Sites

This is a site containing at least 69 graves. It most likely used to be the family graveyard on the farm Benadeplaats, but seems to be still in use. Different grave dressings are found, being granite and cement. Headstones consist either of granite or slate, whereas some do not have headstones. Some of the surnames identified are Benade, Van Dyk, Weyer, Smit, Horn, Oosthuizen, Kriel, Maritz and Stols. Some graves have no surnames indicated and a total number of 35 graves have no date of death indicated. The dates identified vary between 1911 and 2007. This means that all three of the categories of graves were identified, being those without a date of death (called unknown graves), those older than 60 years (called heritage graves) and those younger than 60 years. Unknown graves are handled similarly to heritage graves.
Graves are always regarded as having a high cultural significance. The field rating thereof is Local Grade III B. It should be included in the heritage register, but may be mitigated. Two possibilities exist. The first option would be to fence the graves in and have a management plan drafted for the sustainable preservation thereof. This should be written by a heritage expert. This usually is done when the graves are in no danger of being damaged, but where there will be a secondary impact due to the mining activities. The second option is to exhume the mortal remains and then to have it relocated. This usually is done when the graves are in the area to be directly affected by the activities. For this a specific procedure should be followed which includes social consultation. For graves younger than 60 years only an undertaker is needed. For those older than 60 years and unknown graves an undertaker and archaeologist is needed. Permits should be obtained from the Burial Grounds and Graves unit of SAHRA. This procedure is quite lengthy and involves social consultation. It always is better to implement the first option, if possible. In this case it is not yet known what the exact mine layout would be. It however seems as if there may only be a secondary impact on the site and therefore option 1 would be recommended.