Views
2 years ago

A SURVEY OF CULTURAL RESOURCES - SAHRA

A SURVEY OF CULTURAL RESOURCES - SAHRA

Basic Assessment Mookodi

Basic Assessment Mookodi Integration – Phase 2The NHRA stipulates the assessment criteria and grading of archaeological sites. Thefollowing categories are distinguished in Section 7 of the Act:Grade I: Heritage resources with qualities so exceptional that they are of special nationalsignificance;Grade II: Heritage resources which, although forming part of the national estate, can beconsidered to have special qualities which make them significant within the context of aprovince or a region; andGrade III: Other heritage resources worthy of conservation, on a local authority level.The occurrence of sites with Grade I significance will demand that the development activitiesbe drastically altered in order to retain these sites in their original state. For Grade II andGrade III sites, the application of mitigation measures would allow the development activitiesto continue.7.2 Statement of significanceIn terms of Section 7 of the NHRA, all the sites currently known or which are expected tooccur in the study area are evaluated to have Grade III significance withFarming and farming related activities, such as farmsteads, stock pens, windmills, etc.would have a high significance on a local level.Town/community cemeteries and farm cemeteries would have a high significance on alocal level.Roadside memorials would have a high significance on a local level.7.3 Impact assessmentImpact analysis of cultural heritage resources under threat of the proposed development, arebased on the present understanding of the development.Environmental ParameterIssue/Impact/EnvironmentalEffect/NatureStone AgeMany sites are still unknown. Their potential andsignificance therefore unknown. The impact will be thephysical disturbance of the material and its context.Impact will be focused on a particular node, i.e. if thetrench cut through a site.LocalPossiblePartly reversibleMarginal lossExtentProbabilityReversibilityIrreplaceable loss ofresourcesDurationMedium termCumulative effectLow cumulative effectIntensity/magnitudeMediumSignificance Rating Sites have a medium significance on a region level –viewed as NHRA Grade III sites.Post mitigation impactPre-mitigation impact rating ratingExtent 2 1Probability 2 1Reversibility 3 122

Basic Assessment Mookodi Integration – Phase 2Irreplaceable loss 4 1Duration 4 1Cumulative effect 2 1Intensity/magnitude 2 1Significance rating 34 (Negative low impact) 6 (low negative)All of these sites should be avoided as far as possible.Mitigation should take the form of isolating known sitesand declare them as no-go zones with sufficient largebuffer zones around them for protection. Sites that cannotbe avoided should be excavated in full by anMitigation measuresarchaeologist qualified in Stone Age archaeology.Environmental ParameterIssue/Impact/EnvironmentalEffect/NatureIron AgeMany sites are still unknown. Their potential andsignificance therefore unknown. The impact will be thephysical disturbance of the material and its context.Impact will be focused on a particular node, i.e. if thetrench cut through a site.LocalPossiblePartly reversibleMarginal lossExtentProbabilityReversibilityIrreplaceable loss ofresourcesDurationMedium termCumulative effectLow cumulative effectIntensity/magnitudeMediumSignificance Rating Sites have a medium significance on a region level –viewed as NHRA Grade III sites.Post mitigation impactPre-mitigation impact rating ratingExtent 2 1Probability 2 1Reversibility 3 1Irreplaceable loss 4 1Duration 4 1Cumulative effect 2 1Intensity/magnitude 2 1Significance rating 34 (Negative low impact) 6 (low negative)All of these sites should be avoided as far as possible.Mitigation should take the form of isolating known sitesand declare them as no-go zones with sufficient largebuffer zones around them for protection. Sites that cannotbe avoided should be excavated in full by anMitigation measuresarchaeologist qualified in Iron Age archaeology.Environmental ParameterColonial Period – farmsteads23

Cultural Resources Management - GLPTI
cultural resources survey of the black silver no. 1 boring locations ...
Bibliography - Lexington Comprehensive Cultural Resources Survey
Survey Report on the Protection of Cultural Heritage ... - JCIC-Heritage
HISTORIC/CULTURAL RESOURCES - VHB.com
O2 — Non-indigenous Cultural Heritage - BHP Billiton
Museums - Lord Cultural Resources
Phase I Cultural Resource Survey for the CSAH 9 Reconstruction ...
Profile of the Cultural Resources of Colorado - History Colorado
Cultural Resources on the Bureau of Land Management Public Lands
Cultural Resources Reconnaissance Surveys Tom Teets
Idaho National Laboratory Cultural Resource Management Plan
Guide to Smart Growth and Cultural Resource Planning
Integrating Historic Property and Cultural Resource Considerations ...
Integrating Historic Property and Cultural Resource Considerations ...
Creating Cultural Capital - Lord Cultural Resources
EIS Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment - Arrow Energy
Culture and Self - Survey Research Laboratory
Otoño 2002 (PDF) - Lord Cultural Resources
2011 Visitor Exit Survey Presentation - Tourism, Culture and ...
Fall 2004 Newsletter-Final.qxd - Lord Cultural Resources
cultural resource consultation - National Mining Association
Looking After Cultural and Natural Heritage Resources in Asia ...
cultural planning - Lord Cultural Resources
Executive Summary - Archaeological Survey of India
Resources From Waste - Ministry of Community, Sport and Cultural ...
Survey - European Cultural and Creative Industries Alliance - ECCIA
Fall 2005 Newsletter-Final.qxp - Lord Cultural Resources