Heritage Cases

PGS Heritage (Pty) Ltd (PGS) was appointed by Tubatse Chrome (Pty) Ltd (Tubatse) to undertake the mitigation of two archaeological sites (TCHR 2 & TCHR 3), which includes graves, located on a portion of the farm Goudmyn 337 KT in the Limpopo Province. Construction work by Tubatse exposed human remains at site TCHR 3 in August 2018. PGS was contacted and a site visit was conducted by an archaeological fieldwork team to assess the site and the exposed human remains observed there. During this and the subsequent site visit, all exposed human remains were covered with soil. The site visit also revealed that Iron Age pottery and stonewalling appeared to be associated with the exposed human remains. After human remains were also observed in soil dumped at site TCHR 1, a second site visit was undertaken in September 2018. According to representatives of Tubatse, the soil heaps from TCHR 1 had been mechanically excavated from an area referred to in this report as site TCHR 2. An archaeological permit was obtained from SAHRA specifically to mitigate the 21 soil heaps located at site TCHR 1 (SAHRA Permit ID Number: 2806). The archaeological mitigation work was undertaken during October 2018, and comprised the archaeological screening of the soil heaps. Pottery, human remains, metal artefacts, stone artefacts and poorly preserved faunal remains were recovered. Subsequent skeletal analysis resulted in the identification of the human remains of five individuals. The archaeological mitigation and excavation of sites TCHR 2 and TCHR 3 were to be undertaken in terms of an archaeological excavations permit (Permit ID Number: 2915) issued by SAHRA. Permits were also obtained for these two sites from the SAPS and the Sekhukhune District Municipality (Health). Additionally, a funeral undertaker was appointed to handle, transport and rebury any human remains recovered during this work. Archaeological excavations and mitigation took place during June 2019. When the fieldwork team arrived on site, it was found that site TCHR 2 had already been completely destroyed by construction. As a result, the archaeological mitigation focussed only on site TCHR 3. This work included surface collection, the excavation of 15 Shovel Test Pits (STPs) across various sections of the site, the recovery and screening of disturbed soil from several features demarcated in and around the construction pit as well as the excavation of four blocks. The mitigation work revealed that site TCHR 3 had been highly disturbed before the exposure of human remains halted the construction work. This disturbance appears to have included extensive horizontal and deep vertical destruction of any archaeological context within the construction pit, where several human remains were exposed. The disturbance also included the surface of the site located in the surroundings of the construction pit. This said, the archaeological mitigation and excavation of site TCHR 3 resulted in the recovery of human remains, pottery, historic to recent metal artefacts, stone artefacts and limited faunal remains. Significantly, a partially in situ burial was also identified and excavated. The excavation of the unit associated with this burial also revealed two beads, one of which was identified as a Khami Indo-Pacific Bead. Subsequent skeletal analysis resulted in the identification of the human remains of four individuals from site TCHR 3. In conclusion, the mitigation work has shown that the soil heaps discarded at site TCHR 1 and mechanically excavated from site TCHR 2 can exclusively be associated with the Kgopolwe facies (AD 1030 – AD 1350). TCHR 1 is not an archaeological site and TCHR 2 was already destroyed at the time that archaeological mitigation commenced. As a result, no destruction permits are required. The mitigation of site TCHR 3 revealed that the site can be associated with both the Kgopolwe facies (AD 1030 – AD 1350) and the Marateng facies (AD 1650 – AD 1840). In terms of site TCHR 3, the primary aims of the archaeological mitigation included the recovery of human remains that were accidentally disturbed by construction activities and an attempt to provide archaeological context for these human remains. Despite the high level of disturbance to site TCHR 3, both these aims were achieved. We therefore submit that the archaeological mitigation work conducted was completed successfully and the the author of this report supports the application for a destruction permit for site TCHR 3. This said, an archaeological watching brief must be implemented during the construction activities. Should any evidence for human remains or in situ and significant archaeological deposits be exposed, further mitigation work would be required. Any recovered material will be assessed and documented in an amended mitigation report for the site. It is recommended that the earthworks / destruction consist of the use of mechanical graders and TLBs that will remove the top soil in a controlled manner for the archaeologist to monitor the activities. We hereby request permission for Tubatse to commence with the destruction of site TCHR 3 in this manner.