of glass (rare) and ceramics (common) as well as a CCS
gun flint and a quartzite pebble upper grindstone.
X 1343 S31 47 44.4 E22 23 04.0 Small circular stone feature (possible grave).
X 019 S31 47 54.1 E22 23 04.5 Circular stone feature of dolerite slabs and boulders, approx. 5-
6m across. Probably collapsed structure.
X 020 S31 47 51.6 E22 23 00.5 Circular heap of stone slabs. No structure.
X 021 S31 47 51.3 E22 23 00.2 Larger rectangular heap of stone slabs. Clearly piled.
ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 67
NVN NVW NVE Grid Waypoint GPS co-ordinate Description Grade
X 022 S31 47 54.3 E22 22 56.4 Circular stone structure with E-facing entrance. Double wall with
rubble filling.
X 1344 S31 47 48.5 E22 23 17.0 An ephemeral scatter of LSA artefacts and a lower grindstone
(face up). Also some ostrich eggshell fragments.
NCW
X X X 1345 S31 49 01.7 E22 21 47.9 A two-roomed structure built of sandstone slabs and located
along the edge of a sandstone outcrop. It is quite well-preserved.
Just outside its southeast corner there are chisel marks on the
sandstone bedrock where stone dressing took place. There are
fragments of Unio caffer (freshwater mussel) shell inside the
house.
IIIB
X X X 1346 S31 48 59.4 E22 21 48.2 A rectangular 2 m by 3 m stone structure that appears to have
had many rocks removed from it.
X X X 023 S31 48 54.8 E22 21 40.4 Stone pile/cairn, diameter approx. 1m. Mostly stone slabs.
X X X 024 S31 49 00.5 E22 21 38.0 Square stone structure with a north-facing entrance.
Approximately 3.5x3.5m.
NB: this complex has not been given an outline since there are
few features and only two, which are 260 m apart, have any value
(1345 & 024).
X 1287 S31 50 16.6 E22 20 49.2 Snydersfontein farmstead. Many historical structures including a
vernacular gabled ‘longhouse’ type structure with stoepkamers, a
donkey geyser and a very large pepper tree. The house has been
renovated (including a new corrugated iron roof) but retains its
heritage qualities. The main farmhouse is older than 60 years but
has been renovated (it was not well visible due to trees and was
not visited).
IIIA
X 1348 S31 50 20.9 E22 20 57.3 Two mid-20th century labourers’ cottages.
X 1349 S31 50 20.8 E22 20 43.8 Extensive stone walling on the alluvial terrace/floodplain and
surrounding terrain.
X 1350 S31 50 05.5 E22 20 38.7 A large kraal/stone walling on the slope on the north side of the
river.
X 1351 S31 50 27.9 E22 20 31.3 Stone-walled graveyard but with a fenced enclosure around it.
There are c. 13 graves inside the stone wall, including some small
stone-packed mounds, and about 17 graves outside the wall but
within the fenced area. Oldest grave is dated 1868. It is the Van
der Westhuizen family graveyard.
X 1352 S31 50 22.2 E22 20 23.6 A corner point on the above stone walling. [Not visited.]
X 1354 S31 50 18.1 E22 20 46.8 Small round stone feature built with dolerite boulders just off the
public road.
X 1355 S31 50 13.4 E22 20 50.4 Ash heap with glass and ceramic artefacts on it but fairly low
density artefacts. Likely associated with the longhouse noted in
1287.
1864 S31 50 05.2 E22 20 38.9 Stone kraal on the south-facing slope to the north of the river. Not
visited.
X 1353 S31 49 50.6 E22 18 48.8 Fence line that utilizes many stone fence posts. There are others
in the area but this is an especially well-preserved example.
IIIC
X 1356 S31 52 56.6 E22 23 24.9 Stone wall running up the hillside. Note that the walling is more
extensive in this valley than what is mapped in this report,
especially towards the west.
IIIA
X 1357 S31 53 09.5 E22 23 36.1 Stone walling running around and across a valley. There is walling
on top of the sandstone cliffs and sometimes the cliff itself serves
as the wall. In one place there were drains built at the base of the
wall where it crosses a stream.
X 1358 S31 53 15.5 E22 23 35.5 Stone walling running up the hill and over the sandstone cliff.
X 1359 S31 53 22.0 E22 23 39.2 Stone walling running up the slope to the south of the river.
X 1360 S31 53 26.4 E22 23 52.0 Stone walling on the hillside south of the river.
X 1361 S31 53 24.3 E22 23 55.1 Stone ruin and several other stone features including a
stone=packed dam wall.
X 1362 S31 53 29.2 E22 23 53.7 Large two-roomed kraal on the slope to the south of the river.
X 1363 S31 53 27.6 E22 24 02.6 Two-roomed stone structure, possibly a small kraal.
X 1364 S31 53 28.9 E22 24 04.7 Stone structure, possibly a kraal.
X 1365 S31 53 31.9 E22 24 02.8 Stone walling/structure
X 1744 S31 53 29.8 E22 23 53.9 A small house ruin located just east of a large kraal.
X 1745 S31 53 30.9 E22 23 53.6 Two quarry sites on the lip of the scarp where building stone was
obtained and dressed.
X 1746 S31 53 32.6 E22 23 54.9 A small (2 m by 2 m) square collapsed stone structure.
X 1747 S31 53 24.5 E22 23 56.7 Stone-walled terrace presumably built to prevent erosion of the
area on which structures occur.
X 1748 S31 53 21.0 E22 23 58.7 A Stone-built dam across a river valley. It is largely intact but has
minor damage to the front of the wall and spillway areas.
X 1749 S31 53 21.4 E22 23 57.0 A historical kraal built up against a low cliff and incorporating two
free-standing blocks on the slope.
X 1751 S31 53 22.2 E22 23 55.8 A poorly preserved, perhaps partial stone enclosure against the
cliff.
X 1752 S31 53 24.0 E22 23 55.9 An ash and rubbish dump at the end of the stone terrace (1747).
It has glass, ceramics, metal and bone.
X 1753 S31 53 24.8 E22 23 55.9 The remains of a ruin with stone paving slabs and many fired clay
bricks.
ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 68
NVN NVW NVE Grid Waypoint GPS co-ordinate Description Grade
X X 1367 S31 43 33.2 E22 22 08.7 Stone kraal. IIIC
X X 1368 S31 43 32.9 E22 22 06.5 Stone kraal.
X X 1369 S31 43 33.8 E22 22 09.7 Low density historical artefact scatter.
X X 025 S31 43 34.2 E22 22 11.0 Part of a stone wall, possibly at the edge of a dump. Slight
concentration of historical cultural material next to it.
X X 026 S31 43 34.7 E22 22 10.3 Rectangular stone structure mostly made of large single boulders,
approx. 4-5x10m. Divided by wall into larger part (with two small
sections of wall on S wall) and smaller part.
X X 1370 S31 43 36.3 E22 22 09.6 Dense scatter of hornfels artefacts and ostrich eggshell fragments
on the slope of a dolerite hill.
IIIC
X X 1371 S31 43 25.9 E22 23 52.5 Two cleared strips of ground with the dolerite cobbles pushed to
the edges. Function unknown.
IIIA
X 1372 S31 43 29.6 E22 23 58.6 Stone walling, possibly a kraal, on a dolerite hill.
X 1373 S31 43 35.8 E22 23 58.3 Stone walling including a kraal.
X 1490 S31 43 28.7 E22 24 05.2 The Rocklands farmstead contains a variety of structures. There is
a vernacular labourers’ cottage at this waypoint and a stone ruin
very nearby. There are many stone walls in the farm complex as
well. The main house may be Victorian in age originally but has
been much modified and added to over the years, although an
adjoining structure retains more of its original features.
X 1396 S31 43 23.1 E22 23 59.5 A circular stone feature that looks like a threshing floor (truncated
by adjoining gravel track but with a smaller stone circular stone
feature inside it.
1397 S31 43 12.1 E22 24 05.6 Various stone walls occur in the area to the west and northwest of
this point.
X 1398 S31 43 28.3 E22 24 00.0 There is much stone walling within the farm complex around this
point. Note that the farmhouse has been heavily renovated and
lacks historical qualities. Other outbuildings in the complex were
not specifically recorded, though no significant historical
structures were noticed during our brief visit.
X X 1713 S31 43 23.0 E22 24 12.6 Set of labourers’ cottages to the northeast of the farm complex.
The two on the northeast end of the row are the youngest. Aerial
photography reveals that only the two on the southwest end
predate 1959.
X X 027 S31 43 25.1 E22 23 52.6 Possible old brick kiln with rejected bricks and slag.
X 1374 S31 43 45.3 E22 23 08.4 Stone alignment from the base of an old fence running north-
south that has been removed. This feature went for a long
distance and was only recorded here.
NCW
X 1375 S31 43 47.3 E22 23 05.5 C-shaped LSA stone-walled feature with hornfels artefacts and
ostrich eggshell fragments inside and alongside it.
IIIB
X 1376 S31 43 43.0 E22 22 55.0 An approximately 20 m diameter scatter of ostrich eggshell and
LSA hornfels artefacts in a flat, open area.
IIIC
X 1377 S31 43 50.5 E22 23 00.9 An approximately 20 m diameter scatter of LSA hornfels artefacts
and ostrich eggshell fragments in a flat area overlooking a river.
There was some burnt ostrich eggshell and a large thumbnail
scraper was seen. Many blades/bladelets were present and the
scatter is very dense.
IIIB
X 1378 S31 43 49.8 E22 23 02.2 An approximately 20 m diameter scatter of LSA hornfels artefacts
in an open area between the dolerite koppie with the stone-
walled enclosure (1375) and the river. There was also one flake of
possible volcanic chert or quartzite. The scatter is of moderate
density.
IIIC
X 1379 S31 43 52.8 E22 23 05.8 Widespread low density LSA hornfels artefacts scatter along the
river. No obvious concentrations.
NCW
X 1380 S31 43 54.5 E22 23 09.4 A dolerite outcrop with four rock gongs. The top of the outcrop is
fractured and four of the corner points on the pieces have been
heavily battered from ringing them. They make four different
notes. There was also low density hornfels artefacts and ostrich
eggshell scatter around about.
IIIB
X 1381 S31 43 50.8 E22 24 03.9 Two stone piles/cairns, one on either side of the track. NCW
X 1382 S31 43 50.4 E22 24 09.7 Large formally constructed stone-walled dam. It is heavily silted
up. Must have held a lot of water originally. The full supply level
extends at least 400 m upstream. A small cottage just south of the
dam wall is shown on historical aerial photographs to be older
than 60 years but was not recorded on site because recent
modification suggested t=it to be modern. The grade here applies
to the dam with the cottage being NCW.
IIIB
X 1383 S31 43 46.3 E22 24 09.9 Small stone feature. It is unlikely to be a grave. NCW
X 1384 S31 43 44.7 E22 24 09.0 Stone walling on a steep hill above a river. It is U-shaped with the
arms pointing down to the river.
NCW
ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 69
NVN NVW NVE Grid Waypoint GPS co-ordinate Description Grade
X 1385 S31 43 45.0 E22 24 08.5 Rock outcrops with stone walling in front of them and an
extremely dense scatter of ostrich eggshell fragments with some
LSA hornfels artefacts. It is on the crest of a hill overlooking a
river.
IIIB
X X 1386 S31 45 37.7 E22 24 07.3 Dolerite outcrop with an overhanging wall facing towards the
south. There are many hornfels artefacts and ostrich eggshell
fragments in the shelter and also one mineral-tempered pottery
fragment. There is also some bone that almost certainly belongs
with the LSA material but some recent tortoise bones clearly
originate from birds of prey dropping young tortoises on the
outcrop. Below the shelter there is a rock step and below this
there is an outcrop kraal built up against the step.
IIIA
X X 1387 S31 45 33.3 E22 24 04.4 Small stone house ruin overlooking a watercourse. It has an east-
facing doorway and some collapsed walling forming two more
rooms on its east side. There are a few glass, ceramic and metal
artefacts scattered about the area that seem likely to be early 20th
century.
IIIB
X X 035 S31 45 35.4 E22 24 12.1 Semi-circular kraal of dolerite blocks, approx. 4x4m.
X X 036
S31 45 36.0 E22 24 14.1
Rectangular stone kraal made of dolerite boulders, approximately
7 x 9m.
X 1388 S31 45 38.9 E22 23 56.2 An isolated LSA lower grindstone. NCW
X X 1389 S31 45 46.1 E22 24 09.0 A historical stone-walled kraal built up against the south side of a
dolerite outcrop. Although it has the look of an LSA kraal, it seems
to be better built suggesting it is relatively recent.
IIIB
X 1390 S31 46 35.0 E22 23 55.2 Widespread, low density scatter of LSA hornfels artefacts in a flat.
Open area near a river.
NCW
X 1391 S31 46 34.1 E22 23 56.2 A small stone-built in-stream dam. NCW
X 1392 S31 46 33.0 E22 23 52.6 A southwest-facing stone enclosure built against a dolerite
outcrop. It was not possibly to determine whether it is LSA or
historical and there were no associated artefacts. Given the dams,
it is probably historical.
IIIC
X 1393 S31 46 34.5 E22 23 52.4 An in-stream earthen-walled dam. NCW
X 1394 S31 47 02.0 E22 24 13.2 Stone wall running towards a river and that looks like a low dam
wall but which is not visible on the other side of the river.
NCW
X X 1395 S31 43 22.9 E22 23 58.5 The grave of Johanna Hope who died in 1916. There is no
graveyard or actual grave covering (only a headstone) and the
grave is overgrown.
IIIA
X 1399 S31 43 11.0 E22 23 58.1 An isolated LSA lower grindstone.
X 1400 S31 43 40.2 E22 22 20.3 A small northeast-facing rock shelter in a dolerite cliff with many
ostrich eggshell fragments in front of it. There is also some
modern white painted graffiti on this outcrop (several crosses,
‘HUMO’ and ‘B.P.’).
NCW
X 1401 S31 43 45.8 E22 22 17.5 An LSA hornfels artefact scatter on the dolerite ridge between
two river valleys. There was also one flake of possible volcanic
chert or quartzite. The scatter is of low-moderate density.
IIIC
X 1402 S31 43 45.0 E22 22 16.9 More of the above scatter but it is of moderate density here. A
hornfels adze and a scraper/core on possible volcanic chert or
quartzite were also seen.
X 1403 S31 47 16.9 E22 21 11.8 A stone-built house ruin built on the edge of a sandstone scarp
overlooking a river.
IIIA
X 1404 S31 47 17.6 E22 21 12.0 A small stone-walled feature located just to the south of the
house ruin (1403) and closer to the edge of the scarp.
X 1405 S31 47 17.7 E22 21 12.4 An ash and rubbish dump located over the edge of the scarp
below the house ruin. It contains typical 19th century materials.
X 1406 S31 47 17.3 E22 21 13.4 A three-roomed stone-built house ruin built just below the edge
of a sandstone scarp overlooking a river and west of the 1403
house ruin.
X 1407 S31 47 15.6 E22 21 14.0 Stone-built kraal of 17 m by 23 m on the top of the sandstone
scarp.
X 1407b S31 47 25.3 E22 21 12.7 A rectangular stone enclosure of 60 m by 120 m lies on the alluvial
terrace below the sandstone scarp and a stone wall runs up the
hill to the scarp on the south side of the valley (not visited).
X 040 S31 47 17.9 E22 21 09.2 Bi-lobed stone structure, about 6m in length, with some historical
cultural material around it. There is a large rectangular feature in
the valley below (to the south) which has not been visited.
X 1408 S31 47 11.7 E22 21 19.3 Circular stone enclosure with an entrance facing towards the
southeast.
X 1409 S31 47 11.8 E22 21 20.7 A single probable grave. It has no grave covering but there is a
probable headstone that is securely buried. A rock lies
immediately west of the ‘headstone’.
X 1412 S31 47 14.4 E22 21 18.2 A large stone-built dam wall built across the valley between two
sandstone scarps. It is heavily silted up on the upstream side and
is buried by a poplar forest.
X 042 S31 47 09.3 E22 21 26.9 Two graves, one indicated by a heap of stones with a headstone,
the other by head and foot stones with stone slabs in between.
ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 70
NVN NVW NVE Grid Waypoint GPS co-ordinate Description Grade
X 1410 S31 47 11.9 E22 21 20.2 A geometric rock art site with three painted geometric motifs.
There are on a vertical wall under a roof under a sandstone scarp.
The shelter is not inhabitable.
IIIA
X 1411 S31 47 12.4 E22 21 19.6 A small rock shelter under the same sandstone scarp as 1410 and
about 20 m to the southwest. It contains ostrich eggshell
fragments and some hornfels.
IIIC
X 1413 1492 m Round house ruin with a voorkamer type room that has collapsed. IIIA
X 1414 1493 m Rubbish midden with glass, ceramics, bone and a rubber shoe
sole.
X 1415 1492 m A small collapsed stone feature of indeterminate function.
X 1416 1489 m A small stone feature of indeterminate function. It has a large tin
inside it. Possibly an oven?
X 1417 1483 m A large cluster of rocks that must have been some sort of
structure but is now completely collapsed.
X 1418 1481 m Two graves marked by headstones, two gate posts and a bit of
fence wire.
X X 1420 S31 49 01.0 E22 27 34.8 A small ruined stone-walled structure of indeterminate function. IIIC
X X 1421 S31 49 01.7 E22 27 13.6 A small ruined stone-walled structure of indeterminate function. IIIC
X 1422 S31 49 06.3 E22 27 04.9 Outline of stones suggesting the base of a fenced area, possibly a
sheep pen.
NCW
X X 1423 S31 48 20.4 E22 27 09.5 A small ruined stone-walled structure of indeterminate function. IIIC
X X 1424 S31 47 41.8 E22 26 58.8 Well-built and well-preserved (only the north wall has collapsed)
stone house with a 3 m by 4 m rectangular main room and an
irregular shaped voorkamer-type room extending 3 m further
east. House faces east with voorkamer entrance facing northeast.
The main room has a door to the east, a window to the west and a
muurkas in the southern wall. There is a circular structure facing
east built 3 m away to the east-northeast. It has an opening to the
east and is probably a kookskerm.
IIIA
X X 1425 S31 47 41.1 E22 26 59.4 A badly collapsed stone kraal of about 9 m by 14 m built against
the rock outcrop below 1424.
X X 1426 S31 47 38.0 E22 26 56.1 A small (1 m diameter) collapsed stone structure of indeterminate
function.
X X 1427 S31 47 37.4 E22 26 56.7 A second east-facing house with the same plan as 1424 but with
no muurkas. The east side of the structure has totally collapsed.
X X 1428 S31 47 37.3 E22 26 57.1 A small, collapsed stone feature with a scatter of glass, ceramics,
metal, ostrich eggshell and bone next to it.
X X 1429 S31 47 34.7 E22 26 59.1 A single grave aligned east-west but with just one gravestone on
the east end) possibly this was a footstone). There may have been
two originally with the headstone having collapsed.
X X 1430 S31 47 31.5 E22 26 59.9 A fossil. See
App.5
X X 1431 S31 47 33.9 E22 27 12.3 A collapsed stone house with an ephemeral glass and ceramic
scatter alongside it.
IIIC
X X 1432 S31 47 34.7 E22 27 12.9 A small collapsed stone structure of indeterminate function. A
semi-circle of stones is visible amongst the collapsed stones.
X X 044 S31 47 39.8 E22 27 25.9 Stone structure – one rectangular room with large semi-circle to E
side (1307) and smaller structure attached to S side (1305). Small
window on the W side (1311). A few ceramic fragments (1310).
X X 045 S31 47 39.5 E22 27 26.1 Heap of stone blocks, flattened structure.
X X 047 S31 47 37.7 E22 27 17.3 Old dam wall built of earth and then lined with stone. Dam has
burst. Main section of wall is 2-5 m in height.
X X 049 S31 47 35.2 E22 27 13.6 Semi-circular kraal with lammerhok on E side and rock wall of
scarp to north.
X X 1433 S31 47 37.3 E22 27 15.3 A fossil. See
App.5
X X 1434 S31 47 37.6 E22 27 16.5 A fossil. See
App.5
X X 1435 S31 47 37.4 E22 27 16.3 A fossil. See
App.5
X X 1436 S31 47 38.1 E22 27 16.9 A fossil. See
App.5
X X 1437 S31 47 49.4 E22 27 54.0 An engraving of an eland on a dark dolerite slab at the lip of the
dolerite sill.
IIIA
X X 1438 S31 47 45.9 E22 27 57.6 A historical scratched engraving on a dark dolerite slab on the lip
of a dolerite sill (close to 1437). There are two images, one on
either side of a crack, but they are difficult to discern.
IIIB
X X 1439 S31 48 17.7 E22 28 34.1 A small, sub-circular historic ruin. IIIC
X X 1440 S31 48 17.2 E22 28 32.7 A low stone dam wall across a shallow drainage line.
X X 1442 S31 48 15.9 E22 28 34.2 A dolerite outcrop with a small stone-built enclosure facing north
and a very small one (i.e. like a chicken cage) facing east.
X X 1441 S31 48 05.6 E22 28 35.6 A scatter of ostrich eggshell fragments with a few bits of metal
and some bone and glass. The glass seems to be a single bottle
with “BROOKES LEMOS / OROS LTD” embossed on it. There are
also rare hornfels stone artefacts in this area – a total of eight
were seen. The site lies on the pan dune to the east-northeast of a
large pan contained wholly within the dolerite sill.
NCW
ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 71
NVN NVW NVE Grid Waypoint GPS co-ordinate Description Grade
X X 1443 S31 48 54.4 E22 29 03.1 A small stone kraal built against a sandstone outcrop. IIIC
X X 1444 S31 48 53.0 E22 29 02.9 A 2-roomed stone ruin with a single piece of glass alongside it.
X 1445 S31 46 21.4 E22 29 48.0 A semi-circular, northwest-facing stone structure of 1.5 m
diameter built against a rock outcrop. Possibly a hunting blind.
There are a few bits of ostrich eggshell and one tortoise limb bone
but the structure may be historical.
IIIC
X 1446 S31 46 16.8 E22 30 15.8 A tiny southwest-facing rock shelter under a sandstone outcrop. It
has a geometric painting under a low overhang at the back. On
the floor are ostrich eggshell fragments (including some burnt),
bones and a few hornfels artefacts (just five seen). The painting is
under a 70-75 cm high roof and is located on an overhanging face
about 50-60 cm above the ground. There is stone walling at the
north-western end of the shelter.
IIIA
X 1447 S31 46 16.7 E22 30 16.7 A small, solid rectangular structure about 0.7 m wide, 1.2 m long
and 0.6 m high. It is at the foot of a sandstone outcrop. Its
function is unknown.
NCW
X 1448 S31 46 16.5 E22 30 18.6 A small south-facing shelter with stone walling around the front. NCW
X 1449 S31 46 16.3 E22 30 20.5 A small east-facing shelter with extremely informal walling in it. NCW
X 1450 S31 47 17.0 E22 30 17.0 A small stone ruin at the foot of a sandstone outcrop. Not visited. IIIC
X 1451 S31 47 05.8 E22 31 12.4 A large (30 m by 35 m stone kraal that has badly collapsed. IIIC
X 1452 S31 47 05.8 E22 31 09.9 A small scatter of glass, ceramics, metal and bone.
X 1453 S31 47 05.9 E22 31 09.4 A small collapsed stone structure of indeterminate function.
1454 S31 48 14.2 E22 31 33.1 A stone kraal that has partly collapsed (outside study area). IIIC
1455 S31 48 23.0 E22 31 33.5 A stone kraal (outside study area). IIIC
1456 S31 48 25.0 E22 31 27.8 A stone kraal (outside study area). IIIC
X 1457 S31 52 23.4 E22 27 11.2 A small west-facing rock shelter on the side of a prominent
sandstone outcrop with an extensive ostrich eggshell scatter and
some hornfels artefacts. There are also hornfels artefacts and
potsherds on top of the hill but most have been collected up into
one location for showing visitors.
IIIB
X 1458 S31 52 24.5 E22 27 12.3 A small south-facing rock shelter on the side of a prominent
sandstone outcrop with an ostrich eggshell scatter and some
hornfels artefacts.
1460 S31 43 00.3 E22 25 51.5 Stone-built dam (outside study area). IIIC
X 1461 S31 44 37.2 E22 28 20.6 An upright and embedded stone that very likely represents a
grave. Its surfaces face east-west. The site is far from
IIIA
X 1462 S31 44 41.8 E22 28 18.4 Historical walling against a rock outcrop above a stream. It is
southwest-facing.
X 1463 S31 44 41.1 E22 28 16.7 Walling around an animal burrow in a crevice. Presumably to trap
the animal and catch it when it got hungry.
X 1464 S31 44 46.2 E22 28 14.0 East-facing single-roomed structure. It has only minor collapse at
its entrance. Two green glass fragments and a brass item with
“EXHIBITION GRAMOPHONE & TYPEWRITER LTD LONDON-BERIN-
PARIS” on one side and “16469” on the other side.
X 1465 S31 44 48.9 E22 27 36.9 Isolated upper grindstone below a sandstone and shale cliff. NCW
X 1466 S31 44 25.6 E22 28 05.5 A small scatter of glass originating from a single bottle. Parts of
“PROPERTY OF” are visible and other text includes “……PE” and
“…ES, LTD”.
NCW
X 1467 S31 44 03.2 E22 28 02.6 Scatter of sandstone artefacts near a river. NCW
X 1468 S31 45 14.2 E22 28 40.4 A scatter of quite large grey flakes that may be from stone
dressing.
NCW
X 1469 S31 45 15.4 E22 28 36.1 A scatter of quite large grey flakes that may be from stone
dressing.
NCW
X 1470 S31 45 16.3 E22 28 36.4 LSA hornfels scatter on the scree slope below a sandstone scarp.
Some bladelets seen and one miscellaneous scraper.
IIIC
X 1471 S31 45 05.8 E22 28 32.7 East-facing house ruin with some glass and ceramics around it. A
long, thin blue bottle neck was inside the house. The central room
is oval in shape and a room has been added to the southwest
(now collapsed) and a voorkamer-type room is to the east in front
of the door of the central room. The central room and northeast
wall are still intact but the additions to the southeast have
collapsed.
IIIA
X 1472 S31 45 05.5 E22 28 32.6 Oval structure located just to the northeast of the main house.
X 1473 S31 45 05.6 E22 28 32.2 A small square stone feature of 1 x 1 m.
X 1474 S31 45 05.4 E22 28 32.1 A light ash and artefact dump that includes glass, ceramics, metal
(including some potjie fragments) and some bones (including a
sheep mandible). There is also a section of ‘paving’ within the
limits of the dump.
X 1475 S31 45 05.2 E22 28 32.6 A small square stone feature of about 1 m diameter.
X 1476 S31 45 05.4 E22 28 33.3 A stone-built (probable) kraal that has collapsed almost entirely.
There is a small rectangular room attached to the uphill side of
the structure.
X 1477 S31 45 03.9 E22 28 32.4 A semi-circular stone structure of indeterminate function.
X 1478 S31 45 07.3 E22 28 34.9 A collapsed circular structure of about 3 m diameter.
X 060 S31 45 19.7 E22 28 36.0 Filled-in semi-circle of stone blocks against scarp 4-5m x 2-3m
ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 72
NVN NVW NVE Grid Waypoint GPS co-ordinate Description Grade
X 061 S31 45 19.9 E22 28 36.6 Semi-circular stone structure with entrance on N side, alcove on
straight back wall (E), curved platform on SW side. Circle approx.
3x3m.
X 062 S31 45 19.7 E22 28 36.9 Small circular stone structure with adjoining ‘wall’ of boulders on
SE side.
X 063 S31 45 18.5 E22 28 35.7 Circular stone structure with attached semi-circle filled with
rubble of sandstone blocks, approx. 3x7m.
X 064 S31 45 17.7 E22 28 36.0 Semi-circular stone structure
X 065 S31 45 17.4 E22 28 35.9 Rectangular stone structure with small attached square structure
to SE, with adjacent heap of stone blocks. Main structure has an
alcove in W wall.
X 066 S31 45 13.8 E22 28 34.9 Stone house with added-on section to N and semi-circular
structure to the E. 066 = S side – between house and semi-circle.
A few historical cultural remains.
X 067 S31 45 13.6 E22 28 35.1 Same house. S side – SE ‘corner’ of semi-circle.
X 068 S31 45 13.6 E22 28 35.1 Same house. N side – NE ‘corner’ of semi-circle.
X 069 S31 45 13.6 E22 28 34.7 Same house. N side – NW ‘corner’ of house add-on. A small part
of the dividing wall remains along the W wall
X 070 S31 45 13.8 E22 28 34.7 Same house. S side – SW ‘corner’ of house. Two alcoves along W
wall.
X 071 S31 45 14.3 E22 28 34.4 Centre of roughly rectangular kraal, approx. 7-8 x 11m.
X 072 S31 45 14.0 E22 28 34.3 Stone cairn/heap close to NW corner of kraal 071, approx. 1m
high.
X 073 S31 45 14.0 E22 28 34.0 Lower stone heap, approx. 1/2m high.
X 074 S31 45 13.8 E22 28 34.1 Lower stone heap, approx. 1/2m high.
X 075 S31 45 14.2 E22 28 35.2 Centre of oval kraal, approx. 8x17m, made mostly using natural
features such as grouped large boulders to the N and a rocky
ledge to the W. Wall built along edge of the scarp on E side.
X 1479 S31 45 12.5 E22 28 34.8 A fossil. See
App.5
X 1480 S31 45 51.7 E22 29 07.5 A stone beacon of unknown function. NCW
X 1481 S31 46 09.4 E22 29 11.2 A fossil. See
App.5
X 1482 S31 46 10.2 E22 29 10.9 A fossil. See
App.5
X 1483 S31 46 11.0 E22 29 07.6 A well-preserved east-facing stone house (door facing east). IIIB
X 1484 S31 46 14.7 E22 29 12.8 A tall sandstone slab that has been stood upright and is supported
by a smaller slab. It is not buried in the ground suggesting that it
might not have been standing up for all that long. It seems to
mark a source of good building slabs.
NCW
X 1485 S31 46 15.4 E22 29 04.2 A fossil. See
App.5
X 1486 S31 46 03.5 E22 29 15.1 A fossil. See
App.5
X 1487 S31 46 03.3 E22 29 16.2 A fossil. See
App.5
X 1488 S31 46 03.3 E22 29 17.0 A fossil. See
App.5
1489 S31 43 28.3 E22 27 51.3 A large cement dam (outside study area). IIIC
X 1491 S31 47 30.5 E22 21 29.2 A small indeterminate stone feature. IIIA
X 1492 S31 47 30.6 E22 21 28.5 A large indeterminate stone feature with occasional pieces of
glass, ceramic and metal lying around it.
X 1493 S31 47 30.6 E22 21 26.7 A rubbish dump with plenty of glass and ceramics and some
metal. There is no or minimal ash.
X 1494 S31 47 31.0 E22 21 26.1 An east-facing stone-built house made with lobed rooms. There is
a central room of about 3.0 m by 2.5 m and two further rounded
rooms added to the west and northern sides. All three doors are
about 0.4 m wide. A wall at the southeastern corner of the
structure is badly collapsed but the rest is still standing. A large
crack has developed next to the entrance of the central room with
a smaller one on the other side of the door. These will cause a
large collapse when the wall fails.
X 1495 S31 47 32.2 E22 21 27.9 A stone-built structure with two rooms. Both have straight sides
with the smaller being a 2.5 m by 1.5m rectangle and the larger
being an irregular shape of about 6.0 m by 4.5 m. Glass, ceramic
and metal items occur in and around it with some of them
seeming fairly modern (maybe early to mid-20th century. Seems
like an outbuilding.
X 1496 S31 47 32.7 E22 21 27.4 A large collapsed pile of stone of unknown function. They lie right
on the edge of the sandstone scarp.
X 1497 S31 47 34.0 E22 21 27.0 A large kraal that was made of wire fencing but using large
sandstone pillars as fence posts. The posts are still there, some of
them collapsed, but the wire has been removed except for the
pieces fastened around the posts. It is about 70 m by 72 m and
lies in the valley below the scarp that hosts the structures.
ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 73
NVN NVW NVE Grid Waypoint GPS co-ordinate Description Grade
X 1498 S31 47 33.8 E22 21 26.5 A badly collapsed stone feature of indeterminate function. It lies
in the valley next to the kraal (waypoint 1497) and below the
sandstone scarp.
X 083 S31 47 32.4 E22 21 28.6 Small, South-facing overhang below edge of scarp with semi-
circular stone wall enclosing area of approx. 1.5x3m. Abundant
OES (some burnt), several hornfels artefacts, bone (incl. tooth)
fragments. Archaeological material cascades down slope to
waypoint 084. Also small shelter 3m to the east with minimal
scatter.
X 084 S31 47 33.4 E22 21 28.6 Southern extent of artefact scatter, approx. 28m away from
overhang 083. Besides OES and stone artefacts, also metal,
porcelain and glass fragments (1705), LSA pottery fragment with
red slip (1700), upper grindstone (1712).
1500 S32 09 41.0 E22 28 20.7 The Grootvlei farm complex with some stone buildings, one of
which has a dilapidated thatch roof. The latter looks like a larger
version of the traditional hartebeeshuis but is clearly of fairly
recent construction with stone wall sections filling gaps between
wooden poles. Some other structures are on stone plinths. The
main house seems no more than mid-20th century. Farm workers
were seen busy building stone walls at the farm entrance, again
filling spaces between poles, and seemingly using already dressed
stones perhaps removed from a ruin elsewhere. The farm is thus
considered as a place associated with living heritage.
IIIB
1501 S32 09 48.5 E22 28 36.5 Grootvlei farm graveyard located along the northeast side of the
road southeast of the farm complex (at waypoint 1500).
IIIA
1502 S32 10 22.9 E22 32 21.5 This point is at the top of the Molteno Pass which dates to 1888. IIIA
1503 S32 10 34.6 E22 32 53.5 Stone retaining walls holding up the Molteno Pass.
1504 S32 11 40.0 E22 33 14.2 A long stone wall running up the mountain. Aerial photography
shows that there are more similar walls on top of the mountain.
IIIB
X 1658 S31 50 43.5 E22 29 38.9 A small scatter of fragments of a single broken plate. NCW
X 1659 S31 50 40.9 E22 29 42.5 A stone foundation of indeterminate function. Given its proximity
to a modern wind pump and an older wind pump base it may not
be archaeological.
IIIB
X 1660 S31 50 40.4 E22 29 45.9 The remains of a small stone and earth dam wall.
X 1661 S31 50 39.2 E22 29 48.1 A square ruin of about 3 m x 3 m with two circular features
alongside it.
X 1662 S31 50 55.0 E22 29 59.4 An almost circular stone-built kraal of about 12-14 m diameter
and with entrances to the north and south-southeast.
IIIB
X 1663 S31 50 54.4 E22 29 59.8 A ruin with a square room and three outer enclosures totalling
about 5 m by 5 m. There is a lot of collapsed stonework in the
entranceway on the east side of the structure. There are also
three other sections of remnant walling to the east. There is a low
density scatter of glass, ceramics, metal and bone n the area but
mostly to the north of the ruins.
X 1664 S31 50 57.3 E22 29 57.6 Two small tumbled ruins at the north end of the very large stone
structure (1667). The ruins are rectangular and oval in shape.
X 1665 S31 51 00.1 E22 29 57.3 A circular house ruin of about 3 m diameter. It has a door opening
to the east and a muurkas in each of the north and south walls. A
short section of wall lies outside the circle on the north side of the
doorway.
X 1666 S31 51 04.2 E22 29 57.1 A 3 m by 5 m rectangular ruin with a door facing towards the east.
X 1667 S31 51 07.9 E22 29 59.2 A large stone-walled feature spanning the valley and stream. It
may be a garden enclosure (to keep animals out). It is an irregular
shape and has a maximum length (NNE-SSW) of 530 m and a
maximum width near it southern end of 220 m.
X 1668 S31 51 09.1 E22 29 57.6 A circular feature of about 13 m diameter that is very likely a
threshing floor. Unusually, it is made through formal wall
construction. It has an entrance facing towards the southwest and
it is demarcated by a section of very low stonework.
X 1669 S31 51 12.3 E22 29 54.0 This area seems like it may have been cultivated. It is level and
free of rocks and the sediment is backed up against the walling of
1667.
X 1670 S31 51 12.7 E22 29 52.0 A rectangular ruin of 2m by 3 m with entrance facing towards the
east. There is a small cluster of rocks about 8 m to the east with
one of the rocks being a broken lower grindstone (cannot tell if
this was an LSA grindstone collected and reused or if it was
historical. There are rare fragments of glass and ceramics around
the site.
X 1671 S31 51 14.5 E22 29 52.9 A poorly preserved circular kraal at the base of the slope. Part of it
is on the slope and part on the flatter, sandy ground. It is about
15 m diameter.
X X 1672 S31 50 56.3 E22 29 32.6 A shiny patch of dolerite bedrock with historical scratching on it. NCW
X 1673 S31 43 35.5 E22 22 12.2 A light scatter of LSA hornfels artefacts including a very thin adze. IIIC
X 1674 S31 44 55.8 E22 22 10.5 A very faded engraving of an eland located on a small rock at the
base of a 2 m high dolerite koppie. There are also some other
scratches that do not seem to be part of the image. The rock is
cracked and is about 40-50 cm across. It is portable.
IIIA
ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 74
NVN NVW NVE Grid Waypoint GPS co-ordinate Description Grade
X 1675 S31 45 47.2 E22 22 16.0 A small black dolerite koppie just west of a stream bed with a
flake to its south, a hammerstone/upper grindstone to its east, a
flake to its north, two potsherds to its west, and a core to the east
of the stream. One of the potsherds is covered by fine-incised
decoration.
NCW
X 1676 S31 46 14.5 E22 22 07.7 A small cairn of unknown function. NCW
X 1677 S31 46 25.0 E22 22 27.9 An ephemeral scatter of LSA artefacts in hornfels. NCW
X 1678 S31 46 26.1 E22 22 29.5 A short section of informal walling next to a dolerite rock. NCW
X 1679 S31 46 26.2 E22 22 31.4 A large, dense LSA hornfels scatter. There is also some quartzite
and CCS and ostrich eggshell fragments. A miscellaneous backed
scraper in hornfels was seen.
IIIA
X 1680 S31 46 24.8 E22 22 32.2 More of the above. A lower grindstone fragment occurs at this
point. Hornfels and ostrich eggshell present.
X 1681 S31 46 24.4 E22 22 33.8 More of the above but with a lower grindstone on a dolerite
outcrop and also a rock gong with four notes. A loose lower
grindstone lies face up about 10 m to the east.
X 1682 S31 46 25.5 E22 22 35.3 Light scatter of LSA hornfels artefacts.
X 1683 S31 46 25.8 E22 22 34.4 Dense scatter of LSA hornfels artefacts. Also ostrich eggshell
fragments here.
X 1684 S31 46 26.0 E22 22 33.1 Dense scatter of LSA hornfels artefacts. Also CCS, a hornfels
truncated bladelet, a hornfels scraper/adze, and a CCS adze.
X 1685 S31 46 26.5 E22 22 35.0 More of the above.
X 1686 S31 46 23.2 E22 22 35.1 Small scatter of ostrich eggshell with rare hornfels artefacts.
X 1687 S31 46 24.2 E22 22 30.4 Light scatter of LSA hornfels artefacts with a face up lower
grindstone fragment.
X 1688 S31 46 27.4 E22 22 32.4 Dense scatter of LSA hornfels artefacts and ostrich eggshell.
Includes a hornfels double-backed bladelet and a
hammerstone/upper grindstone.
X 1691 S31 46 28.6 E22 22 34.7 A scatter of LSA hornfels artefacts with fragments of bone and
ostrich eggshell and also a shell fragment (likely the freshwater
mussel Unio caffer). There is a lower grindstone (face up). Also
historical items from the historical site including stoneware and
glass.
X 1692 S31 46 28.5 E22 22 34.2 A dense scatter of LSA hornfels artefacts and ostrich eggshell and
a lower grindstone on a dolerite outcrop.
X 1689 S31 46 27.5 E22 22 34.1 A large stone-built kraal of about 20 m by 34 m with a small 2.5 m
by 2.5 m enclosure inside the northeast corner.
IIIC
X 1690 S31 46 27.1 E22 22 34.5 A small rectangular ruin of about 2.5 m by 3 m. There are pieces
of metal and bone and there is a small pile of rocks just east of the
northeast corner of the structure.
X 1693 S31 46 43.7 E22 22 36.4 An ephemeral LSA hornfels artefacts scatter to the east of a small
dolerite koppie.
NCW
X 1694 S31 48 03.1 E22 24 27.8 A 30 m long stone alignment with a 10 m section running south
from its west end and a 3 m section running north from its east
end. There is a small circular ruin of 1.5 m diameter north of the
last-mentioned stone alignment. Waypoints 1694 and 1695 at
each end of the 30 m section.
IIIA
X 1695 S31 48 03.4 E22 24 29.1
X 1696 S31 48 02.6 E22 24 28.7 An east-west stone alignment about 8 m long.
X 1697 S31 48 05.7 E22 24 30.7 A rectangular stone ruin of about 5 m by 11 m. There are ceramic
fragments associated with it.
X 1698 S31 48 05.7 E22 24 31.4 Oval shaped ruin of about 5 m by 2.5 m and with a dividing wall.
There are metal items, including two cans (1 square, 1 round) and
a black plastic head of sorts.
X 1699 S31 48 06.8 E22 24 31.3 A large stone kraal of about 50 m by 40 m. At the northeast
corner there are various stone features (see illustration).
X 1700 S31 48 06.9 E22 24 32.3 A 2 m by 2 m stone feature inside the northeast corner of the
kraal but it is free-standing. Also a small enclosure built on the
outside of the kraal just west of this spot. To the north is an
enclosure built against the south side of a dolerite outcrop. It is
about 7m by 12 m and has much glass, ceramics, etc inside it. A
small 4 m by 2 m enclosure is built onto the western side of this
larger one.
X 1701 S31 48 06.3 E22 24 32.1 A stone-walled house with two rooms. Whole structure is 3 m by
5 m. There is a muurkas in the southwest wall of each room and a
shelf sits in the western corner. A piece of the same shelf rock lies
in the rubble in the eastern corner. The northeast-facing door
opens into the eastern room.
X 1702 S31 48 06.5 E22 24 31.8 Waypoint at east end of northern kraal wall.
X 1704 S31 48 04.2 E22 24 31.9 Small enclosure built against a dolerite outcrop.
X 1706 S31 47 57.4 E22 24 31.7 An east-west aligned stone feature that is certainly a grave. It lies
about 250 m north of the main complex of structures.
X 1707 S31 47 47.2 E22 24 27.6 A historical dam with a wall 5 m wide at the base and about 3 m
high. The wall is of earth but lined with stones. The wall has been
breached.
X 1708 S31 47 45.4 E22 24 27.5 A stone-built kraal with an oval-shaped enclosure built onto the
north side. A scatter of historical glass and ceramic fragments is
also present.
ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 75
NVN NVW NVE Grid Waypoint GPS co-ordinate Description Grade
X 1709 S31 47 45.1 E22 24 28.0 A house ruin with an east-facing entrance and two circular
enclosures built onto the eastern side. The latter are less formally
built and have collapsed and no entrance is visible.
X 1710 S31 47 42.3 E22 24 26.0 A set of stone alignments of indeterminate function.
X 1703 S31 48 05.0 E22 24 31.9 Moderate density scatter of LSA hornfels artefacts and ostrich
eggshell. There were also two potsherds.
IIIC
X 1705 S31 48 03.9 E22 24 32.1 A light scatter of LSA hornfels artefacts and ostrich eggshell
fragments.
X 1711 S31 46 20.7 E22 22 48.8 A light LSA artefact scatter of hornfels with lots of ostrich eggshell
fragments at the waypoint. There is also a lower grindstone facing
up. The scatter is about 30 m diameter. There may well be more
LSA material on the plain between here and the large settlement
to the west.
NCW
X 1712 S31 46 20.9 E22 22 44.8 A tiny stone-walled enclosure built at the western foot of a
dolerite koppie.
NCW
X X 1714 S31 44 57.3 E22 26 12.2 A small historical weir across a stream. It is silted up and a small
part has broken off the top of the wall.
NCW
X X 1715 S31 44 54.4 E22 26 14.3 A small historical weir that has been breached by the stream. NCW
X 1716 S31 45 33.0 E22 27 03.0 A well-preserved circular threshing floor with its entrance to the
south. It is 8.5 m in diameter. There is a second smaller circular
feature to its southeast, also with an entrance to the south. It is
4 m in diameter.
IIIA
X 1717 S31 45 34.1 E22 27 04.1 An ash and rubbish dump located to the west of a house ruin.
There are relatively few ceramics on it but there is a wide variety
of glass colours, including white glass. Some glass looks quite
modern. There are lots of metal items on the dump and in general
there are many metal items all over this whole complex.
X 1718 S31 45 34.6 E22 27 04.8 A house ruin with four rooms. It was built in phases as seen by the
abutting walls in places. Some stones are dressed. It has
muurkaste on each side of the southern end of the central wall. A
round shale slab looks as though it was a table and a small stone
bench sits in the SE corner of the house. Various metal poles
including fence posts and an axle were used as ceiling beams and
chicken wire has been built into the wall. In one area a section of
mud leaning against a wall looks as though it might be a remnant
of a brakdak. One internal wall has been removed to ground level
and the end of one wall has been thickened (perhaps as
buttressing). Flower beds occur around the east and south sides
X 1719 S31 45 35.2 E22 27 05.3 A cooking shelter located to the southeast of the house. It
originally had entrances to the east and the west but the western
one was later filled in with stones. Near this structure were three
bottle bases with two embossed with “TALANA 1943” AND
“TALANA 1944”. There was also a dolerite pestle/upper
grindstone. A very small indeterminate stone feature lay just
southwest of the cooking shelter.
X X 1720 S31 45 36.5 E22 27 05.3 A stone built dam with gravity walls. It has a wind pump right next
to it and an older disused wind pump placement occurs on the
other side. The dam must have been filled by pumping as it is not
on a stream channel.
X X 1721 S31 45 35.8 E22 27 02.5 A very well-preserved large stone kraal measuring 28 m by 20 m.
It has some fencing inside. A short 3 m long section of wall
extends northwards from the northern wall of the kraal. There is
an entrance in the east wall at the northeast corner and a drain at
the base of the west wall. Sections at the northern ends of the
west and east walls have been built later. There are various
historical items around about including several sardine tins from
Norway and three Pfizer medicine bottles, one of which had a red
rubber stopper next to it.
X X 1722 S31 45 37.2 E22 27 02.1 A square ruin of about 3 m by 3 m.
X 1723 S31 45 39.4 E22 27 03.0 An L-shaped remnant of a kraal with each arm being about 10 m
long.
X 1724 S31 45 39.4 E22 27 09.2 The remains of a small, breached weir in a stream bed. NCW
X 1725 S31 46 01.5 E22 27 13.2 Two badly collapsed and interlinking stone features, one of them
circular and the other D-shaped.
IIIA
X 1726 S31 46 02.7 E22 27 13.3 An unidentifiable partially collapsed stone feature of about 2.5 by
0.5 m.
X 1727 S31 46 02.7 E22 27 12.0 A stone kraal built against a scarp. It is about 13 m by 8 m.
X 1728 S31 46 02.6 E22 27 10.7 A small stone ruin of about 3 m by 2 m with a badly collapsed
voorkamer-type enclosure to the northeast. A small circular
feature about 1 m in diameter lies to the south of the main
structure. There are rare glass and ceramic fragments scattered
about.
X 1729 S31 46 00.8 E22 27 10.2 A small breached weir in a stream bed.
X 1730 S31 46 00.5 E22 27 11.1 Three graves. Two of them have small headstones, while the third
is badly damaged by animal digging. An animal phalange
(identified as that of a young suid) was present on the spoils of
the digging raising the possibility that an animal (pig) was buried
ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 76
NVN NVW NVE Grid Waypoint GPS co-ordinate Description Grade
there. Despite the damage, this third also seems less formal than
the other two.
X 1731 S31 45 55.4 E22 27 08.0 A house ruin with an ash and rubbish dump immediately to the
southeast and a small stone feature of unknown function to the
northwest. The house is two rooms with a voorkamer-type
enclosure to the north. A corner shelf occurs in the northeast
corner of the western room. The dump has glass, ceramics, metal,
bone and a small blue plastic bead.
X 1732 S31 45 54.4 E22 27 07.9 Two adjoining stone enclosures built against a scarp. They face
southwest.
X 1733 S31 45 54.0 E22 27 07.5 A small collapsed stone feature of indeterminate function.
X 1734 S31 45 53.3 E22 27 06.5 A circular stone feature of about 4 m diameter.
X X 1735 S31 46 04.1 E22 27 10.7 A stone kraal built against a low scarp facing northwest. It has two
enclosures, one is an incomplete rectangle and the other a closed
semi-circle.
X 1736 S31 46 05.9 E22 27 09.5 A stone kraal against a low scarp facing west. A large rectangle of
about 29 m by 26 m has a smaller enclosure (13 m by 5 m) against
its southern wall and a rectangular one (12 m by 7 m) on the
north side. A small 4 m by 2 m enclosure lies inside the northern
wall of the main kraal.
X X 1737 S31 43 18.7 E22 23 10.2 A line of stone fence poles runs along the north side of the farm
access road. To the east they are not used but to the west they
are still in use.
IIIC
X 1740 S31 53 04.7 E22 23 29.7 A 4 m deep southwest-facing rock shelter with three hornfels
flakes and four ostrich eggshell fragments in it.
NCW
X 1741 S31 53 06.7 E22 23 35.3 A rock shelter with a small section of walling in it. NCW
X 1742 S31 53 20.5 E22 23 42.9 A rock shelter with minimal, poorly preserved stone walling in it. NCW
X 1743 S31 53 24.3 E22 23 46.6 A rock shelter with two hornfels flakes and one core in it. NCW
X 1750 S31 53 22.0 E22 23 56.0 A dense scatter of LSA hornfels artefacts and ostrich eggshell on
the slope between a cliff and a river. A dolerite
hammerstone/upper grindstone was seen. There are also
historical ceramics in the area as the site is in the middle of an old
farm complex. The scatter is most dense on the lower part of the
slope.
IIIB
X 1754 S31 53 00.5 E22 27 33.9 A moderate density scatter of LSA hornfels artefacts on a river
terrace. A dolerite hammerstone was seen.
IIIC
X X 1755 S31 52 49.9 E22 27 51.4 A historical stone and cement dam that is no doubt part of the
Leeuwkloof farm complex but has been recorded separately due
its distance (c. 500 m) from the rest of the complex). Probably
mid-20th century in age.
IIIC
1756 S32 04 30.6 E22 27 08.7 Part of an older road, presumably from before the R381 was
realigned. There is stone walling along the road here.
NCW
1757 S32 05 28.2 E22 27 06.7 Part of an older road, presumably from before the R381 was
realigned. There are many similar sections along the road that
have not been specifically mapped.
NCW
1757b S32 06 11.8 E22 26 52.4 Part of an older road, presumably from before the R381 was
realigned.
NCW
1758 S32 11 02.1 E22 32 57.9 A stone structure on the hill just above the R381 road. IIIC
X X
1806 S31 52 32.7 E22 29 40.4
Two small stone ruins. One is circular and the other is oval with an
entrance facing towards the east.
IIIC
X X
1807 S31 52 32.7 E22 29 42.6
Stone barn ruin and a few other associated features of varying
age.
X X
1808 S31 52 33.9 E22 29 43.8
A small two-roomed stone ruin with glass, ceramics and metal
alongside it. A smaller stone feature and a small stone quarry
occur just to the south.
X 1809 S31 53 47.6 E22 29 14.9 Four hornfels artefacts in a silty area next to some bushes. IIIC
X 1810 S31 53 46.5 E22 29 14.4 Scratched rock.
X 1811 S31 53 46.7 E22 29 13.8 Scratched rock. Thin line grid and some wider scratches too.
X 1812 S31 53 47.4 E22 29 13.9 Scratched rock.
X 1813 S31 53 47.4 E22 29 13.7 Scratched rock with three patches scratched in varying directions.
X 1814 S31 53 47.8 E22 29 13.3 Scratched rock and a ground rock 2 m to the west.
X 1815 S31 53 47.9 E22 29 13.3 Two scratched rocks.
X 1816 S31 53 47.7 E22 29 13.0 Scratched rock.
X 1817 S31 53 47.3 E22 29 13.0 Scratched rock.
X 1818 S31 53 46.6 E22 29 12.7 Scratched rock.
X
1819 S31 53 39.8 E22 29 01.0
A rock with two ground patches on it and a scratched rock with a
train track-type design.
IIIA
X 1820 S31 53 40.2 E22 29 00.3 A very lightly scratched rock.
X 1821 S31 53 39.7 E22 29 00.1 A very lightly scratched rock.
X 1822 S31 53 39.7 E22 28 59.8 Several scratched rocks.
X
1823 S31 53 39.7 E22 28 59.5
Older, patinated zeppelin engraving with 6 lines and with hatching
between the lines. The one point is not present as the design
extends off the rock.
X 1824 S31 53 40.2 E22 28 59.7 A very lightly scratched rock.
X
1825 S31 53 40.3 E22 28 59.6
Two rocks, one with scratches on it and another with a scratched
antelope.
X 1826 S31 53 40.2 E22 28 59.4 Scratched rock.
ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 77
NVN NVW NVE Grid Waypoint GPS co-ordinate Description Grade
X 1827 S31 53 39.4 E22 28 59.4 Scratched rock.
X 1828 S31 53 39.1 E22 28 58.2 Scratched rock.
X 1829 S31 53 38.9 E22 29 03.4 Two scratched rocks.
X 1830 S31 53 39.5 E22 29 02.6 Eight scratched rocks.
X 1831 S31 53 35.3 E22 28 58.3 Scratched rock on its own on the north side of the river. NCW
X 1832 S31 53 35.9 E22 28 56.6 Very light scatter of hornfels artefacts. IIIA
X
1833 S31 53 36.1 E22 28 56.0
A scatter of hornfels artefacts and ostrich eggshell fragments. Also
a lower grindstone found face-up.
X
1834 S31 53 36.5 E22 28 55.6
A scatter of hornfels artefacts and ostrich eggshell fragments. Also
a lower grindstone found face-up.
X
1835 S31 53 36.7 E22 28 56.1
A scatter of hornfels artefacts and ostrich eggshell fragments. Also
an anvil. Two lower grindstones found face-up nearby.
X
1836 S31 53 36.5 E22 28 56.2
A dense scatter of ostrich eggshell with some hornfels artefacts.
One possible pale grey CCS bladelet also seen. There are several
burrows in this site and there are new and older-looking bones
lying about.
X
1837 S31 53 37.8 E22 28 54.3
A large cairn of rounded dolerite cobbles about 2.5 m in diameter
on the south side of the river. Almost certainly a grave.
X
1838 S31 53 37.5 E22 28 53.6
A large cairn of rounded dolerite cobbles about 2.5 m in diameter
on the north side of the river. Almost certainly a grave.
X
1839 S31 53 40.0 E22 28 47.9
An ephemeral hornfels and dolerite artefact scatter including a
hornfels adze and a lower grindstone found face-up.
IIIA
X
1840 S31 53 40.5 E22 28 47.1
A scatter of hornfels artefacts and ostrich eggshell and a lower
grindstone found face-up.
X
1841 S31 53 40.9 E22 28 46.7
A huge cairn of rounded dolerite cobbles about 4 m in diameter.
Almost certainly a grave. There is a lower grindstone built into the
east side of the cairn.
X 1842 S31 53 41.2 E22 28 46.2 A light scatter of hornfels artefacts and ostrich eggshell.
X
1843 S31 53 39.3 E22 28 46.2
A light scatter of hornfels artefacts and a lower grindstone found
face-up.
X X
1845 S31 53 10.6 E22 28 56.6
A lower grindstone found face-up in a silty area and a single
hornfels core.
NCW
X X
1846 S31 53 10.3 E22 28 57.2
A lower grindstone found face-up with a flake nearby. A few
meters away were an upper grindstone and a small chopper
(which would likely have just been a cobble that was hammered
so much that the ends have become flaked).
X X 1847 S31 53 09.7 E22 29 02.1 An ephemeral LSA hornfels artefact scatter. NCW
X X
1848 S31 52 35.5 E22 28 39.8
Collapsed walling along the river to the south and also along the
north side of the road. Road may have bene built through an
enclosure.
NCW
X X 1849 S31 52 36.3 E22 28 36.4 A partial enclosure of large blocks built against a low scarp. NCW
X X
1850 S31 52 36.6 E22 28 01.1
The Leeuwkloof farm complex with various buildings and stone
walls.
IIIA
X X 1852 S31 47 56.9 E22 26 37.0 L-shaped walling that is badly collapsed. The long end runs
towards the north wall of the adjoining ruin but does not meet it.
IIIC
X X 1853 S31 47 57.1 E22 26 38.1 A rectangular structure that has badly collapsed. It is about 4 m by
7 m. There are rare glass, ceramic and metal artefacts around it.
X X 1854 S31 47 55.9 E22 26 39.8 A very low density rubbish dump with surprisingly few artefacts
on it. There is no ash evident but the usual finely fragmented
shale gravel is present. Although a dump is present, the site has
been graded IIIC due to the very limited information contained in
the dump.
X X 1855 S31 47 55.6 E22 26 39.2 A house ruin with two rooms and measuring 8 m by 3 m. It is
badly collapsed and no windows or doors are evident but a
standing section of the north wall contains two muurkaste. There
is a sandstone chopping block on the north side of the house and
there are glass, ceramic and metal artefacts scattered about and
also some bones.
X 1856 S31 43 39.4 E22 26 16.9 A small, collapsed structure with an entrance facing towards the
east. It is about 2 m by 2 m.
IIIC
X 1857 S31 43 39.6 E22 26 15.6 A circular structure of about 8 m diameter with a squarish
addition to its south-eastern edge measuring about 4 m by 4 m.
No openings were visible. A dark wine bottle base was found
alongside the structure.
X 1858 S31 43 39.7 E22 26 14.8 A small circular feature of 2.5 m diameter with some glass
scattered about. Glass includes blue glass and a piece of a dark
wine bottle.
X 1859 S31 43 41.1 E22 26 14.2 Several badly collapsed stone features and one badly collapsed
structure. Several glass and ceramic fragments lying around and a
piece of an iron potjie.
X 1860 S31 43 43.5 E22 26 13.6 A stone kraal that is collapsed in places. It measures 30 m by
30 m.
X 1861 S31 43 45.8 E22 26 05.3 Two small collapsed stone structures. One is round and 2 by 2 m,
while the other is oval and 3 m by 2 m.
X 1858 S31 43 39.7 E22 26 14.8 There is also a scatter of LSA material in the same location as the
historical site at this waypoint and which must have been here
IIIB
ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 78
NVN NVW NVE Grid Waypoint GPS co-ordinate Description Grade
before the historical occupation. There are a good number of
artefacts present among dolerite cobbles.
X X 1862 S31 43 59.4 E22 25 41.0 Waypoint between two low stone ‘walls’/alignments that may
represent low terraces to facilitate cultivation.
NCW
1863 S32 10 09.5 E22 32 28.5 Renosterfontein farm complex with a stone wall running up the
hill towards the north. Complex has few structures. Not visited.
IIIB
1865 S32 01 57.3 E22 26 21.5 Rosedene farm complex. Not visited, but close to road and no
structures worthy of IIIA were obviously evident. Extensive
cultural landscape northeast and southeast of the complex.
IIIB
X 1868 S31 50 32.3 E22 22 58.4 A permanent spring welling up from beneath a rock layer in the
riverbed. Not a heritage site but an important point in the
historical (pre-wind pump) landscape.
NCW
X 1869 S31 50 30.5 E22 23 00.0 Widespread LSA scatter of hornfels artefacts, ostrich eggshell
fragments and several lower grindstones (all face up). This area is
very dense.
IIIB
X 1870 S31 50 28.3 E22 23 01.4 More of the above scatter, but less dense.
X 1873 S31 50 29.9 E22 22 57.6 Another dense patch of LSA scatter with hornfels, ostrich eggshell
fragments and lower grindstones.
X 1874 S31 50 31.2 E22 22 57.1 A patch with lower density artefact scatter with hornfels and
dolerite flakes.
X 1875 S31 50 33.0 E22 22 55.8 A patch of hornfels artefacts.
X 1876 S31 50 34.0 E22 22 55.5 A patch of hornfels artefacts.
X 1871 S31 50 26.3 E22 23 00.1 A small ruined structure of about 3 m x 2 m with its entrance
facing west. There is also a section of indeterminate walling some
10 m to the east.
IIIC
X 1872 S31 50 28.3 E22 22 56.7 A stone kraal with no wall on the southeast side but there are
some rocks there suggesting that a wall may once have been
present. There is a small circular addition to the eastern corner
and within the kraal is a small oven-like structure. A nearby
fragment of pearlware looks as though it may have been flaked
into shape for a purpose (like a scraper).
X X X 1878 S31 49 26.9 E22 27 50.0 A scratched geometric engraving that looks quite recent. It is a
rectangle with eleven lines crossing its interior parallel to the
short sides and an X meeting the corners of the rectangle. It is on
a flat rock overlooking a pan on top of a mountain.
IIIC
X 1879 S31 49 40.0 E22 27 04.7 An ephemeral scatter of dolerite artefacts along a water course.
Also one hornfels artefact seen.
NCW
X 1891 S31 49 09.2 E22 26 27.4 Stone kraal. Not visited. IIIC
X X 1892 S31 52 27.5 E22 27 57.6 Stone kraal. Not visited. IIIC
X X 1893 S31 52 28.0 E22 27 59.9 Stone kraal. Not visited.
1881 S32 07 28.5 E22 27 53.2 Farm complex and associated agricultural landscape. Not visited. IIIB
1882 S32 05 02.8 E22 28 13.6 Farm complex and associated agricultural landscape. This seems
to be the farm referred to as ‘Waterval’ and which hosted a
British overnight camp during the Second Anglo-Boer War. Not
visited.
IIIB
1883 S31 52 45.7 E22 22 38.5 Stone-built ruined complex. At least three structures visible. Not
visited.
IIIB
1884 S32 07 08.5 E22 24 41.5 Farm complex and associated agricultural landscape. Complex is
large and has an interesting spatial arrangement of structures.
Not visited.
IIIB
1885 S32 25 03.4 E22 33 50.7 Farm complex and associated agricultural landscape. Just outside
corridor. Not visited.
IIIB
1886 S32 03 05.9 E22 46 14.3 Farm complex and associated agricultural landscape. Not visited. IIIB
X 1887 S31 59 22.0 E22 42 40.7 Farm complex and associated agricultural landscape. Not visited. IIIB
1888 S31 56 45.4 E22 43 05.0 Farm complex and associated agricultural landscape. Not visited. IIIB
1889 S31 54 20.2 E22 41 27.8 Farm complex and associated agricultural landscape. Not visited. IIIB
X 1890 S31 54 09.6 E22 39 55.1 Farm complex and associated agricultural landscape. Not visited. IIIB
1791
S32 01 42.9 E22 44 25.5
Ruined historic farm complex to the northeast of the road. Not
visited.
IIIB
X 1792
S31 52 53.4 E22 37 43.1
Stone walling on top of small elongated koppie forming a partial
kraal. The eastern half of the structure has been removed.
IIIC
1793 S31 52 33.0 E22 37 10.8 Stone structure, possibly reservoir. Not visited. IIIC
X 1794 S31 52 01.5 E22 35 53.6 Farm complex with some structures older than 60 years. IIIA
X 1795
S31 52 23.6 E22 33 52.2
Long, low rock shelter with ostrich eggshell fragments, bones,
hornfels artefacts and a hammerstone.
IIIC
X 1796 S31 52 21.2 E22 32 59.5 A stone dam built alongside a river. IIIC
X 1797 S31 52 26.4 E22 32 50.1 Small square stone ruin. NCW
X 1798
S31 52 28.1 E22 32 49.7
Long stone wall parallel to the river. One end turns towards the
river. May have enclosed a vegetable garden. Rare glass, ceramics
and metal items. Also a kraal 200 m to the southeast and a ruin
between there and the road (these two not visited).
NCW
X 101 S32 09 06.0 E22 43 27.8 Farm complex (not visited) IIIA
1926 S32 04 30.3 E22 43 39.4 Ephemeral remnants of stone walling of a small structure. NCW
X 1927 S32 05 31.0 E22 42 25.0 The northeast (1927) and southwest (1928) ends of a stone wall. IIIB
X 1928 S32 05 31.6 E22 42 11.6
X 1929 S32 06 12.6 E22 42 07.6 A round stone ruin of 3 m diameter with entrance facing towards
the east.
IIIC
ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 79
NVN NVW NVE Grid Waypoint GPS co-ordinate Description Grade
X 1930 S32 06 25.2 E22 42 07.6 A valley enclosed by stone walling. The enclosed area is sandy and
would have been cultivated. This perhaps triggered the later
erosion of the upper silts leaving a stonier substrate today.
IIIB
X 1931 S32 06 25.9 E22 42 01.5 An asymmetrical threshing floor of 9 m by 11m located along the
inside edge of the valley ring wall. It has thin slabs standing on
edge on the inner edge of the circular walling and the opening
faces towards the northwest.
X 1932 S32 06 25.4 E22 42 00.3 A stone-walled kraal built on the outside of the valley ring wall. It
has two enclosures with the smaller one having an opening facing
towards the northwest.
X 1933 S32 06 27.1 E22 42 00.1 Section of an old track about 2 m wide. One fragment of dark
green bottle glass seen in the track at this point and a light green
fragment seen nearby.
X 1934 S32 06 24.7 E22 41 59.4 A very small stone feature of indeterminate function.
X 1935 S32 06 24.4 E22 41 58.6 A small stone-walled house ruin of about 3 m by 2 m with an east-
facing door. The remains of a similar-sized enclosure extend off
the north wall.
X 1936 S32 06 24.7 E22 41 56.9 A square stone-walled kraal of about 18 m by 18 m with its
entrance in the centre of the downhill side which faces east.
X 1937 S32 06 17.7 E22 41 49.8 A stone-walled kraal on a steep slope with its entrance in the
centre of the lower side which faces east. It is 12 m north-south
but the walls seem to just fade out towards the west.
IIIC
X 1938 S32 06 09.4 E22 41 53.0 Another section of the old track (1933). In this area it has turned
into an erosion gulley but one can still see the stones pushed to
the edges showing that the route was cleared.
NCW
X 1939 S32 06 04.9 E22 41 49.3
X 1940 S32 06 06.7 E22 41 44.2
X 1941 S32 06 06.8 E22 41 40.3
X 1942 S32 06 07.2 E22 41 33.6 An irregularly-shaped, rounded stone ruin of about 7 m by 8 m
with an entrance facing towards the north.
IIIC
X 1943 S32 06 07.5 E22 41 33.0 A scatter of fragments of dark green bottle glass, one of which has
been retouched to form a small scraper. Quite likely by the
farmers and not indigenous people.
IIIC
X 1944 S32 06 07.6 E22 41 32.5 A rectangular, one-roomed stone-walled ruin with a northeast-
facing door and probably a collapsed hearth on the south-eastern
end. Some 19th century ceramics and one glass fragment in the
vicinity.
IIIC
X 1945 S32 06 02.8 E22 41 36.0 An isolated upper grindstone on a river cobble. NCW
X 1946 S32 06 05.7 E22 41 30.5 A stone circle fireplace with ash inside and some sawed wood
around it. Looks fairly recent, though the wood is very weathered.
---
X 1947 S32 06 06.7 E22 41 28.2 More of the old track. NCW
X 1948 S32 06 05.7 E22 41 23.7
X 1949 S32 06 18.5 E22 41 10.4 A stone wall. This is a mid-point and it extends 330 m north-
northeast and 330 m south-southwest.
IIIB
X 1951 S32 06 01.1 E22 40 29.7 A kraal complex with a sheep dip. There are two enclosures, two
partial enclosures (one of which contains the sheep dip) and a low
terrace on the southern end.
IIIC
X 1952 S32 05 52.4 E22 40 33.0 A small stone and cement ruin with bricks, asbestos sheets, many
cans and some glass lying about. Not heritage.
---
X 1953 S32 05 51.3 E22 40 33.0 A small triangular brick and cement feature with many loose
bricks lying about. Not heritage.
---
X 1954 S32 05 49.0 E22 40 33.0 A brick and cement sheep dip. ---
X 1955 S32 05 48.9 E22 40 34.8 Possible toilet building. It was originally made of stone and mud
but has been repaired with bricks and soft cement. It is located to
the south of the house.
IIIC
X 1956 S32 05 48.3 E22 40 34.7 A house made of stone, mud, brick and cement. It has steel
windows and a tin roof. It has had several repairs over time.
X 1957 S32 05 47.9 E22 40 35.4 A stone foundation with bricks and other building debris piled on
top. Some may be collapsed from whatever was originally on the
foundation but hard to tell this.
NCW
X 1958 S32 05 47.0 E22 40 36.1 A dump of glass and tins that look all 20th century. ---
X 1959 S32 05 45.2 E22 40 38.2 A modern building built over and incorporating an older stone-
walled structure. There are also collapsed stone walls on the
northwest end.
NCW
X 1960 S32 05 43.7 E22 40 37.5 Point on the corner of the large stone ring wall. There is an old
orchard in this corner.
IIIB
X 1961 S32 05 45.5 E22 40 41.3 A 19 m diameter circular kraal with a 9 m by 5 m rectangular
enclosure (partly collapsed) on the northeast side. From the
associated wire fencing it seems like this feature was in use until
fairly recently.
X 1962 S32 05 41.4 E22 40 38.6 A square kraal of 18 m by 18 m with a wall extending off its
northwestern corner and linking to the enclosures at waypoint
1963.
X 1963 S32 05 41.3 E22 40 36.0 Various interlinked enclosures built between large boulders and
the stream.
X 1964 S32 05 39.4 E22 40 35.7 The valley ring wall continues on the northern side of the stream
X 1965 S32 05 35.1 E22 40 37.1 This is a point where the wall bends.
X 1966 S32 05 30.1 E22 40 43.5 The end of the valley ring wall above a kloof with a water hole in
it.
ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 80
NVN NVW NVE Grid Waypoint GPS co-ordinate Description Grade
X 1967 S32 05 02.6 E22 42 27.4 A massive hyrax midden under a cliff. These can be very useful in
palaeoenvironmental studies.
---
1968 S32 04 35.2 E22 43 07.0 An isolated lower grindstone found upside down on a river
terrace.
NCW
1969 S32 04 30.1 E22 43 24.4 An isolated lower grindstone found face up on a river terrace. NCW
1970 S32 04 30.7 E22 43 27.1 An isolated upper grindstone/hammer stone and 5 m away there
was a lower grindstone/anvil found upside down.
NCW
X 1971 S31 52 54.6 E22 37 44.2 A small, circular stone feature located to the southeast of the
kraal at waypoint 1792.
IIIC
X 1974 S31 52 16.0 E22 32 07.6 An isolated lower grindstone found upside down on a river
terrace above a water hole.
NCW
X 1975 S31 52 10.8 E22 32 13.8 A small, triangular-shaped stone-walled ruin. IIIC
X 1972 S31 52 15.0 E22 32 12.1 A set of 8 east-facing graves lying side by side immediately above
a river.
IIIA
X 1973 S31 52 14.6 E22 32 12.6 The remains of a stone feature of indeterminate function.
X 1976 S31 52 11.7 E22 32 23.9 A large, well-preserved kraal located up against a cliff.
X 1977 S31 52 11.6 E22 32 26.1 A stone wall protruding from the cliff line and also a low terrace
lying between this wall and the kraal (waypoint 1977).
X 1978 S31 52 12.8 E22 32 26.1 A house ruin which has largely collapsed. There are both 19th and
20th century glass and ceramic fragments scattered about.
X 1979 S31 52 13.7 E22 32 28.0 Western and southern corners of a large, assymmetrical kraal
built up against the cliff line. X 1980 S31 52 14.6 E22 32 29.3
X 1981 S31 52 14.9 E22 32 30.2 A buried stone that could represent a grave (seems unlikely
though).
X 1983 S31 52 13.0 E22 32 21.6 A large stone-walled kraal on the edge of the river terrace. Part of
it has collapsed into the river due to bank erosion. There is more
low walling on the north-east side of this kraal.
X 1984 S31 52 13.8 E22 32 20.1 A small rock shelter with some black markings reminiscent of
those at Kangnas (Orton 2013). They are made with a thick, black
paint/substance and are variably preserved. There is also what
looks like a single red finger-painted line. There is low stone
walling in the shelter.
X 1985 S31 52 15.6 E22 32 23.0 A large square stone-walled kraal up against a cliff. Part is well-
preserved while part is badly collapsed. An earlier opening at the
northeast corner has been closed up with stone walling, while the
main opening is now to the west. There is a second badly
collapsed enclosure to the east of the main one. There is also
some walling on the cliff to the southeast which forms part of a
wide ‘berm’ of walling, rocks and sediment.
X 1986 S31 52 14.8 E22 32 22.3 A stone-built sheep dip and associated enclosures. There is a
small, round packed stone feature to the west. The smaller
enclosure of the main feature is paved, while there is some paving
and a standing rock slab within the larger one.
X 1987 S31 52 15.0 E22 32 19.1 A stone-walled graveyard with an east-facing entrance in the
northeast corner. The south-western corner of the wall has
collapsed. There are eight east-facing graves in the west side of
the graveyard and one west-facing grave just inside the entrance.
One of the former looks like a double grave. There are only
headstones and stone-packed mounds with no formal grave
markings. A millstone fragment was lying in the southern part of
the graveyard. Outside the western side of the graveyard are a
further 12 graves. One has neither a head- nor a footstone, two
have headstones only and face east, while the remaining nine all
have head- and footstones.
X 1988 S31 52 15.7 E22 32 14.9 A stone and cement dam in the river with willow trees growing
around it.
X 1990 S31 52 17.2 E22 32 19.8 A set of three stone-walled structures built against a cliff line. Two
are semi-circular, while the third is rectangular.
X 1991 S31 52 16.9 E22 32 20.9 Another small rectangular stone feature located further along the
cliff face from waypoint 1990 but away from it.
X 1992 S31 52 16.0 E22 32 26.4 A 19th century dump with much bone and some glass, ceramics
and metal.
X 1993 S31 52 16.1 E22 32 26.9 A house ruin built of mixed materials including stone, sun-dried
mud bricks and fired clay bricks. It has had alterations over time.
There is a widespread scatter of glass and ceramics all around this
ruin.
X 1994 S31 52 16.1 E22 32 29.0 A long, low terrace wall runs along the river with another one
further up the slope from the river. At this point a wall links them
and from this wall running towards the southeast is a double line
of stones likely representing a water furrow. There are cavities
(like muurkaste) in the west-facing side of the cross wall.
X 1995 S31 52 15.6 E22 32 28.9 An ash dump with lots of glass and ceramics.
X 1996 S31 52 16.3 E22 32 29.6 A point further along the parallel stones (possible water furrow)
noted in waypoint 1994.
X 1997 S31 52 17.2 E22 32 30.1 A corner point on the larger, upper terrace wall.
X 1998 S31 52 18.6 E22 32 30.0 A T-junction on the larger, upper terrace wall.
ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 81
NVN NVW NVE Grid Waypoint GPS co-ordinate Description Grade
X 1999 S31 52 19.2 E22 32 29.9 Various low stone features scattered in the bushes here. There is
also a widespread but very low density ceramic scatter over this
area of the river terrace.
X 2000 S31 52 17.3 E22 32 29.0 A house ruin built with mixed materials including stone, sun-dried
mud bricks and fired clay bricks. Entrances in the northern and
southern ends were built larger than a normal door (perhaps a
barn) but that in the south end was later reduced to the width of
a normal door. Some collapsed stone walling to the southeast
made another enclosure while a crude wall of piled clay bricks
surrounds part of this feature.
X 1001 S31 52 14.8 E22 32 25.0 The western end of the higher (upslope) terrace wall mentioned
in waypoint 1994. It turns towards the river here but ends after
about 10 m.
X 1002 S31 52 18.7 E22 32 25.2 There are various stone-walled features to the south of the road
(not visited).
X 1799 S31 52 28.7 E22 32 27.8 Stone walling along the southwest side of the road.
X 1800 S31 52 25.8 E22 32 26.1 Long stone wall running along further upslope from 1799
X 1801
S31 52 21.3 E22 32 27.0
Point at which the long wall meets what looks to be a kraal. Not
visited.
X 1802
S31 52 21.2 E22 32 28.2
Stone walling running along the edge of the road, part of a feature
lying below the road.
X 1982 S31 52 13.0 E22 32 23.4 Two lower grindstones found face-up (but may have been turned
over more recently) on the river terrace.
NCW
X 1989 S31 52 16.2 E22 32 15.7 Two lower grindstones, both found face-up. NCW
X 1003 S31 52 25.9 E22 31 41.2 A small, isolated stone-walled house ruin with a south-facing
doorway. A collapsed circular enclosure (presumably a
kookskerm) lies to the south of the main structure.
IIIC
X X X 1004 S32 19 53.3 E22 34 33.3 A large area of historical stone quarrying. Likely was used for
some of the early stone buildings in Beaufort West.
IIIC
1005 S31 50 57.4 E22 15 49.1 A large number of rock engravings occurs on small dolerite
boulders overlooking a spring in a river valley. This site is outside
of the wind farm study area but was pointed out by a landowner
and is included here for the record. It includes patinated older LSA
engravings, patinated older scratched lines, partially patinated
LSA engravings and lines, fresh LSA and/or historical engravings
and lines as well as some written text which is generally too
poorly preserved to read.
IIIA
ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 82
APPENDIX 5 – Mapping
Please note that due to the very large number of finds present their waypoint numbers have not been
included in the mapping in order to make the maps clearer.
Figure A3.1: Aerial view of the northern half of the Nuweveld grid corridor (white polygon) showing
all survey tracks (pink lines).
ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 83
Figure A3.2: Aerial view of the southern half of the Nuweveld grid corridor (white polygon) showing
all survey tracks (pink lines).
ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 84
Figure A3.3: Aerial view of the northern half of the Nuweveld grid corridor (white polygon) showing
all heritage finds (diamond symbols).
ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 85
Figure A3.4: Aerial view of the southern half of the Nuweveld grid corridor (white polygon) showing
all heritage finds (diamond symbols).
ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 86
Figure A3.5: Aerial view of the northern half of the Nuweveld grid corridor (white polygon) showing
all heritage finds by significance (dark red diamond symbols and lines = very high (IIIA), red = high
(IIIB), yellow = low (IIIC), white = very low (NCW)).
ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 87
Figure A3.6: Aerial view of the northern half of the Nuweveld grid corridor (white polygon) showing
all heritage finds by significance (dark red diamond symbols and lines = very high (IIIA), red = high
(IIIB), yellow = low (IIIC), white = very low (NCW)).
ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 88
Figure A3.7: Aerial view of the northern half of the Nuweveld grid corridor (white polygon) showing
only very high (IIIA) (dark red diamond symbols) and high (IIIB) significance heritage finds.
ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 89
Figure A3.8: Aerial view of the southern half of the Nuweveld grid corridor (white polygon) showing
only very high (IIIA) (dark red diamond symbols) and high (IIIB) significance heritage finds.
ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 90
Figure A3.9: Aerial view of the northern half of the Nuweveld grid corridor (white polygon) showing
very high (dark red), high (red), medium (orange) and low (yellow) sensitivity buffers around features
and sites.
ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 91
Figure A3.10: Aerial view of the southern half of the Nuweveld grid corridor (white polygon) showing
very high (dark red), high (red), medium (orange) and low (yellow) sensitivity buffers around features
and sites.
ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 92
APPENDIX 6 – Palaeontological specialist study
ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 93
APPENDIX 7 – Visual impact assessment
Please note that the VIA was not reproduced here in the submission to DEA but for HWC it was included in
full.