HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT SPECIALIST ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDY PROPOSED LOW COST HOUSING PROJECT ERF 666 (SITE B), KEIMOES NORTHERN CAPE Prepared for: ENVIROAFRICA Att: Mr Bernard de Wit PO Box 5367 Helderberg 7135 E-mail: Bernard@enviroafrica.co.za On behalf of: KAI GARIB LOCAL MUNICIPALITY By Agency for Cultural Resource Management 5 Stuart Road Rondebosch 7700 Ph/Fax: 021 685 7589 Mobile: 082 321 0172 E-mail: acrm@wcaccess.co.za MARCH 2013 Archaeological study proposed low cost housing development, Erf 666 (Site B) Keimoes Executive summary ACRM was appointed to conduct a Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) – specialist archaeological study -for a proposed low cost housing development on Erf 666 (Site B) in Keimoes in the Northern Cape. About 1200 houses are planned, including associated infrastructure. Two sites (Site 1 & Site 2) have been identified for the construction of low cost housing. Both sites are situated inside the urban edge, adjacent existing formal and shack housing. The combined footprint area is about 146ha, but it is important to note that the layout of the proposed development will not cover the entire site, but will be determined by archaeological and biophysical constraints. In terms of Section 38 (1) (c) (iii) of the National Heritage Resources Act (NHRA) 1999 (Act 25 of 1999), a HIA of the proposed project is required if the footprint area of the development is more than 5000m². The HIA forms part of the Basic Assessment process that is being conducted by EnviroAfrica cc. Much of the top soil has been removed from Site 1, and there are extensive diggings and spoil dumps covering the proposed site. A large rubbish dump occurs on the property and there is a large cemetery situated in the north east. Gravel roads and pedestrian footpaths also intersect the proposed development site. The eastern portion is quite hilly and rocky and according to the biophysical specialist, is not suitable for a housing development. Site 2 is also quite severely degraded. It is estimated that about 30-40% of the proposed development site is already covered by shacks and the receiving environment has been heavily impacted. Dumping of domestic debris is quite extensive, and there are several drainage channels that intersect the property in the east and west. A fairly detailed survey of the proposed development site (i. e. Site 1 and Site 2) was undertaken on the 30th and 31st January 2013, in which the following observations were made: 160 archaeological occurrences (numbering more than 250 stone artefacts) were counted and mapped with a hand held GPS device. Most of the implements are spread very thinly and unevenly over the surrounding landscape and are characterised as low density scatters with no spatial coherence. The majority of the tools are assigned to the Later Stone Age, but a relatively large number of Middle Stone Age lithics are also represented. Only four Early Stone Age tools were encountered. No pottery, bone or ostrich eggshell was found. Most of the tools comprise flakes and chunks, while many of these pieces are utilized and retouched. Seventeen cores were found, including two flat disc cores, and one large MSA core. The frequency of formal retouched tools is very low and include, a few end and side scrapers, one boat shaped scraper, two backed pieces and one awl. ACRM 2013 Archaeological study proposed low cost housing development, Erf 666 (Site B) Keimoes More than 90% of the tools are in banded ironstone and was a favoured raw material among hunter gatherer groups for its superior flaking qualities. Banded iron stone dominates many assemblages in the Northern Cape. Indurated shale is also represented on the site, but in much lower frequencies, while a few tools in quartz, quartzite and opaline were found. As archaeological sites are concerned, however, the occurrences are lacking in context, as no pottery, ostrich eggshell, bone, or activity areas were identified. Most of the remains occur in a severely disturbed and transformed context. While the scatters of tools are relatively rich in quantity, they are poor in terms of information that can be constructed from them. As a result the remains have been rated as having low (Grade 3C) archaeological significance. No colonial heritage resources were noted. Apart from the formal cemetery in Site 1, no other visible graves were found. In terms of the built environment, the area has no significance. It is maintained that the HIA has captured good information on the archaeological heritage and that the study has identified no significant impacts to pre-colonial archaeological material that will need to be mitigated prior to proposed development activities The results of the study indicate that a proposed low cost housing development on Erf 666 (Site B) in Keimoes will not impact on any important archaeological heritage. Indications are that in terms of the archaeological heritage, the proposed activity is viable and no fatal flaws have been identified. The following recommendations are made: 1. No archaeological mitigation is required. 2. Should any unmarked human burials, or ostrich eggshell water flask caches be uncovered during construction activities, these must immediately be reported to the archaeologist (Jonathan Kaplan 082 321 0172), or Ms Katie Smuts at the South African Heritage Resources Agency (021 462 4502). ACRM 2013 Archaeological study proposed low cost housing development, Erf 666 (Site B) Keimoes Table of Contents Page Executive summary 1 1. INTRODUCTION 4 2. HERITAGE LEGISLATION 5 3. TERMS OF REFERENCE 6 4. DESCRIPTION OF THE RECEIVING ENVIRONMENT 6 4.1Site1 7 4.2Site2 9 5. STUDY APPROACH 11 5.1 Method of survey 11 5.2 Constraints and limitations 11 5.3 Identification of potential risks 11 5.4 Results of the desk top study 11 6. FINDINGS 12 6.1 Site 1 12 6.2 Site 2 15 6.3 Significance of the archaeological remains 15 7. ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS 16 8. CONCLUSIONS 17 9. RECOMMENDATIONS 17 10. REFERENCES 18 Appendix I. Spreadsheet of waypoints and description of archaeological finds Appendix II. Track paths and waypoints ACRM 2013 Archaeological study proposed low cost housing development, Erf 666 (Site B) Keimoes 1. INTRODUCTION ACRM was appointed to conduct a Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) – specialist archaeological study -for a proposed low cost housing development on Erf 666 (Site B) in Keimoes (Kai Garib Municipality), in the Northern Cape (Figures 1 & 2). Erf 666 is owned by the Kai Garib local municipality and has an Undetermined, zoning. About 1200 houses are planned, including associated infrastructure such as internal streets and services. Two sites (Site 1 & Site 2) have been identified for the construction of low cost housing. Both sites are situated inside the urban edge. The combined footprint area is about 146ha, but it is important to note that the layout of the proposed development will not cover the entire site, but will be determined by archaeological and biophysical constraints. In terms of Section 38 (1) (c) (iii) of the National Heritage Resources Act 1999 (Act 25 of 1999), a HIA of the proposed project is required if the footprint area of the development is more than 5000m². The aim of the study is to locate and map any archaeological heritage that may be impacted by the proposed project, to assess the significance of the potential impacts and to propose measures to mitigate the impacts. The HIA forms part of the Basic Assessment process that is being conducted by EnviroAfrica cc. N Site 1 Site 2 Figure 1. Locality map indicating the location site for the proposed housing development on Erf 666 (Site B), in Keimoes, in the Northern Cape. The proposed development is on two sites. ACRM 2013 Archaeological study proposed low cost housing development, Erf 666 (Site B) Keimoes Proposed solar farm N Site 1 Site 2 Proposed housing project Figure 2. Google aerial map illustrating the location sites (red polygons) of the proposed development on Erf 666 (Site B). 2. HERITAGE LEGISLATION The National Heritage Resources Act (Act No. 25 of 1999) makes provision for a compulsory Heritage Impact Assessment (or HIA) when an area exceeding 5000m² is being developed. This is to determine if the area contains heritage sites and to take the necessary steps to ensure that they are not damaged or destroyed during development. The NHRA provides protection for the following categories of heritage resources: • Landscapes, cultural or natural (Section 3 (3)) • Buildings or structures older than 60 years (Section 34); • Archaeological sites, palaeontological material and meteorites (Section 35); • Burial grounds and graves (Section 36); • Public monuments and memorials (Section 37); • Living heritage (defined in the Act as including cultural tradition, oral history, performance, ritual, popular memory, skills and techniques, indigenous knowledge systems and the holistic approach to nature, society and social relationships) (Section 2 (d) (xxi)). ACRM 2013 Archaeological study proposed low cost housing development, Erf 666 (Site B) Keimoes 3. TERMS OF REFERENCE The terms of reference for the study were to: • Determine whether there are likely to be any important archaeological heritage that may be impacted by the proposed housing development; • Indicate any constraints that would need to be taken into account in considering the development proposal; • Identify potentially sensitive archaeological areas, and • Recommend any further mitigation action. 4. DESCRIPTION OF THE RECEIVING ENVIRONMENT Keimoes is located about 40 kms west of Upington on the N14. Erf 666 (Site B) is located north of the main road/N14. Two sites (Site 1 & Site 2) have been identified for construction of low cost housing (Figure 3). Site 2 Site 1 Cemetery N Blesbok Av, Drainage channel Drainage channels Drainage channels Drainage channels Dump site Drainage channel & diggings Diggings Floodplain Oxidation ponds Figure 3. Google Earth aerial photograph illustrating Site 1 & Site 2 and surrounding land use. ACRM 2013 6 Archaeological study proposed low cost housing development, Erf 666 (Site B) Keimoes 4.1 Site 1 Site 1 is located east of Protea Avenue and north of Blesbok Avenue. The proposed development site is fairly flat and slopes gently to the south. The western portion has been heavily scraped and most of the site is severely degraded (Figures 4-8). There are large diggings, pits and spoil dumps alongside Blesbok Avenue. There are a number of gravel roads and informal footpaths that intersect the property and pedestrian traffic is extensive. There is a large (illegal) dump site alongside Protea Avenue and a large formal cemetery in the north east which is currently being expanded. Several drainage channels intersect the site in the northwest. Where Site 1 slopes south east toward the river and the eastern boundary, the lands are hilly and very rocky, and not suitable for a housing development (refer to Figure 9). According to the biophysical report, the eastern portion of Site 1 is also botanically sensitive (Peet Botes pers. comm.). Surrounding land use is cemetery, residential, schools, church, light industry, oxidation ponds, and vacant land. Figure 4. Site 1, view facing north from Blesbok Avenue. Figure 5. Site 1, view facing north ACRM 2013 Archaeological study proposed low cost housing development, Erf 666 (Site B) Keimoes Figure 6. Site 1, view facing north east. Note the rocky hills in the background. Figure 7. Site 1, view facing south toward Keimoes. Figure 8. Site 1, view facing north. The cemetery is by the line of trees. ACRM 2013 Archaeological study proposed low cost housing development, Erf 666 (Site B) Keimoes Figure 9. Site 1, view facing south west toward Keimoes 4.2 Site 2 Site 2 is located alongside rows of informal housing off, Alwyn Street, and to the west of Site 1. It is estimated that about 30-40% of the footprint area is already covered by shacks (Figures 10-14). Most of the top soil in the northern portion of the site has been removed and there is very little natural vegetation covering this area. The area west of the drainage channels that cut through the site is covered in dry grass and shrubs, and there are sporadic Acacia trees occurring in places. The western portion of the proposed site is not suitable for housing as it is situated between several drainage channels and is located on an uneven, rocky platform. A wide strip of land east of another drainage channel is surrounded by shack housing, small scale farming, and open space. Much of this portion of the proposed site is severely degraded, while the strip alongside the channel is covered in thick dry grass and underlain by red sands. Surrounding land use is formal and informal housing, and vast tracts of vacant land to the north and west. Figure 10. Site 2, view facing south. Note the heavily scraped areas. ACRM 2013 Archaeological study proposed low cost housing development, Erf 666 (Site B) Keimoes Figure 11. Site 2, view facing south. This portion of the site (in the west) is covered in dry grass, thorn bush and underlain by red sands Figure 12. Site 2, view facing south Figure 13. Site 2, view facing south. Degraded land east of the drainage channel. ACRM 2013 Archaeological study proposed low cost housing development, Erf 666 (Site B) Keimoes Figure 14. Site 2, view facing south. Degraded land east of the drainage channel. 5. STUDY APPROACH 5.1 Method of survey A foot survey of the proposed development site was undertaken by J. Kaplan on the 30th and 31st January, 2013. A track path of the survey is illustrated in Figures 31-33 (refer to Appendix II). All archaeological remains were mapped and documented in-situ using a Garmin Oregon 300, hand held GPS device set on the map datum WGS 84. A desk top study was also done. 5.2 Constraints and limitations There were no constraints or limitations associated with the study. Archaeological visibility was very good over both Sites 1 and 2. 5.3 Identification of potential risks Based on the results of the study, there are no archaeological risks associated with the proposed housing development. The fairly detailed foot survey has captured most of the archaeological heritage that is present over the proposed development site. 5.4 Results of the desk top study Up until about a year ago, very little archaeological work had been done in Keimoes. The first known study undertaken, as part of the EIA process, was for a bulk water supply pipeline between Keimoes and Kenhardt (Kaplan 2008) where both MSA and LSA implements were documented in the road reserve. An AIA for a planned 10MW solar energy facility, situated about 1.5kms north east of Erf 666 (Site B) encountered more than 100 Middle and Later Stone Age (MSA & LSA) implements in banded ironstone (Kaplan 2012). A few ESA tools were also recorded during the study. Only seven MSA and LSA implements were documented during a study for a parallel, low cost housing development on Erf 666 (Site A), about 1 km east of Site 1 (Kaplan 2013). It is not surprising that Stone Age remains are encountered in Keimoes, even inside the urban ACRM 2013 Archaeological study proposed low cost housing development, Erf 666 (Site B) Keimoes edge of the town, considering that “thousands of square kilometres of Bushmanland are covered by a low density lithic scatter” (Beaumont et al 1995:240). 6. FINDINGS 6.1 Site 1 Ninety-one archaeological occurrences numbering about 154 stone tools were mapped and counted on Site 1 (refer to Table 2 in Appendix I). The majority of the tools belong to the LSA, but a well-represented number of MSA flakes and a few blades were also found, including a double-sided retouched pointed flake (697). No MSA formal tools such as unifacial or bifacial points were found, however. Five ESA flakes were found, including two bifaces (634 & 702). This pattern of distribution and frequency of type, mirrors that which was encountered during the study for a proposed solar energy facility, located about 2 kms north east of the affected property (Kaplan 2012 & refer to Figure 2). The majority of the LSA remains comprise flakes and chunks, many of them utilized and/or retouched. Several bladelets were also found. No pottery, bone or ostrich eggshell was found. No evidence of any factory or workshop site, or the result of any human settlement was identified. Thirteen cores were counted, indicating a relatively high incidence of flaking on the property These comprised mostly round cores (in banded ironstone), but one disc core (619), one irregular opaline core (630), and one large round MSA core (642) in indurated shale was also counted. Most of the tools are spread very thinly and unevenly over the surrounding area, and occur in a severely disturbed and degraded context. The frequency of formal retouched LSA tools is very low, but one possible boat-shaped scraper (641), one end scraper (653), and one possible side scraper (694) was found. One snapped backed flake (641) and one hammerstone (682) was also found. In terms of raw material frequencies, more than 95% of the tools are in banded ironstone, while the remainder is in indurated shale, quartz and opaline. Banded ironstone is known to have been a favoured raw material among hunter-gatherer groups for making stone artefacts, and occurs on a number of sites that have been documented by the archaeologist. It occurs widely in the region and was clearly a desirable raw material for its superior flaking qualities. The ruins of, a house/foundations were encountered on a rocky hillock in the north eastern portion of Site 1. An engraved piece of asbestos (dated 21-08-85), two concrete filled metal drums, some domestic debris (glass, rusted metal, asbestos), and rubble were also found (Figures 22 & 23). No other structures were found in the surrounding area. The ruin does not have any heritage value. A collection of tools encountered during the study are illustrated in Figures 15-26. ACRM 2013 Archaeological study proposed low cost housing development, Erf 666 (Site B) Keimoes Figure 15. Site 1. Collection of tools. Scale is in cm Figure 18. Site 1. Collection of tools. Scale is in cm ESA flake Figure 16. Site 1. Collection of tools. Scale is in cm Figure 19. Site 1. Collection of tools. Scale is in cm Figure 17. Site 1. Collection of tools. Scale is in cm Figure 20. Site 1. Collection of tools 1. Scale is in cm ACRM 2013 13 Archaeological study proposed low cost housing development, Erf 666 (Site B) Keimoes Hammerstone ESA biface Figure 21, Collection of tools. Site 1, Scale is in cm Figure 24. Site 1. Collection of tools. Scale is in cm ESA biface ESA flake Figure 22. Site 1. 675. Old foundations & debris Figure 25. Site 1. ESA tools. Scale is in cm Figure 23. Site 1. Asbestos sheet with date Figure 26. Site 1. Collection of tools. Scale is in cm ACRM 2013 14 Archaeological study proposed low cost housing development, Erf 666 (Site B) Keimoes 6.2 Site 2 Sixty-nine archaeological occurrences, numbering at least 102 stone artefacts were documented in Site 2 (refer to Table 2 in Appendix I). Like Site 1, the majority of the finds are assigned to the LSA, followed by artefacts characterised as MSA. No ESA tools were found. No organic remains such as pottery, bone or ostrich eggshell was found either. Most of the tools are spread very thinly over the surrounding landscape, but very few tools were located east of the main drainage channel (refer to Figure 31), where the receiving environment is underlain by red sands, and is also heavily degraded (refer to Figures 13 & 14). A number of implements were encountered west of the drainage channel but these occur within the 30 m buffer zone. It can be said therefore, that most of the implements were documented in the western portion of the proposed development site, but that no evidence of any factory or workshop site, or the result of any human settlement was identified. One small scatter (725) numbering about nine implements, including a double- sided retouched flake, several modified flakes and chunks, and a minimal core was recorded on rocky gravels alongside the drainage channel in the south west. A small pile of tools (762), that included chunks and retouched/utilized pieces, possibly collected by kids playing in the area, was also encountered on the rocky gravelly ridge in the elevated western portion of the site. Overall, however the majority of the remains (mainly single, isolated occurrences) comprise modified flakes, chunks, and a few blade-like tools. One step-retouched flake (748) and one backed piece (753) was also found. Only four cores were counted, including one disc core (776). The frequency of formal retouched tools is very low, and comprised one LSA end scraper (715) made on an older MSA flake, one side scraper (717), one backed blade (718), one beautifully made MSA retouched point, and one awl (759). In terms of raw material frequencies, more than 95% of the tools are made on banded ironstone, while the remainder is in indurated shale, quartzite (757), opaline and quartz. A collection of tools documented during the study is illustrated in Figures 27-30. 6.3 Significance of the archaeological remains As archaeological sites are concerned, the occurrences are lacking in context. While the random scatters of tools are relatively rich in quantity, they are poor in terms of information that can be constructed from them. No organic remains such as bone, pottery or ostrich eggshell was found. As a result the remains have been rated as having low (Grade 3C) archaeological significance. The tools described and documented above are identical to those which were encountered on the proposed solar energy site, which are also dominated by LSA elements (Kaplan 2012 & refer to Figure 2). ACRM 2013 Archaeological study proposed low cost housing development, Erf 666 (Site B) Keimoes Figure 27. Site 2. Collection of tools. Scale is in cm Figure 29. Site 2. Collection of tools. Scale is in cm Figure 28. Site 2. Collection of tools. Scale is in cm Figure 30. Site Collection of tools. Scale is in cm 7. ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS The overall impact of the proposed development on the archaeological heritage is rated as being Low (Table 1). Potential impacts on archaeological heritage Extent of impact: Site specific Duration of impact; Permanent Intensity Low Probability of occurrence: Improbable Significance without mitigation Low Significance with mitigation Low Confidence: High Table 1. Assessment of archaeological impacts, Site 1 and Site 2 Erf 666 (Site B). ACRM 2013 16 Archaeological study proposed low cost housing development, Erf 666 (Site B) Keimoes 8. CONCLUSION The HIA has captured good information on the archaeological heritage present. The study has, however, identified no significant impacts to pre-colonial archaeological material that will need to be mitigated prior to proposed development activities. The majority of the tools comprise single, isolated occurrences that occur in a disturbed or degraded context. Very few formal tools were found. While a relatively large number of stone implements were encountered, the receiving environment is not considered to be a sensitive archaeological landscape. Indications are that in terms of the archaeological heritage, the proposed activity is viable. 9. RECOMMENDATIONS With regard to the proposed construction of low cost housing units on Erf 666 (Site B) in Keimoes, the following recommendations are made: 1. No archaeological mitigation is required. 2. Should any unmarked human burials or ostrich eggshell water flask caches be uncovered, or exposed during construction activities, these must immediately be reported to the archaeologist (Jonathan Kaplan 082 321 0172), or Katie Smuts at SAHRA (021 462 4502). Burials must not be removed or disturbed until inspected by the archaeologist. ACRM 2013 Archaeological study proposed low cost housing development, Erf 666 (Site B) Keimoes 10. REFERENCES Beaumont, P.B. & Vogel, J.C. 1984. Spatial patterning of the ceramic Later Stone Age in the northern Cape Province, South Africa. In: Hall, M., Avery, G., Avery, D.M., Wilson, M.L. & Humphreys, A.J.B. (eds) Frontiers: southern African archaeology today: 80-95. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports International Series 207. Kaplan, J. 2013. Archaeological Impact Assessment proposed low cost housing project Erf 666 (Site A), Keimoes. Report prepared for EnviroAfrica. ACRM Cape Town. Kaplan, J. 2012. Archaeological Impact Assessment the proposed Keren Energy Keimoes Solar Plant on Erf 666, Keimoes. Report prepared for EnviroAfrica. ACRM Cape Town. Kaplan, J. 2008. Phase 1 Archaeological Impact Assessment proposed construction of a water treatment plant and supply pipeline from Keimoes to Kenhardt, Western Cape Province. Report prepared for EnviroAfrica. Agency for Cultural Resource Management. ACRM 2013 Archaeological study proposed low cost housing development, Erf 666 (Site B) Keimoes Appendix I Spreadsheet of waypoints and description of archaeological finds ACRM 2013 Archaeological study proposed low cost housing development, Erf 666 (Site B) Keimoes Site Farm Name Lat/Long Description of archaeological finds Erf 666 Keimoes Site 1 616 S28 41.604 E20 57.475 Weathered, indurated shale retouched MSA flake. Large banded ironstone flake & MRP, chunk & core near dump alongside pit – Blesbok Avenue 617 S28 41.737 E20 57.551 Large, chunky banded ironstone flake, slightly weathered nicked and retouched -alongside pit – Blesbok Ave 618 S28 41.661 E20 57.508 Large, round banded ironstone core & indurated shale cobble/cortex flake near diggings and rubbish 619 S28 41.640 E20 57.496 Weathered indurated shale partial disc core 620 S28 41.623 E20 57.486 Small, flat utilised banded ironstone flake, and chunky cobble/cortex retouched banded ironstone flake 621 S28 41.548 E20 57.473 Step retouched banded ironstone flake, chunky retouched blade/flake, weathered MSA indurated shale flake 622 S28 41.556 E20 57.491 Weathered MSA indurated shale partially retouched flake on quartz gravels. 623 S28 41.653 E20 57.530 Cortex cobble banded iron stone core on quartz gravels, inc. chunk and utilized/retouched flake, retouched/utilized snapped MSA flake 624 S28 41.659 E20 57.544 Thin, flat, utilized MSA flake. and chunk on quartz gravels. 625 S28 41.734 E20 57.586 Chunk/broken banded ironstone core 626 S28 41.691 E20 57.598 X 2 small retouched banded ironstone chunks, thin indurated shale utilized flake, large chunk, weathered retouched broken indurated shale cortex chunk 627 S28 41.670 E20 57.587 Weathered indurated shale chunk, slightly weathered/burnished utilized/retouched ironstone chunk, small indurated shale flake, small retouched and utilized banded ironstone flake – quartz gravels 628 S28 41.640 E20 57.571 X 2 utilized and retouched banded ironstone flakes, and small ironstone chunk – quartz gravels 629 S28 41.627 E20 57.566 X 2 small iron stone flakes, and utilized/misc. retouched ironstone flake – quartz gravels 630 S28 41.604 E20 57.556 Red opaline chunk/core 631 S28 41.569 E20 57.525 Small indurated shale chunk 632 S28 41.564 E20 57.522 Broken indurated shale cobble/cortex chunk 633 S28 41.549 E20 57.511 Indurated shale chunk and small ironstone chunk 634 S28 41.542 E20 57.509 ESA biface 635 S28 41.534 E20 57.508 Small indurated shale utilized/retouched flake, small side struck utilized bladelet, x 2 ironstone chunks, larger utilized/retouched ironstone flake 636 S28 41.513 E20 57.494 Ironstone chunk 637 S28 41.517 E20 57.516 Retouched ironstone chunk 638 S28 41.534 E20 57.523 Ironstone chunk 639 S28 41.568 E20 57.532 ESA flake 640 S28 41.593 E20 57.544 Indurated shale cobble/chunk, ironstone utilized/retouched flake 641 S28 41.754 E20 57.595 Small retouched flake (?boat shaped scraper), snapped backed blade 642 S28 41.763 E20 57.595 Large round weathered indurated shale MSA core ACRM 2013 20 Archaeological study proposed low cost housing development, Erf 666 (Site B) Keimoes and quartz chunk 643 S28 41.700 E20 57.608 Small, flat, double sided retouched chunky pointed flake, x 2 ironstone flakes, 1 small chunk – outcropping of rock alongside Blesbok Av. 644 S28 41.699 E20 57.620 4 flakes and chunk 645 S28 41.682 E20 57.618 Weathered split, slightly retouched indurated shale cobble, ironstone chunk, quartz chunky MSA flake 646 S28 41.661 E20 57.616 Ironstone chunk 647 S28 41.653 E20 57.613 Broken/snapped ironstone utilized cortex flake 648 S28 41.645 E20 57.608 Ironstone chunk 649 S28 41.589 E20 57.583 Utilized/retouched ironstone flake 650 S28 41.562 E20 57.563 Large ESA flake 651 S28 41.650 E20 57.618 Ironstone chunk 652 S28 41.642 E20 57.643 MSA utilized/misc. retouched ironstone flake 653 S28 41.621 E20 57.639 End retouched ?scraper, chunky flake, retouched flake, chunk/minimal core – all banded ironstone 654 S28 41.611 E20 57.623 Retouched/utilized chunky ironstone flake 655 S28 41.498 E20 57.544 Misc. retouched chunky ironstone flake 656 S28 41.561 E20 57.617 Large flat indurated shale MSA cortex flake, utilized/retouched ironstone flake, chunk 657 S28 41.544 E20 57.618 X 2 ironstone chunks 658 S28 41.532 E20 57.602 Chunky ironstone flake 659 S28 41.521 E20 57.591 Ironstone chunk 660 S28 41.487 E20 57.550 Ironstone flake 661 S28 41.483 E20 57.585 Banded ironstone chunk/minimal core 662 S28 41.505 E20 57.610 Large, round indurated shale cobble chunk/core 663 S28 41.504 E20 57.610 Misc. retouched ironstone chunk 664 S28 41.491 E20 57.602 Ironstone flake 665 S28 41.472 E20 57.611 Small ironstone irregular core 666 S28 41.593 E20 57.665 Utilized/retouched chunk 667 S28 41.631 E20 57.656 Flake 668 S28 41.648 E20 57.660 X 3 chunks, 1 flake – banded ironstone 669 S28 41.696 E20 57.714 Sharp edged pointed indurated shale flake 670 S28 41.606 E20 57.674 Chunk 671 S28 41.559 E20 57.657 Ironstone chunk and core 672 S28 41.476 E20 57.663 Edge retouched indurated shale weathered cortex chunk 673 S28 41.420 E20 57.668 Chunk 674 S28 41.503 E20 57.765 Ironstone core 675 S28 41.493 E20 57.784 Ruins/foundations and debris from home 676 S28 41.461 E20 57.742 Ironstone chunk 677 S28 41.404 E20 57.664 Ironstone chunk 678 S28 41.449 E20 57.661 Ironstone chunk 679 S28 41.457 E20 57.665 Thin, utilized banded ironstone flake 680 S28 41.457 E20 57.648 Large banded ironstone broken, chunky flake 681 S28 41.433 E20 57.627 Large chunk 682 S28 41.389 E20 57.601 ?hammerstone 683 S28 41.356 E20 57.652 Ironstone chunk 684 S28 41.353 E20 57.675 Ironstone chunk and flake 685 S28 41.319 E20 57.669 Broken MSA utilized ironstone flake 686 S28 41.284 E20 57.680 X 2 ironstone chunk with min. retouch 687 S28 41.244 E20 57.646 Double sided retouched ironstone bladelet/flake 688 S28 41.196 E20 57.563 Banded iron stone core 689 S28 41.200 E20 57.479 Ironstone chunk ACRM 2013 21 Archaeological study proposed low cost housing development, Erf 666 (Site B) Keimoes 690 S28 41.232 E20 57.459 Large chunk, and flake – banded ironstone 691 S28 41.215 E20 57.433 X 2 retouched flakes, weathered indurated shale chunk 692 S28 41.230 E20 57.433 Ironstone chunk and retouched chunk 693 S28 41.260 E20 57.429 ESA flake indurated shale, x 2 ironstone chunks 694 S28 41.241 E20 57.410 Retouched chunk/?side scraper on cobble flake, chunk – all in banded ironstone 695 S28 41.252 E20 57.395 Retouched cortex chunk 696 S28 41.305 E20 57.420 Utilized/retouched ironstone flake 697 S28 41.293 E20 57.395 Double sided retouched ironstone flake 698 S28 41.280 E20 57.382 Retouched ironstone flake 699 S28 41.297 E20 57.360 Chunk 700 S28 41.307 E20 57.375 Chunk 701 S28 41.314 E20 57.382 Ironstone flake 702 S28 41.350 E20 57.433 ESA biface 703 S28 41.368 E20 57.352 Round core 704 S28 41.346 E20 57.331 Retouched MSA ironstone flake 705 S28 41.308 E20 57.314 X 3 chunk, 1 flake – banded ironstone 706 S28 41.308 E20 57.314 Chunk and flake – banded ironstone Site 2 707 S28 41.385 E20 56.825 Banded ironstone core 708 S28 41.400 E20 56.817 Ironstone chunk 709 S28 41.450 E20 56.809 Snapped ironstone retouched/utilized blade 710 S28 41.464 E20 56.807 Snapped/broken retouched ironstone flake 711 S28 41.554 E20 56.822 Chunky, retouched ironstone flake 712 S28 41.591 E20 56.891 Chunk 713 S28 41.591 E20 56.899 Weathered, retouched ironstone flake 714 S28 41.590 E20 56.903 End retouched weathered ironstone MSA flake 715 S28 41.595 E20 56.903 Chunk and flake – banded ironstone 716 S28 41.571 E20 56.806 Utilized and retouched banded ironstone flake 717 S28 41.599 E20 56.795 Retouched flake/?side scraper on chunky rounded flake 718 S28 41.687 E20 56.772 Retouched/backed ironstone bladey flake 719 S28 41.722 E20 56.759 Ironstone chunk 720 S28 41.731 E20 56.753 Snapped, retouched ?MSA chunky ironstone flake 721 S28 41.738 E20 56.753 Chunk 722 S28 41.762 E20 56.744 Ironstone cortex cobble core 723 S28 41.770 E20 56.740 Chunk – cortex cobble 724 S28 41.796 E20 56.722 Small chunk 725 S28 41.818 E20 56.692 Low density scatter – including double sided retouched flake, indurated shale cortex chunk, large indurated shale chunk, x 2 ironstone flakes, chunk/minimal core, chunk, larger indurated shale chunk, retouched/utilized ironstone flake on rocky gravels above drainage channel. 726 S28 41.808 E20 56.694 Ironstone flake 727 S28 41.801 E20 56.696 X 2 chunks, x 2 flakes – banded ironstone 728 S28 41.796 E20 56.697 Large chunk/core, and chunk – banded ironstone 729 S28 41.790 E20 56.700 X 2 chunks, and flake – banded ironstone 730 S28 41.771 E20 56.710 Chunk 731 S28 41.747 E20 56.719 Retouched flake – ironstone 732 S28 41.715 E20 56.733 MSA flake – banded ironstone 733 S28 41.708 E20 56.735 Broken retouched flake – ironstone 734 S28 41.703 E20 56.736 Flake – ironstone ACRM 2013 22 Archaeological study proposed low cost housing development, Erf 666 (Site B) Keimoes 735 S28 41.697 E20 56.739 Banded ironstone utilized flake 736 S28 41.661 E20 56.746 Banded ironstone partially utilized/nicked flake 737 S28 41.646 E20 56.748 Banded ironstone flake 738 S28 41.643 E20 56.750 Retouched ironstone chunk 739 S28 41.635 E20 56.752 Snapped, retouched MSA ironstone flake, & flake 740 S28 41.598 E20 56.758 Chunk/core, & retouched ironstone flake 741 S28 41.593 E20 56.760 Retouched cobble/cortex chunk – ironstone 742 S28 41.587 E20 56.762 Large indurated shale chunk and utilized/retouched ironstone flake 743 S28 41.581 E20 56.764 Retouched ironstone flake 744 S28 41.524 E20 56.781 Utilized flake/chunk -ironstone 745 S28 41.493 E20 56.787 Ironstone flake 746 S28 41.477 E20 56.789 Ironstone utilized flake 747 S28 41.443 E20 56.780 Chunk 748 S28 41.544 E20 56.740 Chunk, and step flaked flake – banded ironstone 749 S28 41.572 E20 56.734 Lovely MSA retouched ironstone flake 750 S28 41.574 E20 56.733 Flake and chunk 751 S28 41.579 E20 56.730 Chunk 752 S28 41.607 E20 56.723 Chunk and indurated shale retouched cobble flake 753 S28 41.632 E20 56.719 Ironstone chunk with backed retouch 754 S28 41.644 E20 56.719 Weathered, retouched/nicked indurated shale flake 755 S28 41.648 E20 56.719 Retouched/utilized ironstone flake 756 S28 41.685 E20 56.702 Chunk 757 S28 41.692 E20 56.699 Chunky quartzite MSA blade 759 S28 41.700 E20 56.698 Weathered indurated shale retouched/nicked flake, banded ironstone retouched/utilized flake (?awl) 760 S28 41.723 E20 56.696 Flake 761 S28 41.729 E20 56.698 Partially retouched ironstone flake 762 S28 41.730 E20 56.699 Small pile of stacked tools, including chunks, flaked chunk, retouched/utilized flake, indurated shale flake, quartz chunk – possibly collected by kids. 763 S28 41.745 E20 56.700 Chunk 764 S28 41.750 E20 56.701 Flake 765 S28 41.768 E20 56.706 Flake 766 S28 41.756 E20 56.709 Retouched chunky ironstone flake 767 S28 41.713 E20 56.705 Flake 768 S28 41.677 E20 56.701 Core reduced flake and flat flake – banded ironstone 770 S28 41.657 E20 56.702 MSA banded ironstone flake 771 S28 41.634 E20 56.702 Chunk and flake 772 S28 41.605 E20 56.705 Red opaline chunk 773 S28 41.576 E20 56.712 Chunk 774 S28 41.569 E20 56.714 Chunky MSA retouched ironstone flake 775 S28 41.469 E20 56.777 Small ironstone flake and chunk 776 S28 41.447 E20 56.787 Flat indurated shale disc/prepared core 777 S28 41.430 E20 56.793 Ironstone flake 778 S28 41.371 E20 56.822 Banded ironstone flake Table 1. Spreadsheet of waypoints and description of archaeological finds ACRM 2013 23 Archaeological study proposed low cost housing development, Erf 666 (Site B) Keimoes Appendix II Track paths and waypoints of archaeological finds ACRM 2013 Archaeological study proposed low cost housing development, Erf 666 (Site B) Keimoes Figure 31. Track paths and waypoints of archaeological finds (Site 1 & Site 2). ACRM 2013 Archaeological study proposed low cost housing development, Erf 666 (Site B) Keimoes N Figure 32.Track path and waypoints of archaeological finds (Site 1). ACRM 2013 Archaeological study proposed low cost housing development, Erf 666 (Site B) Keimoes N Figure 33. Track path and waypoints of archaeological finds (Site 2). ACRM 2013