Underwater Heritage Impact Assessment for the Development
of Breakwater at Salamander Bay
4 Special Forces Regiment
Langebaan
Western Cape
AFRICAN CENTRE FOR HERITAGE ACTIVITIES
11A MARSTON RD
DIEPRIVER
7800
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
From: Notice of Intent to Develop - Breakwater at Salamander Bay, 4 Special
Forces Regiment in Langebaan, Western Cape, 2013
“The earliest European settlement of the Langebaan estuary dates back to
1652 when Jan van Riebeeck sent scouts to the bay (Sleigh 2004). Despite
the lack of water, the area around Langebaan and Saldanha became of great
economic importance to the VOC as an important source of seal skins and
seal oil. In addition, large amount of fish and penguin eggs were harvested
while sheep were grazed on Schaapen Island. Salamander Bay on the
northernmost tip of the peninsula (Figure 1), had already received its name in
Van Riebeeck's time. According to Sleigh (2004) sick sailors were
accommodated in tents at Salamander Bay from at least the 18th century.
The outpost of Oudepost was established in Kraal Bay (to the south of
Salamander Bay on the peninsula) from around 1666 to protect the VOC
interests from possible French annexation. In 1732 Oude Post was moved 2
km north. Rietbaai was used extensively for ship repairs during the 18 th
century (Sleigh 2004).
The area remained quiet until the guano rush in 1844. During the following
decades, hundreds of ships stripped the islands of guano. During the
American Civil War, the Confederate Warship “The Alabama” took
refreshments aboard in the bay. George Lloyd deserted from the ship, settled
on the Lagoon, and later founded the little village of Churchhaven.
During 1870 Salamander Bay was used as a quarantine station for sailors
with infectious diseases. Camps were erected, with tents, to keep the sick
away from the Cape. The cemetery at Salamander Bay is witness to the
smallpox epidemic of 1882. By 1893 the camps were closed, but they were
reopened during the Anglo-Boer War when there were outbreaks of bubonic
plague and smallpox.
The northernmost portion of the Churchhaven peninsula is called Schier
Eiland 287 (Figure 1). According to the Surveyor General’s diagrams (not
clear) the farm was surveyed as early as 1820. There are a number of
references in the Cape Archives to early owners, namely EC Hauman in
1866; Hugo, Hauman and Kriel in 1871 and JJ Hugo in 1871 regarding “his
farm” Schier Eiland. Then in 1908, there is the first reference to the proposed
establishment of a whaling station at “Schier Eiland”. A whaling station, on
Division B of the farm Schier Eiland seems to have operated between 1908
and 1931 under the name of the South African Whaling Company Ltd (Irvin
and Johnson Ltd). At this same period (1909-1930), Hans Ellefsen (Ellefson)
of the Southern Whaling Company Ltd applied for the lease on the foreshore
land on Schier Eiland. Whaling statistics were provided by Messrs Irvin and
Johnson Ltd for the Donkergat Factory between 1920 and 1931, suggesting
that the Southern Whaling Company Ltd of Mr Ellefsen was located at
Salamander Bay to the north of Donkergat. The whalers had great success
but the Great Depression of 1930 brought an end to the whaling.
Between 1942 and 1946 there is reference in the Cape Archives to the
proposed acquisition of Lot 13 Schier Eiland and Schier Eiland Annexure Lot
B from M Kaplan for “Defence Purposes”. This correspondence in the Cape
Archives also includes plans of the Donkergat Whaling Station. Saldanha was
used as a base for the British fleet with Catalina Flying boats used to track
German submarines. The Catalinas used Langebaan lagoon for loading of
provisions and Donkergat for moorings. The demand for whale oil during the
Second World War let to the reopening of the whaling station at Donkergat
and Salamander Bay in 1947. After 1967 whales became scarce and whaling
stations eventually ceased operations.
4 Reconnaissance Commando, the seaborne Special Forces unit, was
established in Langebaan in 1978.”
LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK
South Africa protects shipwreck sites older than 60 years in terms of the
national Heritage Resources Act (25 of 1999) (NHRA). As archaeological sites,
shipwrecks are subject to the same legislative processes as their terrestrial
archaeological site counterparts.
Wrecks are defined in terms of Section 2 of the NHRA as: “being any vessel
or aircraft, or any part thereof, which was wrecked in South Africa, whether
on land, in the internal waters, the territorial waters or in the maritime culture
zone of the Republic, as defined respectively in sections 3, 4 and 6 of the
Maritime Zones Act, 1994 (Act 15 of 1994), and any cargo, debris or artefacts
found or associated therewith, which is older than 60 years or which SAHRA
considers to be worthy of conservation”. Any “part” of a wreck includes
flotsam, jetsam, lagan and derelict as well as any portion of the cargo, stores
or equipment of a ship and any portion of the personal property on board such
ship when it was lost, abandoned, stranded or in distress and belonged to any
person who was aboard that ship at that time; or any other material deposited
either purposefully or through accident.
If any of these remains are to be disturbed, a permit is required from SAHRA.
As described in Section 35(4):
No person may:
a. Destroy, damage, excavate, alter, deface or otherwise disturb any
wreck site;
b. Destroy, damage, excavate or remove from its original position, collect
or own any wreck object or artefact
c. Trade in, sell for private gain, export or attempt to export from the
Republic any category of wreck object or artefact;
d. Bring onto or use at a wreck site any excavation equipment or any
equipment which assists in the detection or recovery of metals or wreck
objects or artefacts.
Except under the authority of a permit issued by the South African Heritage
Resources Agency.”
SIGNIFICANCE ASSESSMENT
According to the NHRA, Section 2(vi) the significance of heritage sites and
artefacts is determined by it aesthetic, architectural, historical, scientific,
social, spiritual, linguistic or technical value in relation to the uniqueness,
condition of preservation and research potential. It must be kept in mind that
the various aspects are not mutually exclusive, and that the evaluation of any
site is done with reference to any number of these.
SIGNIFICANCE MATRIX: EMILY FAITHFUL
The Emily Faithful, an 822-ton iron sailing schooner was built by the Potter
shipbuilding firm in Liverpool, England and launched on 29 October 1863.
Under the name Iron Queen, she served as a transport ship on the Australia
run, carrying emigrants to the British colony for a number of years. She was
later sold to Norwegian interests and sailed under the name H.C. Richards
until she was demasted in a storm off of the Cape. Incapacitated and beyond
repair, the ship was towed into Saldanha Bay to be installed as a
breakwater/jetty at Salamander Bay, then a bustling whaling station. Before
the ship could be properly positioned and sunk, a storm shifted her from her
moorings. In an effort to stop the vessel from drifting clear of Salamander Bay
and sinking in deeper water where she would be lost at best, or pose a
shipping hazard at worst, the crew desperately attempted to scuttle her. They
finally succeeded, but she was off position and, although she still formed a
barrier to the incoming sea, and has been used as such until the present, her
position has made the breakwater ineffectual.
The date of scuttling of the vessel is unknown, but predates the outbreak of
World War I. The vessel is, therefore, older than 60 years and protected in
terms of the National Heritage Resources Act as described above.
1. Historic value
 The vessel is representative of two important historical events. Firstly,
as the Iron Queen the vessel carried emigrants from Europe to
Australia. Few such vessels are represented in the South African
shipwreck record. Secondly, the ship is representative of whaling
activities along the South African coast in the late 1800’s and first half
of the 20th century. Although a number of these wrecks lie in Saldanha
Bay/Langebaan lagoon, none have been archaeologically surveyed or
assessed. As time passes, many of the wrecks are disintegrating.
2. Aesthetic value
 The wreck has no aesthetic value. A section of decking of the bow is
visible beneath rocks placed during recent stabilisation efforts. The
remainder of the bow is buried by these reinforcements. Approximately
two thirds of the ship remains below the surface extending in southerly
direction.
3. Scientific value
 The vessel may provide medium scientific value. Although it is likely
that plans of this class of vessel exist, it is possible that alterations,
repairs and additions made by various owners who put the vessel to
different use may be represented in the wreck remains. In addition, its
conversion to a jetty/breakwater may have resulted in further
reinforcements being added. The additions may be of interest. Since
no detailed archaeological assessment has been undertaken, the
scientific value remains uncertain.
4. Social value
 Although the wreck represents whaling endeavours on the South
African coast, it has little social value. Having been hulked and
prepared for scuttling, artefacts and other potential social markers have
been removed. The social value of the wreck site is raised when
considered in conjunction with the decaying remains of the whaling
station nearby.
5. Rarity
 A number of ships have been scuttled for the purpose of creating
breakwaters or jetties in the Salamander Bay/Donkergat area.
6. Representivity
 Despite being one of a number of ships wrecked for the purposes of
forming jetties and breakwaters, the Emily Faithful is representative of
this practice. As mentioned above, because no archaeological
assessment of these wreck sites has been undertaken, a valuation of
representivity is difficult.
 The ship is representative of European emigration to Australia in the
late 1800s
7. Sphere of Significance
International
High
Medium
Low
✕
National
✕
Provincial
✕
Regional
✕
Local
✕
Specific community
✕
8. Significance rating of feature
Medium – The age of the vessel dictates that mitigation measures must be
implemented should the project result in the destruction of the wreck.
Options are supplied below
Significance of impact:
- Low: where the impact will not have an influence on or require to be
significantly accommodated in the project design
- Medium: where the impact could have an influence which will require
modification of the project design or alternative mitigation
- High: where it would have a “no-go” implication on the project regardless of
any mitigation
Certainty of prediction:
- Probable: More than 70% sure of a particular fact, or of the likelihood of that
impact occurring. A permit for the destruction of the wreck will be a
requirement of SAHRA should the project impact on the site directly. Further
site assessment and recording will be necessary.
SIGNIFICANCE MATRIX: HARVEST SIRIUS (SERIOUS)
The Harvest Sirius, a 405-ton iron fishing vessel was built in the Pot shipyards
at Bolnes, Netherlands, and launched in June 1964 under the name Meaban.
She was renamed the same year. The ship was scuttled in 1991 to improve
the breakwater at Salamander Bay.
9. Historic value
 The ship has little historic value. Her plans are available and, since she
was stripped for scuttling, little of her inner layout remains.
10. Aesthetic value
 The wreck has no aesthetic value. Although much of the wreck is
exposed, the ship is decaying rapidly. The vessel lies adjacent and to
the seaward of the wreck of the Emily Faithful. The ship’s bow rests on
the rocks of the recently reinforced breakwater. The stern is partially
submerged at high tide. The wreck lists approximately 30 degrees to
starboard and seaward.
11. Scientific value
 The vessel has low scientific value.
12. Social value
 The wreck has low social value.
13. Rarity
 An assessment of other ships from the Pot shipyard has not been
undertaken in the scope of this report, but it is unlikely that the vessel is
rare.
14. Representivity
 The vessel does not represent a specific group or period. It was
purpose scuttled.
15. Sphere of Significance
High
Medium
Low
International
✕
National
✕
Provincial
✕
Regional
✕
Local
✕
Specific community
✕
16. Significance rating of feature
Low – The age of the vessel dictates that no mitigation actions would be
necessary in terms of the National Heritage Resources Act.
Significance of impact:
- Low: where the impact will not have an influence on or require to be
significantly accommodated in the project design
- Medium: where the impact could have an influence which will require
modification of the project design or alternative mitigation
- High: where it would have a “no-go” implication on the project regardless of
any mitigation
Certainty of prediction:
Definite: More than 90% sure. A permit for the destruction of the wreck will not
be a requirement of SAHRA should the project impact on the site directly.
NOTE: Should the wreck of the Harvest Sirius or parts thereof be removed or
salvaged, a permit from the South African Revenue Service: Customs and
Excise may be required.
RECOMMENDED MANAGEMENT ACTION
The options for the proposed project are available. They are presented her in
order of desirability:
1. Reposition the breakwater outside of the wreck of the Harvest Sirius.
Inspection dives indicate that the water depth is not significantly deeper
outside of the wrecks. It must, however, be noted that archaeological
inspection dives did not include full inspection of the starboard section
of the hull of the Harvest Sirius and water depths are only estimated.
Should the water depth difference not be significant, the repositioning
of the breakwater may not impact significantly on cost. This option
would require no further archaeological intervention as the Emily
Faithful would be protected from impact by the hull remains of the
Harvest Sirius.
2. Position the breakwater over the remains of the Harvest Sirius. By
building the breakwater over the hull remains, it may be possible to
reduce construction costs. The water depth is slightly less that on the
seaward side of the wrecks and the hull remains may provide material
for fill. This option would require rapid assessment of the wrecks, as
they will be directly impacted. The impact on the remains of the Emily
Faithful would be less significant mitigating the need for major
recording. Site monitoring during construction would be required.
3. Construct the breakwater over the remains of the Emily Faithful.
Destruction of the wreck would require a permit from SAHRA. This
would require detailed recording of the wreck site which may impact
significantly on cost and time frames.
References:
Burman, J. & Levin, S. 1974. The Saldanha Bay Story. Human and Russouw:
Pretoria.
Maritime
Connector.
Available
connector.com/ship/harvest-sirius-6412114/
from:
http://maritime-
Miramar Ship Index. Available from: www.miramarshipindex.org.nz/
Smith, AB., Sadr, K., Gribble, J. & Yates, R. 1991. Excavations in the southwestern Cape, South Africa and the archaeological identity of prehistoric
hunter-gatherers within the last 2000 years. South African Archaeological
Bulletin 46: 71-91.
Sleigh, D. 2004. Die Buitenposte: VOC-Buitenposte onder Kaapse bestuur
1652-1795. Protea Boekhuis: Pretoria.