ARCHAEOLOGICAL & CULTURAL HERITAGE SURVEY, Project Corumana Dam, Moamba District, Maputo Province

July 13, 2017 | Autor: Leonardo Adamowicz | Categoria: Landscape Archaeology
Share Embed


Descrição do Produto

ARCHAEOLOGICAL & CULTURAL HERITAGE SURVEY

Completion of Project

Corumana Dam Moamba District, Maputo Province

Report prepared for the IMPACTO Ltd By Leonardo Adamowicz (archaeologist) With assistance of Ercídio J. J. Nhatule (field assistant) From PATRIMOZ, Archaeological Cultural Heritage Survey

Maputo, March 2015

.

1

CONTACT DETAILS Leonardo Adamowicz (archaeologist) and Ercídio Jaime Jeremias Nhatule (field assistant) from the PATRIMOZ, Serviços da Investigação Arqueológica undertook this survey and assessment contracted by

Contact details are: PATRIMOZ, Serviços de Investigação Arqueológica Rua Comt. João Belo 203 2º P.O. Box 3610, Maputo, Mozambique. Telephone: (258) 827737080, (258) 21326287 Fax: (257) 21016999 E-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]

2

List of Abbreviations

AD

Anno Domini (years of after Christ)

AC

After Christ (in C14 dates)

AdM

Águas de Moçambique

ARA-Sul

Administração Regional de Águas do Sul (Regional Water Administration for Southern Mozambique)

BC

Before Christ

BP

Before Present (in C14 da dates)

CNPC

The National Council of the Cultural Heritage

DAA

Department of Archaeology and Anthropology

DDEC

District Board of Education and Culture

DNA

Direcção Nacional de Águas (National Directorate of Water), Mozambique

DNPC

National Board of Cultural Heritage

DPEC

Provincial Board of Culture and Education

EIA

Early Iron Age (1st c. BC to 10 c. AD)

ICOMOS

International Council of Sites and Monuments

LIA

Late Iron Age (11 – 16 c AD)

LSA

Late Stone Age (10 000 BC to 1st c. AD)

MCT

Ministry of Culture and Tourism

UEM

Eduardo Mondlane Eduardo Mondlane)

UNESCO

United Nation Education, Science and Culture Organization

University

(Universidade

3

CONTENTS List of Abbreviations ..................................................................................................... 3 Executive Summary ...................................................................................................... 6 1.

Introduction .......................................................................................................... 10 1.1

Project Description........................................................................................ 10

1.2

Scope of the Survey ..................................................................................... 10

1.3

Objectives of the EIA of the Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Issues. .... 11

1.4

Dates and Duration of the Work .................................................................... 11 Fig. 1. Excelent logistic for field survey in Corumane Dam Project area in 2015 ....................................... 11

2.

Field Assessment Methodology ........................................................................... 12

3.

Diary of the Research .......................................................................................... 14 3.1

Previous Works ............................................................................................ 14 Fig. 2. The main part of site is was inundated in 1989, but stil some potsherd was find 180 m away(?). ... 14 Fig. 3. Same part of site COR2 (36J 409307E 7223395S) periodically inundated by Corumana I Dam is covered by very dense grass …................................................................................................................. 15 Fig. 4. or transformed by cattle to muddy reservoir bank. Most of surface potsherd visible in 1982 the river had washed away. ..................................................................................................................................... 15 Fig. 5. COR 4/Machatuine, periodically inundated archaeological site, first time recorded in July 1982. .... 16

3.2

Survey March 13 – 15, 2015 ......................................................................... 17 Map 2. During survey of March 13, 2015, 5 places were surveyed and 1 sites recorded. ......................... 18 Fig. 6. High density of lithic artegacts of MSA. .......................................................................................... 19 Fig. 8. Lithic artefacts from AR01 site ....................................................................................................... 19 Map 3. During survey of March 14, 2015, 15 places/areas were surveyed and 6 sites recorded. .............. 20 Fig. 9. The way to AR02 site. .................................................................................................................... 21 Fig. 10. Survey of quarry on the to site AR02 ............................................................................................ 21 Fig. 11. The quarry exhibit important profile of Quaternary formation in the project area. .......................... 21 Fig. 12. Upper part of AR02 site................................................................................................................ 21 Fig. 13. Southern part of site AR03 periodically inundated now is covered by very dense vegetation. ....... 22 Fig. 14. The northern part of the site AR03 still reasonable preserved with fair density of artefacts (decorates and undecorated potsherds). ................................................................................................... 23 Fig. 15. EIA pottery with diagonal deep excision. ...................................................................................... 23 Fig. 16. Atypical late EIA decorated pottery. ............................................................................................. 23 Fig. 17. Probably also atypical EIA decorated ceramic. ............................................................................. 23 Fig. 18. Late EIA decorated vessel. .......................................................................................................... 23 Fig. 19. AR04. The road is cutting site in the middle. Actual Corumana Dam on the left side. ................... 24 Fig. 20. Disturbed part of site by fluvial erosion. ........................................................................................ 25 Fig. 21. Middle Stone Age lithic industry from Corumana .......................................................................... 25 Fig. 22. Central part of AR4 site. The assistant Ercidio J.J. Nhatule collecting some samples. .................. 25 Fig. 23. Finds in AR05 site of Middle Stone Age ..................................................................................... 26 Fig. 24. Entrance to Sabie Game Park Lda Mozambique on the way to Machatuine ................................. 27 Fig. 25. The Guardian of the SNP indicate the way to Machatuine and Sacred Place ............................... 28 Fig. 26. MSA biface from Machutuine collected in 1982 (agate) ................................................................ 28 Fig. 27. Some lithic implements are still possible to see after periodic inundations of area. ....................... 28 Fig. 28. Small hill was indicated as sacred place. Low density of recent potsherds, .................................. 29

4

Fig. 29. Alicia Chauque’s son burial. ......................................................................................................... 30 Fig. 30. Supposed cemetery of resettlement people from Machutuine ...................................................... 30 Map 4. The tracks, sites and places survey during March 15, 2015. ......................................................... 31 Fig. 31. General view of the AR07 Middle Stone Age site. ........................................................................ 32 Fig. 32. High density of lithic artefacts on AR08 MSA archaeological site. ................................................ 33 Fig. 33. Some abandoned constructions on the site AR08 ........................................................................ 34 Fig. 34. Samples of MSA lithic industry from AR08 ................................................................................... 34 Fig. 35. East of AR08 particularly rich in lithic implements modified by MSA man .................................... 34 Fig. 36. General view of the MSA AR09 site, partially destroyed by inundations. ...................................... 35 Fig. 37. General view of AR10 site. ........................................................................................................... 36 Fig. 38. Isolated burial .............................................................................................................................. 37 Fig. 39. Periodicaly inundated cemetery ................................................................................................... 37

Conclusion of Field Survey in1982 and 2015........................................................... 38 Map 5. Showing tracks of 3 day survey: 13 – 15 March 2015 and recorded sites. ..................................... 38

4.

5.

Contextual Research ........................................................................................... 39 4.1

Bio-geographical and geological background................................................ 39

4.2

Cultural Knowledge....................................................................................... 41

4.3

Contextual Research .................................................................................... 42

4.4

Middle Stone Age Tools ................................................................................ 42

4.5

Iron Age ........................................................................................................ 43

Cultural Heritage Management ............................................................................ 44 Fig. 41. During present survey was noted that most of recorded sites were disturbed by cattle but it is not scope of this report. ................................................................................................................................... 44

6.

Recommendations ............................................................................................... 45 6.1 Recommendation 1: Sacred places, burials and cemetery - on-going consultation ............................................................................................................. 45 6.2

Recommendation 2: Site avoidance, ritual transfer and preservation ............ 45

6.3

Recommendation 3: Cultural Heritage Inductions ......................................... 45

6.4

Recommendation 4: New Find Measures ..................................................... 46

6.5

Recommendation 5: First Disturbance Monitoring ........................................ 46

6.6

Recommendation 6. Students of Archaeology field practice. ....................... 46

6.7

Conclusion .................................................................................................... 48

7.

References .......................................................................................................... 49

8.

Appendix A – Cultural Heritage Relevant Legislation in Mozambique .................. 50

9.

8.1

The Development of the Protective Legislation ............................................. 50

8.2

Statutorily/ Non Statutorily Protected Features ............................................. 52

APPENDIX C. CATALOG OF PLACES AND SITES ............................................ 54

5

Executive Summary Present study is restricted to the archaeological and cultural heritage issues as basic line desktop and field survey studies undertaken for the IMPACTO in the Corumana Dam Project area in Moamba District, Maputo Province. According to the publications presented in bibliography, archaeological records and database of the Department of the Archaeology and Anthropology only four specific archaeological and 2 cultural heritage sites, until now have been registered within geographical coordinates of the Project area: - The only sites with cultural and historical value around the Corumana Dam are the Mahungo and Malengane mounts where massacres occurred during the war of 19761992 (Point 21 Loss of physical cultural heritage in National Directorate of Water Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA) for Completion of the Corumana Dam Volume 1: Biophysical Environment (EIA) Draft April 2011). Family graves are considered sacred places. Additional survey and salvage of archaeological items and fossils as part of the Inundation Preparation Plan Construction and Workers Camp Management Plan includes chance finds procedures for archaeological relics, fossils, or other physical cultural resources that might be uncovered during construction. Resettlement Action Plan provides for addressing family graves None of this site was declared as protected by the Heritage Law 10/88 22 December. However, due considerable local information, the present study was extrapolated to other sites in neighbourhood and beyond the Project in order to provide assessment for eventual impacts. The Archaeologist Leonardo Adamowicz from PATRIMOZ SdIA was contracted by IMPACTO, Projectos e Estudos Ambientais and subsequently commissioned by the National Board of Water to act as consultant to Completion of Corumana Dam Project on cultural heritage matters relating to archaeology. Together with the field assistant Ercidio Jaime Jeremias Nhatule who substantially helps conduct of cultural heritage assessment work within the project area and assist in the compilation of subsequent reporting and management documentation includes the current report. The scope of this study was to undertake a survey and assessment of the proposed project area and to develop appropriate strategies to manage any potential impacts of the project on cultural heritage (archaeological and historical sites). The ESIA report produced in 2011 identified 21 possible impacts and proposed mitigation measures to minimize possible impacts and proposed additional surveys of archaeological heritage. Given of some relative difficulty of the terrain, as well the lack of access tracks to some part of project area, and in many cases the denseness of vegetation, the scope of the survey is to:  Define and record of the archaeological sites, if any, of particular significance to prehistory and early history in an area that was of some significance to study Middle Stone Age, Early Iron and Late Iron Age;  Give continuity for surveys that were conducted by Prof. Adamowicz and Paul Sinclair prior to the initial construction of the dam in the 1980´s. Three archaeological sites (1 Middle Stone Age, 1 Early Iron Age Site and 1 Late Iron Age/Recent) were identified during the survey (See Figure…. Survey in 1980´s Map 1). Unfortunately, only surface have been reported, no test pits or excavation done and it is possible the sites are under water.  Determine if there are parts of the project area, if any, where should be more detailed research done prior to final inundation. used for the project because of cultural sensitivities; and 6

 Give for the project managers an opportunity to consider, in association with their technical advisers, appropriate management approaches and options that can be included in the local cultural heritage and tourism management. The scope of this study acknowledges that the archaeological records are both fragile and non-renewable, and any major disturbance of the environment poses a threat to this valuable cultural resource. The present cultural heritage survey of the cultural heritage sites in the area surrounding the proposed location around Corumana Dam Project indicated that there are no significant archaeological sites within the proposed extension of Dam. However many archaeological sites are identified throughout Moamba District and particularly along Sabie river. Archaeological site types include artefacts as isolates and scatters, stone sources and quarries, grinding grooves, potsherds, burial locations, cemeteries and sacred places. The field survey was undertaken on 13th, 14th and 19th March 2015. Ground Surface Integrity (GI) levels remain reasonable to good for the project area as there had been extensive ground surface disturbance in the past. Ground Surface Visibility (GSV) was very poor to reasonable (1000 sqm. Access: Only 4 x 4 or by foot; ; Ground Surface Integrity (GI): Excellent Ground Surface Visibility (GSV) – Good to excellent. Actual status: Well preserved

IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND MITIGATION Negative

Positive

Mitigation measure

Test pits excavation to establish Chrono-stratigraphic framework

Site significance

MEDIUM

State of conservation

Indifferent

X

Others (describe below)

Nature of impact

Regular

Notes: ZERO impact no recommendations

Fig. 37. General view of AR10 site.

36

Isolated burial and cemetery Coordinates: 36 J 404825 7214277 Guardians: unknown Ground Surface Integrity (GI) : periodically inundated Site significance: HIGH for local people

Fig. 38. Isolated burial

Fig. 39. Periodically inundated cemetery

37

Conclusion of Field Survey in1982 and 2015 As stated above, a cultural heritage search request was to the IMPACTO for the areas surrounding the proposed Corumana II Dam location and results indicate that many sites Stone Age and Iron Age are identified in area. Site types include artefacts as isolates and scatters, stone sources and quarries, grinding grooves, earthen arrangements (daga and iron furnaces), burial locations, sacred places and story places. There are 10 registered archaeological sites, two burials, one cemetery and one sacred place within the proposed extension of Corumana II Dam. There are four sites close to the project area but save from future inundation by Corumana II Dam: AR 4, AR 5, AR 8 and AR10 both artefact scatters. However, more detailed research is needed to understand better settlement pattern in this area during pre-history and fill in gaps in our knowledge about 3 archaeological site inundated by Corumana I Dam since 1984. It should be noted that short list of registered sites within the proposed location may not be due to a lack of pre-historic habitation, but rather, may indicated the absence of previous archaeological assessments and studies, or reported sites in the area.

Map 5. Showing tracks of 3 day survey: 13 – 15 March 2015 and recorded sites. The sites recorded in 1982 are labelled as COR1, 2, 3, and MCH1.

38

4. Contextual Research Corumana Dam is located in the southern part of Mozambique, on the Sabie River, at 15 km from the Sabie village center, and at 40 km from the Moamba city. The work was performed with soil materials with a clayey impermeable nucleus, water works made with reinforced concrete and rock fill linings. This dam was required in order to control the flooding of the Sabie River, to water the earth of a wide area within a farm-industrial development scheme and for the cattle farming of the whole region. This work has been financed by the Italian government and it is an essential tool in order to promote the social-economic progress of the Popular Republic of Mozambique. The Mozambican Southern Regional Water Administration (ARA-Sul) lunched in 2010 launched a study to place sluices on the Corumana Dam and install a 100 kilometer pipe to supply water to Maputo. The Corumana and Moamba Major dams are considered to be essential to ensure water is supplied to the city of Maputo as well as to accommodate the development expected over the next 20 to 30 years.

4.1

Bio-geographical and geological background

Understanding and interpreting the cultural and archaeological landscape is crucial in identifying the interface between people and the environment. This is still particularly true in rural area in Mozambique, where a close relationship with the environment existed. Environmental factors have an important bearing on the distribution of people, and thus archaeological sites, across the landscape. Therefore consideration of vegetation, geomorphology and geology is important to establish an interpretative framework for the archaeological record. These factors influence the availability of water and other resources such as food and raw materials for stone artefacts, the location of suitable campsites and ceremonial locations and the ease with which people could travel across country. The geology of the Moamba District belongs to four major geological formations. These formations mainly follow the topographical landform regions in roughly parallel bands running in a north-south direction. From west to east, they were created during the Archaean, the Jurassic, the Cretaceous and the Quaternary eras. This implies that the western parts of the Sabie catchment can be as old as 3 billion years. The age of the geologic formations decreases when moving towards the ocean. The Archaean formation characterises the Highveld and parts of the middle- and lowveld. It is dominated by ancient rocks of volcanic origin (for example amphibolites, granodiorites and granite) and Precambrian era sediments along Sabie River in South Africa. The Jurassic formation covers part of the area between the middleveld and the InterLibombos depression. Mainly, the geology consists of old glacial deposits, sandstones and rhyolites. Geological unities that can be found are Dwyka tillite (rock formed from glacial deposits), claystone, shale and Stormberg basalt. Underneath the glacial deposits, the bedrock consists of granite and granitic gneisses. In the Libombos Mountains, rhyolite-dominated intrusions (originating from the break-up of Gondwanaland) can be found as well as porphyritic rhyolites, breccias and volcanic tuffs and ashes. The Inter-Libombos depression is dominated by basalt rocks.

39

The Cretaceous formation is mostly a sedimentary complex originating from the end of the volcanic activity and in line with successive altitude changes due to tectonic uplift and sea transgression. The formation is integrated by two spots of igneous rocks (the Pequenos Libombos rhyolites and the basalt of the Movene and Moamba depression). Sedimentary deposits (of marine and continental origin) have accumulated above the Karoo lavas in portions of the catchment. The deposits are generally composed of calcareous sandstone. The Quaternary formation (located by the Inkomati and Sabie floodplain) has been formed by erosion and deposits. The erosion has partly been caused by the rivers and its tributaries and partly by wind and surface runoff. As the Sabie River has been flooded, it has generated extensive alluvial deposits along the floodplains.

4.1.1 Soils In the highveld, the surface layer is dominated by rock outcrops, occasionally interrupted by zones of ferrisolic clay, ferralitic loam (both highly susceptible to erosion) and shallow black hill peat. Further down, in the middleveld, the rock outcrops decreases and lithosolic shallow sand or sandy loam takes over. The soil in the lowveld varies considerably in size fraction (from clayey to sandy) and in layer thickness (from shallow to deep). In this part of the basin, the clay fractions are characterised by having a relative high cation exchange capacity. Dominant soils are clay soils (Vertisols and Luvisols), duplex soils (Planosols or Mananga soils which are highly sodic and easily eroded), alkaline soils (Solonetz, also highly sodic and easily eroded) and shallow soils (Leptosols) as well as Phaeozems. Other soils are alluvial soils (Fluvisols), poorly drained soils (Gleysols) and sandy soils (Arenosols).

Fig. 40. In the Inter-Libombos depression, Movene, Inkomati and Sabie valley, heavy textured soils (Ferric Lixisols, Chromic Luvisols, Eutric Leptosols and Calcic Vertisols) and fine textured Managa occur over the basalts.

In the Libombo Mountains, red clays (Nitisols) are dominant on the non-eroded plateux whereas the eroded slopes are covered by shallow, unconsolidated soils (Regosols) 40

and shallow soils (Leptosols). Shallow and stony Lithosols over rhyolites are also found. Downstream the Corumana Dam, soils formed from four different parent materials can be found. 1. The lacustrine soils (Fluvisols, Solonchaks, Vertisols, Gleysols), which in general are saline and sodic. 2. The soils from estuarine sediments (Eutric Fluvisols, Solonchaks, Cambisols) are calcareous, sodic and saline. 3. The alluvial soils are more recent and hence overlie the estuarine sediments. They are non-saline and non-sodic (except when they are very shallow). 4. The final group is the basaltic soils which are also non-saline and non-sodic. On the active floodplain and the higher terraces of the river, the dominant soil types are: coarse alluvial sands, medium textured soils, clayey loam, sandy clay loam and silty clay loam (Eutric Fluvisols).

4.2

Cultural Knowledge

Moamba District residents are the agriculturalist, inhabiting the area that today can be described as northern part of Libombos Mountain, Sabie Natural Park and the Sabie River Valley. The construction of the Corumana Dam between 1983 and 1989 led to the relocation of the communities of the locality of Matunganhane situated along the Sabie River upstream the dam around the reservoir. Local displacement also occurred as a result of the civil war in the 1980s. More recent resettlement has also taken place in 2002 when the Sabie Game Park (SGP) was established on the northern shore of the reservoir where the community of Magonela was relocated and a new community, Ndindiza, was created. Despite the severe disadvantages and difficulties imposed on the Tsonga ethnolinguistic group, the ancestors of the group made a conscious effort to maintain traditional law and custom, and to protect their cultural knowledge through a process of survival and adaptation to the requirements of non-indigenous practices. Although ethnographic sources help to provide one facet of the information available, it is critically important to realize that official, government perception, is vastly different to that of the local, traditional land owners. This is very important to remember during meeting to inform the public and obtain their opinion and local knowledge during a public consultation process. Traditional owners view the landscape as a religious, spiritual and economic resource. As the source of all life, the land itself is considered to be a living entity, and, as such, it is to be cared for, nurtured, and preserved in prescribed ways in order that it may continue to provide spiritual and economic sustenance. Moreover, traditional owners consider the land as being inalienable, indivisible and non-transferable, and they are its custodians for the mythical ancestors of the “Dreaming” along with past, current and future generations. Coinciding with this view of the landscape is the concept of “place”. Created by the activities of mythical ancestors places are localities imbued with cultural significance, while often associated with the availability of economic resources, they also represent a spiritual resource thus transcending their material properties. Despite each place having its own unique meaning, the fact that individual places can be joined together to form a continuous sequence in one dreaming story necessarily implies a broader meaning, i.e., that places link people across the landscape. 41

It was noted during recent survey that Tsonga people regard Sabie and Inkomati area as a place, an important hub within their country connected with their stories and ancestors. Some ritual and ceremonies were also associated with some stories still very poorly investigated by ethnologist. For these reasons, north-west of Maputo province and Gaze to the Limpopo River holds significance for the traditional groups of Tsonga (Tsonga-Machangana), but as custodians and traditional owners for the area, the Tsonga ethnic and linguistic group have the responsibility for its maintenance and preservation. However, more ethno-linguistic and archaeological research should be done to better understand this issue.

4.3

Contextual Research

Detailed contextual research such as test pits, large sample collection, and systematic interview with local people was outside the scope of the current study. However, the large body of consultancy works undertaken by PATRIMOZ SdIA and Circle of Interest of Cultural Heritage of LEMO as well present survey within Moamba District and particularly in Corumana Dam Project area demonstrates a rich history Middle Stone Age (MSA), less during Late Stone Age and Early Iron Age and reach during Late Iron Age occupation. Based on archaeological survey and consultancy work the following predictive model can be put forth regarding the most common site types expected to be encountered in the broad area, beside already recorded during present and past research: 1. Middle Stone Age occupation sites/campsites incorporating stone artefacts as isolates and in low to medium density scatters, particularly in proximity to fresh, permanent or semi-permanent water sources or on top of hills; 2. Late Stone Age sites with sources of raw lithic materials such as quartz, silcrete, chert and basalt and associated artefacts relating to utilization of these resources (in low density scatters); 3. Early Iron Age occupation on the slop of hills or near the water. Silver Leaves /Matola Faces medium density scatters potsherds, iron slag and beads. Some of them recorded in 1982 were already inundated by 1st Corumana Dam (see map…); 4. Late Iron Age, Tsonga villages on the top of hills but near to fresh water source. 5. Culturally significant trees (e.g. medicinal/food resources) in areas of remnant vegetation; and 6. Ceremonial locations within relatively high integrity areas in proximity to substantial waterways and campsites. In this context the relatively high density of Middle Stone Age sites along Sabie River should be noted.

4.4

Middle Stone Age Tools

Between about 400,000 and 200,000 years ago, the pace of innovation in stone technology began to accelerate very slightly. By the beginning of this time, handaxes were made with exquisite craftsmanship, and eventually gave way to smaller, more diverse toolkits, with an emphasis on flake tools rather than larger core tools. These

42

toolkits were established by at least 285,000 years in some parts of Africa, and by 250,000-200,000 years in Europe and parts of western Asia. One of the main innovations was the application of ‘prepared core technique,’ in which a core was carefully flaked on one side so that for a flake of predetermined size and shape could be produced in a single blow. This technique probably raised the level of standardization and predictability in stone technology. Middle Stone Age toolkits included points, which could be hafted on to shafts to make spears. When smaller points were eventually made, they could be attached to smaller, sleeker shafts to make darts, arrows, and other projectile weapons. Stone awls, which could have been used to perforate hides, and scrapers that were useful in preparing hide, wood, and other materials, were also typical tools of the Middle Stone Age. Here, the term ‘Middle Stone Age’ includes a variety of toolkits from Africa. These toolkits last until at least 50,000 to 28,000 years ago. In Africa, the Middle Stone Age toolkits sometimes include blades and other types of archaeological evidence (beads and artefacts that indicate the use of colour and symbols

4.5

Iron Age

In relation to the three locations it is predicted that the site types listed above are the most likely site types that was located during the assessment, especially artefacts as isolates and scatters of varying densities. Sites such as these reflect the general use of the area by Tsonga/Nguni people over time, and may represent both transitory and more permanent camp sites and activity areas. Each of these potential sites, if found during the cultural heritage survey would only add to the available knowledge of the significant Tsonga area, and cannot be treated individually. The African Iron Age is traditionally considered that period in Africa between the second century AD up to about 1000 AD, when iron smelting was practiced. The advantages of iron over stone are obvious--iron is much more efficient at cutting trees or quarrying stone than stone tools.

43

5. Cultural Heritage Management When protecting cultural heritage values, a number of management options are available. In general terms, these include: 1. Avoidance. This is the preferred option in every case, it allows cultural heritage to remain „on-country‟ and it maintains the scientific context of archaeological material. Items and/or places remaining „on-country‟ may require the development of sitespecific management protocols including the establishment of exclusion zones. However, it is readily acknowledged that avoidance cannot necessarily occur in every instance. 2. Mitigation. In areas where impact cannot be avoided an appropriate mitigation program employed under the guidelines of recognized archaeological (scientific) methods of retrieval will need to be developed. Mitigation methods vary according to site or feature types and may include, but not be restricted to, processes such as detailed site recording and mapping, manual and machine excavation and/or controlled collection of artefacts and features. 3. Monitoring. A program of site monitoring by representatives of the local people during initial ground disturbance (i.e. vegetation removal and other preparatory earthworks) can be developed as a management option for areas of medium to high potential for the presence of cultural heritage. Such a program should be developed at the planning stages of the project and be based on areas noted within the initial survey outcomes as having such potential. This potential includes subsurface (or „invisible‟) cultural heritage.

Fig. 41. During present survey was noted that most of recorded sites were disturbed by cattle but it is not scope of this report.

44

6. Recommendations Ten archaeological sites, to isolated burials and supposed abandoned cemeteries, one sacred place were located during the survey. However, as detailed in chapter above there were various constraints that directly impacted on this cultural heritage assessment, especially ground surface visibility and access. Given that the local people have indicated their development of the Project and conformity to the following recommendations are made with regard archaeological complex in northern Moamba District approach towards cultural heritage management.

6.1

in-principle acceptance of the legislation in Mozambique, the to cultural significance of the and the best possible strategic

Recommendation 1: Sacred places, burials and cemetery - on-going consultation

Ultimately, the most important factor of any successful cultural heritage management scheme is ongoing consultation and dialog with local community. It is recommended that on-going consultation between the investor and the residents in order to ensure that cultural considerations are incorporated into future development activities associated with the Corumana Dam Project. Consultation about activities that involve disturbance or modification of the land surface in areas covered by this report will be important in order to allow appropriate mitigation programs to be implemented where required. Location of Sacred Places and cemetery are listed above but more location is possible.

6.2

Recommendation 2: Site avoidance, ritual transfer and preservation

The local leaders and people resident in affected area by extension of the reservoir have indicated many options for the management of their cultural heritage (burials, sacred places, cemeteries), such as avoidance and leaving cultural material in situ, but if it will be impossible transfer to save place with application of all necessary rituals and ceremonies. Accordingly, it is considered essential to the appropriate management of the cultural heritage values of the Sabie River area that the Administration of Project explores all practical options for minimizing impacts from the project on the social, economic and cultural level, particularly ensuring that local traditions or values are not impacted or damaged. These measures should include the establishment of exclusion zones around Corumana to protect them from father disturbance. Likewise, should cultural heritage be identified during the course of project activities, site avoidance, test pits excavation to determine chronology and significance of sites and eventual preservation must be seen as remaining the first option within the management of such finds (if practical) prior to the development and implementation of any alternative mitigation process.

6.3

Recommendation 3: Cultural Heritage Inductions

Cultural heritage management strategies are more effective when combined with the development and implementation of appropriate cultural awareness training for staff conducting project activities. Due to the cultural significance of Corumana Dam Project and the potential for cultural heritage material to be present within area, it is recommended that the proponent should, before the works begin, use all reasonable 45

endeavours to arrange for all persons who will be engaged in works and who are likely to have contact with archaeological or ethnographical cultural heritage to participate in a cultural heritage induction session conducted by the IMPACTO or Department of Archaeology and Anthropology of the Eduardo Mondlane University representative. The induction should inform workers of their obligations to look for cultural heritage material, outline what cultural heritage may look like and give clear instructions on what to do if they find something that may be cultural heritage (see recommendation 4).

6.4

Recommendation 4: New Find Measures

As the study area has potential to contain undetected cultural heritage material, the proponent should institute a procedure for incidental finds. In the event that suspected cultural heritage is found, the proponent should establish a 20m buffer zone around the outer extent of the find and all project activities should cease within this buffer zone. Project activities can continue elsewhere as long as these activities do not impact on the potential cultural heritage. The proponent should inform the IMPACTO or Department of Archaeology and Anthropology of the Eduardo Mondlane University (see contacts p. 2) soon as possible following the discovery of suspected cultural heritage. A site visit IMPACTO/DAA UEM representatives and their Consultant or Technical Advisor (from PATRIMOZ) may be required to fully assess the potential cultural heritage and to develop appropriate management strategies. As the best practice, no project activities should recommence within the buffer zone until such time as clearance to continue activities is provided in writing by the IMPACTO.

6.5

Recommendation 5: First Disturbance Monitoring

As noted earlier, Ground Surface Visibility (GSV) throughout the project area was very poor to reasonable whereas Ground Surface Integrity (GI) levels remain reasonable to good for the project area. Also, construction methods for the Project are not yet determined or ignored by consultant. If the construction methods involve vegetation removal there should be a program of first disturbance monitoring undertaken by IMPACTO/DAA UEM representatives. This is especially the case for any access path adjacent to the Sabie Natural Park (SNP) to the commencement point for the Corumana as there were recorded in 1982 archaeological sites, now inundated by dam, in this area and the access path would need to cross a SNP and pass through an area with high GI and low GSV.

6.6

Recommendation 6. Students of Archaeology field practice.

To complete survey and mitigation process with more detailed research on archaeological sites consultant suggest organize students field practice in July 2015. The Department of Archaeology and Anthropology of Eduardo Mondlane University organize every year’s field practice for student of 3rd years of the Course of Archaeology and Cultural Heritage Management in Goba, Moamba Major or Inhambane. This year student’s present project to organize field practice along Sabie River and around Corumana Dam. This project, if accepted by ARA-Sul, will satisfactory fulfils requirements of the impact mitigation of sites in risk and produces more information about cultural heritage in Project area. Student practice and fieldwork is a key research tool in archaeology and develops many skills that have extensive professional applications. Through ARA-Sul supported fieldwork in Corumana students will gain knowledge of methods and the techniques that may be applied in many non-archaeological contexts and situations. The emphasis 46

of this practice is on gaining competence, or on developing on existing competence, in the broad range of techniques involved in fieldwork practice. During fieldwork, students you will variously learn and undertake:      

surface exploration and test pits excavation; environmental sampling techniques; recording; post excavation processing; study trips; and outreach participation.

Aims. Proposed practice aims are to:  Introduce students to skills essential for the practice of field archaeology.  Give them practical training in these skills.  Introduce students to aspects of field archaeology at an intellectually demanding level.  Generate the practice of maintaining Fieldwork Notebooks and Reflective Logs.  To generate critical evaluation of the roles and outcomes of archaeological fieldwork.  Guide students in the production of a personal evaluation of selected aspects of their fieldwork, such as might be required for a job application or for presentation at a job interview. Objectives. The practice will provide the student with the opportunities to:  Gain knowledge of the implementation of a project design.  Understand the process of setting up and executing a field project or fieldrelated project.  Gain experience in a range of excavation and practical study techniques.  Gain experience of post excavation processing/archival work/presentation work.  Undertake various forms of sampling and understand the rationale behind this.  Develop an awareness of current practices in sampling and recording.  Undertake recording to a professional standard.  Gain knowledge of health and safety considerations.  Perform assigned tasks as part of a team.  Participate in discussion.  Identify problems and questions.  Undertake the analysis of factual information.  With guidance, undertake tasks independently.  Demonstrate visual skills in recognizing and describing field remains and archived findings. Learning Outcomes a. Knowledge and understanding of how to locate; recover; record; and present archaeological field data; to assess archaeological field data critically; and to solve problems of conflicting field methods and data presentation. b. To be able to be precise and cautious in the assessment of evidence, and to understand through practice what archaeological field data can and cannot tell us. c. To be able to question interpretations of field data, however authoritative, and be able to reassess evidence for yourself. d. To have achieved a level of competence in core archaeological fieldwork practical skills of identification; surveying; recording; excavation; sampling; 47

presentation of field data; archiving field data; and presenting field data through outreach. e. To be able to appreciate the importance of safety procedures in the field. f. To have achieved a level of competence in a range of transferable skills including being able to apply an understanding of relevant archaeological concepts and methods in non-archaeological situations. g. Be able to work as part of a team. h. To have produced a personal portfolio, based on fieldwork experience that demonstrates acquired skills; skills of evaluation; and an understanding of the academic context and value of the project. The practice information. This project prepared by student with constant consultation with professional archaeologist Personal Tutor contains basic information about the content and administration of the course. Students will also meet with the Fieldwork Tutor (Prof. Dr. Leonardo Adamowicz) to discuss your fieldwork choices. What counts as Fieldwork? Fieldwork is defined as archaeological work that takes place on archaeological excavations and survey projects, and includes excavation, surveying of features, buildings and landscapes (including relevant offsite environmental work). The definition also includes tasks closely related to fieldwork such as: on-site environmental work; finds processing; post-excavation processing and archive work; and work that focuses on the presentation of finds from specific field projects. Anthropological and ethnographical work may also be undertaken, again either in the field or via the study of museum records. Outreach work that is focused on an excavation or other form of field project, including presenting information about such fieldwork, also counts as fieldwork.

6.7

Conclusion

In 10 assessed negative impacts 3 were classified as HIGH (AR03, AR06 and AR07), 2 LOW (AR01 and AR02) and 5 as ZERO Impact. Obviously, all already inundated sites were classified as “ZERO impact”. The assessed impacts are presented separate in the table done in Excel and in Appendix C below organized according to the different level of impact. The decision on whether the project should be allowed to proceed will take into consideration all the environmental, social, economic, technical and political issues. From the cultural heritage, the associated impacts been identified can be addressed through the mitigation measures outlined in Recommendations and proposed project to organize archaeological student field practice in July 2015 for more detailed survey. After the publication of student field practice results it seems to be any barrier to proceeding with the proposed project

48

7. References Adamowicz, L. 1992b. Cronometria C14 das estações arqueológicas da Província de Nampula. Seminário sobre 15 anos de historiografia de Moçambique, Universidade Eduardo Mondlane, 1991:105, Maputo. Adamowicz, L. 2011a, Relatório sobre a Prospecção Arqueológica de Salvaguarda, Barragem Moamba, IMPACTO/Direcção Nacional das Águas; Burra Charter: The Australia ICOMOS Charter for Places of Cultural Significance 1999. National Directorate of Water, 2011, Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA) for Completion of the Corumana Dam Volume 1: Biophysical Environment (EIA); Decreto nº 27/94 de 20 de Julho, que aprova o Regulamento de Protecção de Património Arqueológico e a composição do Conselho Nacional do Património Cultural. Boletim da República nº 29 (I). Decreto nº 46/2008 de 30 de Outubro, que Classifica como Património Cultural o Local Histórico de Chilembene. Boletim da República no 44 (I). Decreto no 72/2009 de 15 de Dezembro, que aprova o Regulamento do Regime Jurídico Relativo à Protecção, Preservação e Valorização do Património da Luta de Libertação Nacional. Boletim da República no 49 (I). Lei nº 10/88 de 22 de Dezembro, que determina a protecção legal dos bens materiais e imateriais do património cultural moçambicano. Boletim da República nº 51 (I). Lei nº 13/2009 de 25 de Fevereiro, que visa proteger, preservar e valorizar o património da Luta de Libertação Nacional. Boletim da República nº 8 (I). Lewis-Williams, J. D. 2004. Discovering southern African rock art . Cape Town: David Phillipson. Macamo, S. (Coord.) e Adamowicz, L. 2003a. Inventário Nacional de Monumentos, Conjuntos e Sítios - Património Cultural. Maputo: Ministério da Cultura e UNESCO. Macamo, S. 2006. Privileged Places in South Central Mozambique: The Archaeology of Manyikeni, Niamara, Songo and Degue-Mufa. Tese de Doutoramento. Studies in Global Archaeology 4. Uppsala: University of Uppsala. Macamo, S. e Adamowicz, L.2003b. Dicionário de Arqueologia e Património Cultural de Moçambique. Maputo: Ministério da Cultura e UNESCO. Resolução nº 12/2010 de 2 de Junho, que aprova a Política de Monumentos. Boletim da República nº 22 (I). Resolução nº 12/97 de 10 de Junho, que aprova a Política Cultural e a Estratégia da sua Implementação. Boletim da República nº 23 (I). Sinclair,P., Morais, J., Adamowicz, L., Duarte,R., 1993, A perspective on archaeological research in Mozambique. In The Archaeology of Africa, Food, metals and towns. Ed,. Thurstan Shaw, Paul Sinclair, Bassey Andah, Alex Okpoko, London and New York, pp 410-431

49

8. Appendix A – Cultural Heritage Relevant Legislation in Mozambique Knowledge of cultural heritage legislation is essential when assessing sites, places or items of cultural heritage significance. The following section discusses both National and State Legislation relevant to cultural heritage. This subchapter will access the legal status of archaeological heritage in Mozambique, since from 1994, when the regulation for the protection of the archaeological heritage was adopted (Decree 27/94). Since that period, there have been specific principals and norms for carrying out archaeological work on national territory. The experiences resulting from its implementation will be here remarked. Clearly, the legislation itself is not enough to stop damages to the archaeological sites. Some of the problems are related to the abandonment of sites, due to absence of site managers and lack of resources. Another concern is the challenge related to development programs, in the context of the protection of the whole cultural heritage. The discussion departs from the archaeological sites across the country and from our personal observations, during the working process. We shall first present the archaeological context and then outline the legal protection history. The content of the protective legislation is also summarized. This is followed by an analysis of the general context in which the responsible preservation institution deals with the whole heritage. This includes the State role, through its cultural sector and particularly the National Board of Cultural Heritage. The collaborative role of the Department of Archaeology and Anthropology of Eduardo Mondlane University, ICOMOS / Mozambique and A Polytechnic University, in this process should be.

8.1

The Development of the Protective Legislation

In pre-colonial time, local people respected their archaeological heritage, mainly sites with visible structures, because they believed that they are related to their ancestors. They do so even to date, with an active involvement of the community leaders. These are related mainly to the Zimbabwe and rock art sites. Before any archaeological activity starts, a specific ceremony is required and is witnessed by selected representatives of the local community. This recognition of socio cultural values by local communities attached to archaeological sites help to protect them. In all sites that we have visited across the country signs of vandalism to the sites, involving local communities are rare. Legal protective measures for the archaeological heritage in Mozambique were taken in the colonial times. The former colonial Commission of Monuments (1947) did an important survey work of archaeological sites in Mozambique and established their inventory. Some of the sites were declared and published in the colonial Mozambique Official Bulletin, like Manyikeni, on the basis that it was a trade station of Great Zimbabwe that was Lusitanian (Portuguese). After Independence, the Law for the Protection of Cultural Heritage (1988 – 10/88 22 Dezembro) was adopted but a specific Regulation for the protection of archaeological heritage was only made possible 20 years ago. The implementation of this legislation is made by the Ministry Culture, through its National Board of Cultural 50

Heritage, considered by Law, as competent authority. There are two departments in the National Board of Cultural Heritage: museums and monuments that constitute an operational tool for the coordination of activities in the areas of movable and immovable heritage, respectively. This includes the implementation of the protective legislation. The main heritage management institutions are the museums (mainly the National ones, in the south and northern part of Mozambique) and the newly created Conservation Office for Mozambique Island, World Heritage site (GACIM). With the publication of the Regulation (Decree 27/94, 20 July) and the appointment with due effect of the National Council of Cultural Heritage a legal space was also cleared for applicants for underwater research programs on Mozambique’s territorial waters to be made and evaluated. In fact the National Council of Cultural Heritage is the main advising body composed by representatives of relevant ministries and government institutions, or even independent experts (mainly in general arts, archaeology, architecture). Its advising role to the Minister helps him to take decisions related to the use of heritage (mainly tangible heritage such as historical buildings and archaeological sites). The decisions weather a site or property should be classified or not is made after an advice by this council. The council also assists in drafting specific regulations that are still missing for the implementation of the Law, aiming to ensure the establishment of a Management System. To add to this, in 2010 two Policies were approved by the Cabinet Meeting (Resolução Nr. 11, 2010; Resolução Nr. 12, 2010). They are the Museum Policy and the Monument Policy and they are complementary to each other. For example the definition of the management museum policy for objects is applied to archaeology as well. The Monument Policy defines the archaeological monuments and elements as the first priority area of intervention. According to the Law Nr. 10/88, 22nd December: Any archaeological works or the opening of caves, rock shelters and geological formations for the purpose of carrying out anthropological or paleontological research is subject to prior authorisation by the relevant authorities. (Article Nr. 13) (...) Excavation works shall be carried out in accordance with the national and internationally valid principles and scientific norms. (Article Nr. 14) The Decree 27/94, gives more details concerning the protection of the archaeological. These include” all archaeological elements which under Law Nr. 10/88, 22 December are regarded as classified property of the cultural heritage including the buffer zone and access routes where are clear signs of remains of movable and immovable property or any other remain of human existence identified or that may come to be identified on the ground, underground, on riverbeds and under waters of the continental platform which shall be preserved in situ or pursuant to the provisions of these rules”. The regulation sets out such rules as the following: It is forbidden to carry out archaeological excavations and surveys without a certifying license issued by the relevant authority (…) Authorisation and issuing of licenses for archaeological works are the prerogative of the National Board for Cultural heritage and museums and other public national bodies indicated by the Ministry of Culture which include in their working programs research and protection of the archaeological heritage. (Article 3) 51

Furthermore, the regulation establishes that:

(...)

Licenses shall be granted only to applicants with a proven scientific background who are university trained archaeologists with proven experience in the area and who must be registered in the Ministry of Culture through the National Board of the Cultural Heritage (...)(Article 4).

8.2

Statutorily/ Non Statutorily Protected Features

There is a data base of the known archaeological sites in Mozambique. According to this there are: 27 rock art sites, 87 Stone Age Sites, 371 Early Iron Age, 451 Late Iron Age settlements, 128 sacred places, 205 historical archaeology sites and 7 industrial archaeology sites. (National Archaeological Database, records updated in December 20141 ). Local community support and effective protective policies are essential to ensure that the physical remains of its cultural legacy remain intact and are accessible to its people and tourists. Unfortunately, as every nation on the planet, Mozambique also faces the challenge posed by the tragic and continuing loss of cultural heritage sites to theft, vandalism, development, armed conflict and neglect. Mozambican Government has taken some measures for saving cultural heritage remains adopting several above mentioned laws regarding site protection and ratified all four international cultural heritage conventions . The government and megaproject such as SASOL, ANADARKO, RIO TINTO, VALE, etc. supports environmental impact assessment (EIA) with important cultural heritage and archaeological component (rescue survey, conservation and archaeological excavation projects) every year. Altogether, about seven museums have been established to house collections and there is more and more international cooperation on archaeological sites. However, it is also obvious that these measures are still far from sufficient for such a large country. Many problems have remained unsolved for a long time. Laws and international conventions are only paper constructs for many people and authorities. Heritage authorities typically are unable and inefficient. Education and training regarding cultural heritage are very lacking. And the local public attitude is somewhat indifferent. We think the biggest problems now facing the protection of Mozambique archaeological sites as well all cultural heritage are, first, that the relevant authorities always say the preservation situation has improved; second, that the local people are poorly educated on their rights to protect cultural heritage sites; and third, that some large companies are rapacious in their treatment of archaeological sites (Matola, Cotton Plantation in Namialo, routs construction, railway Cuamba – Nacala, etc. . The main objective of the National Board of Cultural Heritage is to increase public concern about our cultural heritage. This is the most needed step toward site protection in Mozambique. We understand the importance of international cooperation and exchange for protection of our cultural heritage. And we know clearly what kinds of cooperation and exchange are necessary and effective in Mozambique. So we are very pleased to offer the best professional advice on the protection of heritage sites. Actually, we have been quite successful in this area. We are sure that training and media are the most important factors for increasing public concern about cultural heritage protection. We have held some training activities for young people in the last two years. This year we 1

The National Archaeological Computerization Program was initially created by L. Adamowicz (1988) in the Department of Archaeology and Anthropology at Eduardo Mondlane University and developed by in ICOMOS - Mozambique with cooperation of the UNESCO Commission in Mozambique.

52

have published manual for effective conservation of the cultural heritage in Mozambique. Generally we are protecting what we well know and what constitute some important value for us. The Archaeological studies can help us substantially to know essential things about our cultural heritage and their historical value throughout three major goals: (1) chronology, (2) reconstruction, and (3) explanation. Chronologies establish the age of excavated materials. Reconstructions are models of what past human campsites, settlements, or cities—and their environments—might have looked like, and how they might have functioned. Explanations are scientific theories about what people living in the past thought and did. Building on information about the chronology and composition of sites and their environments, archaeologists reconstruct how life might have looked in particular places at particular times. The reconstruction of past ways of life depends on interpretation of well-documented material remains and environmental remains in their chronological contexts. Lot of archaeological research was done in Vilankulos District. In the 1975-78 British archaeologists P. Garlak (1976) and G. Barker preliminary reconstructed the subsistence patterns (ways of obtaining and producing food) of people who once lived in Manyikeni (Inhambane Province, Vilankulos District) . In the 1980-84. Paul Sinclair (1987) refined Garlak´s reconstructions analysing the chemical composition of materials from Garlak and Barker studies and newly collected samples, including soil samples. The analyses not revealed any a shift in subsistence patterns over a 500-year period. Archaeologists may also try to recreate the artefacts and patterns they find in excavated sites in order to understand how artefacts were made and how patterns formed. In experimental archaeology, archaeologists perform controlled experiments to help interpret finds such as abandoned fire hearths, accumulations of waste from stone tool making, and collapsed buildings. In Mozambique we should still learn how archaeological study of large sites and other historical settlements involve both scientific excavation and conservation work. For example, at the capital of the sultanate Tungi ruins, in Cabo Delgado (northern Mozambique), archaeologist can excavate a temple and palace complex as well as large areas around the centre. The excavators can also participate in mosque reconstruction and other collapsed structures. From ethnolinguistic sources we already know that some buildings are mentioned in Palma Chronical containing accounts of the rulers who ordered their construction. The excavations will provide archaeologists with new information about the ruling Swahili dynasties of Tungi. The accompanying conservation work will preserve the site for posterity and has created an attraction for tourism, a major part of the slave trade economy in northern Mozambique (Adamowicz, 2012). Present-day African societies can learn much from their predecessors. Applied archaeology refers to archaeological research that is designed to have practical and educational significance for modern societies. Since the late 1980s, archaeological research in in eastern and southern Africa concentrated some efforts to understand the dynamics of the processes leading to urbanization in Africa (Sinclair 1987, p. 22). A consideration of this factor was added to the already established recognition of the role, in the generation of towns and elites, of the control of local exchange networks and the injection into them of luxury goods derived from external trade (Sinclair, Shaw & Andah 1993). The primary aim of these studies was to build up relative chronologies of cultural entities and promote conservation or reconstruction some east African Swahili town and West African historical urban centre in advanced degradation. 53

9. APPENDIX C. CATALOG OF PLACES AND SITES SURVEYED IN MARCH 2015CORUMANE DAM PROJECT By Leonardo Adamowicz and Ercidio Jaime Jeremias Nhatule33 Num

1

Site Name

Category of the Culture Heritage

AR01

Archaeological Site

2 AR02

Archaeological Site

3 AR03

Archaeological Site

Coordinates

Description (artefacts, density for 1x1sqm, surface in sq. m)

Period

Significance

Impact and mitigation

36 J 412973 7217991

Lithic artefacts (hand axe, scrapers, and retouched blades). Potsherds (decorated and undecorated), beads, iron slag, daga. Density of artefact by 1sqm generally LOW but in few places HIGH. 500 sqm.

M.S.A.

Medium

ZERO impact but detailed survey is recommended to understand MAS industries in this area.

36 J 406385 7217486

Lithic artefacts (hand axe, scrapers, retouched blades). Located near inundated site Machutuine but with the density of artefact by 1sqm very LOW 2000 sqm.

M.S.A.

Medium

ZERO impact but detailed survey is recommended to understand MAS industries in this area.

9 AR09

Archaeological Site

36 J 405596 7214300

Lithic artefacts (retouched blades). Density of artefact by 1sqm MEDIUM. >1200 sqm.

M.S.A.

Medium

ZERO impact no recommendation

10 AR10

Archaeological Site

36 J 404674 7207615

Lithic artefacts (nucleus, endscrapers, retouched blades). Density of artefact by 1sqm MEDIUM . >1000 sqm.

M.S.A.

Medium

ZERO impact no recommendations

Guardian Mrs Chauque

Recent

Unknown Guardian

Recent

11 CE01 12 CE02 13 COR1 14 COR2 15 COR3 16 COR4/MCH1 17 Camp

Cemetery Cemetery

36 J 409225 7224263 36 J 404825 7214277

Corumana Arch. Site 36 J 414260 rec. 1982 7220957 Corumana Arch. Site 36 J 409307 rec. 1982 7223395 Corumana Arch. Site 36 J 409864 rec. 1982 7215492 Machutuine, rec. 1982

36 J 406788 7216890

Camp of fishermen

36 J 409251 7222656

Potsherds

LIA

Potsherds

EIA

High High n/a

Resettlement Resettlement n/a

n/a

Potsherds Lithic artefacts (hand axe, retouched blades). Density of artefact by 1sqm generally MEDIUM in 1982. >800 sq.. Temporary Camps

L.I.A.

n/a n/a

n/a

M.S.A. L.S.A

High

n/a

Modern

n/a

n/a

56

18 Camp 19 Camp 20 Fishing 1 21 Fishing 2 22 R/AV1

36 J 405100 7214954 36 J 421740 Camp of fishermen 7222265 36 J 421638 Fishing Post 7220723 36 J 410864 Fishing Post 7221768 Recent, Abandoned 36 J 412797 Village 7224359 Camp of fishermen

Temporary Camps

Modern

n/a

n/a

Temporary Camps

Modern

n/a

n/a

Boats are produced locally

Modern

n/a

n/a

Boats are produced locally

Modern

n/a

n/a

Recently abandoned village probably during resettlement

Recent

n/a

n/a

23 R/AV2

Recent, Abandoned 36 J 412551 Village 7223746

Recently abandoned village probably during resettlement

Recent

n/a

n/a

24 R/AV3

Recent, Abandoned 36 J 406267 Village 7221123

Recently abandoned village probably during resettlement

Recent

n/a

n/a

25 R/AV5

Recent, Abandoned 36 J 406151 Village 7218084

Recently abandoned village probably during resettlement

Recent

n/a

n/a

26 R/AV6

Recent, Abandoned 36 J 411018 Village 7206596

Recently abandoned village probably during resettlement

Recent

n/a

n/a

27 R/AV6

Recent, Abandoned 36 J 421674 Village 7224105

Recently abandoned village probably during resettlement

Recent

n/a

n/a

28 S. N. P.

Sabie National Park

Private Sabie National Park

Modern

n/a

n/a

36 J 404621 7227230

57

29 SP01

Sacred Place

36 J 406219 7219336

Place where occurring some rituals including circumcision, pray for fertility and harvest

Recent

High

LOW but local people should be informed about possibility of inundation of this sacred place.

58

Lihat lebih banyak...

Comentários

Copyright © 2017 DADOSPDF Inc.