Archaeology Baseline Study TSF3 Complete Report 2022 - Singh (BDD Review..

IAMGold – RGM Gros-Rosebel concession
Archaeology Baseline Study TSF3
Report based on
June-July 2022 survey
(draft)
ESS-Archaeology Baseline Study TSF3 (draft)
IAMGold – RGM Gros-Rosebel concession

Archaeology Baseline Study TSF3
Initial report based on June-July 2022 survey
(draft)
Prepared by:
Santosh Singh,
Farisha Kartosemito
Sushmeeta Ganesh
Reviewed by Bart De Dyn (director, and senior ESIA expert at ESS)
Submitted To IAMGold – Rosebel Gold Mines N.V. (RGM),

to the attention of Rachel King, Community Relations Dept.
on behalf of Environmental Services & Support NV (ESS),

by Bart De Dyn, project team leader and General Director / CEO of ESS
email: [email protected]
http://www.ess-environment.com
Paramaribo, September 7th, 2022
2
Table of Contents
Abbreviations ................................................................................................................................................ 4
1. Scope of Work and Project Area .......................................................................................................... 6
1.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 6
1.2 Background GM ........................................................................................................................... 6
1.3 Projected TSF3 area ...................................................................................................................... 7
1.4 Objectives and scope of work ....................................................................................................... 7
1.5 Guidelines ..................................................................................................................................... 8
2. Cultural Setting ................................................................................................................................... 11
2.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 11
2.2 RGM concession archeological setting ....................................................................................... 11
2.3 TSF3 pre-Columbian archeology potential ................................................................................. 11
2.4 Registered archeological sites near TSF3 ................................................................................... 12
2.5 Colonial period heritage .............................................................................................................. 14
3. Methods .............................................................................................................................................. 16
3.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 16
3.2 Desktop research ......................................................................................................................... 16
3.3 Community consultations ........................................................................................................... 16
3.4 Questionnaire .............................................................................................................................. 17
3.5 Reconnaissance ........................................................................................................................... 19
4. Results................................................................................................................................................. 20
4.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 20
4.2 Desktop study ............................................................................................................................. 20
4.3 Community consultation ............................................................................................................. 20
4.4 Reconnaissance ........................................................................................................................... 22
4.5 Donderbari cave .......................................................................................................................... 28
4.5.1 Field survey......................................................................................................................... 32
4.5.2 Artifact analysis .................................................................................................................. 33
5. Conclusion .......................................................................................................................................... 35
6. Literature cited .................................................................................................................................... 36
7. Appendix 1: Photo Logs. .................................................................................................................... 37
8. Appendix 2. STP Logs ........................................................................................................................ 81
3
ABBREVIATIONS
SSM (artisanal) Small-Scale (gold) mining / miner

ERM Environmental Resources Management (company)
E(S)IA Environmental (and Social) Impact Assessment
ESS Environmental Services and Support N.V. (company)
GR Gros-Rosebel (concession)
RGM Rosebel Gold Mines N.V. (company)
STP Shovel Test Pit
TSF3 Tailing Storage Facility 3
4
Executive summary
Rosebel Gold Mines N.V. (RGM) operates a major gold mine in Suriname since 2004 in its Gros
Rosebel (GR) Concession, and is preparing to add a third tailings facility (TSF3) adjoining two
already in existence. The present report presents the results of a baseline study conducted by
Environmental Services & Support NV to determine the archaeological resources of the projected
TSF3 footprint, i.e., the area projected to be directly impacted by the TSF3 Expansion Project by
deforestation and earth works. Field work was undertaken June-July 2022.
The scope of work for the study undertaken was to identify, map, describe, and determine the
significance of the tangible heritage, defined as moveable or immovable objects, property, sites,
structures or groups of structures, having archaeological (pre)historic value.
A review of relevant literature, Suriname’s archaeological registry and available landscape images
was undertaken, alongside community engagement in the village closest to the footprint. A total
of eight inhabitants of Nieuw Koffiekamp took part in the community engagement, including the
head captain, basia’s and village elders. During the session, the villagers mentioned that artefacts
related to the gold rush period and the Lawa railway of the early 20th century could still be found.
However, no pre-Columbian artefacts had been discovered by the villagers.
On site, a pedestrian survey was undertaken: 125 Shovel Test Pits (STPs) were examined that were
made at 50-meter intervals along 128 transects covering the entire footprint. The field work was
difficult due to the steep landscape as well as existing disturbance of creek valleys by small scale
miners (SSM). No archaeological finds or features were identified within the footprint; however,
a small rock shelter (‘cave’) was identified about 260 meters from it. The rock shelter is located at
the top of a steep hill and named after the Donderbari landscape: ‘Donderbari cave’. A quick
survey in the ‘Donderbari cave’ resulted in the finding of soft paste ceramic sherds, lithic objects
and pieces of charcoal. A 50-meter buffer was created in order to prevent the rock shelter from
disturbance. Recommendations are offered to (1.) further excavate and investigate the rock shelter
with the use of archaeological methods and techniques and to (2.) gain information about its
possible function.
5
1. SCOPE OF WORK AND PROJECT AREA
1.1. INTRODUCTION
This chapter describes the history and current status of the Rosebel Gold Mine N.V. and its Tailing
Storage Facility #3 (TSF3), the national and international guidelines related to archaeological
reconnaissance work for multinationals, and the scope of work for the archaeological survey
carried out in the projected TSF3 area.
1.1 Background GM
Rosebel Gold Mines N.V. is located in the Brokopondo District, approximately 80 km south of
Paramaribo. The mining concession area is V-shaped and covers approximately 170 km² of
tropical rain forest and discontinuous savannah (Map 1). The concession was granted by the
Government of Suriname, pursuant to a specific Mineral Agreement dating back to April 7, 1994.
RGM is surrounded by 7 villages, namely Marshallkreek, Nieuw Lombé, Klaaskreek, Balingsoela,
Nieuw Koffiekamp, Brownsweg and Kwakoegron (RGM, 2021).
The mining concession boundary is located near the Suriname River in the east, the Saramaca
River in the west, and the Brokopondo reservoir in the south. Gold mining at RGM began in 2004
and has been carried out at 8 pits: Royal Hill, Pay Caro, East Pay Caro, Koolhoven, Rosebel,
Roma, J-Zone and Mayo. The ore is extracted by conventional open pit mining and fed into the
grinding circuit of the Mill. The tailings resulting from the ore processing are discharged to the
Tailing Storage Facility from the Mill processing area through three 22’ pipelines (RGM, 2021).
Map 1: the location of RGM in

the Brokopondo District. The
‘Thunder Mountain’ shown in
the map refers to ‘Donderbari’,
the location where the TSF3
project will be executed (Map:
RGM, 2021).
6
1.2 Projected TSF3 area
The Tailing Storage Facility at RGM is being used for storage of tailings and other waste products
generated by the mining and metallurgical processes. Part of the water collected in the TSF is
reclaimed for re-use at the Mill. Up till now, RGM has two tailings facilities (TSF1 and TSF2)
with approximately 18 dam structures. Recently, the Engineering Department of the RGM along
with the recent Engineer of Record (EOR) have initiated preparations for an expansion of the
tailing’s facility with TSF3. A suitable area for the TSF3 Expansion project was identified; the
project will include the clearing of the main TSF3 area, the creation of 3 dams and associated
works to allow access and drainage (RGM, 2021).
The projected TSF3 area is located in a very distinct landscape, referred to as ‘Donderbari’
landscape or hill range (Map 1). Donderbari is an ancient Precambrian feature, and can be seen as
the northernmost significant hill range of the Guiana Shield in this part of Suriname (between the
Suriname and Saramacca rivers). Originally the landscape was classified as a sub-landscape of the
Tempati landscape and is characterized by a number of individual, dome-shaped to pointed
hilltops, steep slopes, narrow valleys and ferralitic gravel and/ or duricrust at tops and/ or slopes.
The Donderbari landscape consist of yellowish brown to reddish lateritic clays with fine sandy
textures at the surface. Iron and quartz are commonly found in these soils, while the subsoil
contains schist rocks. The drainage in the area is mainly by the Grote Louis and the Nieuw Foto
Creeks1. The hills are separated by deep valleys. The creek sediments are composed of sand and
gravel, while the material above the sand and gravel layer is homogeneous, consisting of silty loam
to silty clay with yellow to brownish yellow soil (Rescan, 2002: 215; pers. comm. Bart De Dijn).
1.3 Objectives and scope of work
In January 2021, RGM’s Environmental and Community Relations Department conducted a

quick-scan assessment in the projected TSF3 area. This included an environmental and social
assessment data gathering approach. For the latter, a drone was used to get an aerial overview of
the projected area and to help identify small scale gold mining activity. The goal was to contain
and observe a better visual of possible activities in this area. These included: Small Scale Mining
(SSM), logging and agricultural activities. The report stated that there were minor activities in the
area, including SSM. Since RGM’s Community Relations Department planned to approach the
small-scale miners to inform the engagement strategy, it was also a necessity to implement an
archaeological investigation before any ground disturbance activities were undertaken by RGM in
the projected TSF3 area (RGM, 2021).
The scope of the archaeology baseline work for the projected TSF3 area was to identify, map,
describe and determine the significance of tangible heritage, defined as moveable or immovable
objects, property, sites, structures or groups of structures, having archaeological (pre)historical
value. The archaeological survey in the projected TSF3 area was concurrent with the ground
altering activities led by RGM field workers for line cutting and bush clearing activities. The
projected TSF3 area contained twelve survey lines of which the length varied from 250m to 3km.
1
The Grote Louis Creek is a stream situated southwest of the Westen Val and northwest of the Pieters Creek and is
not far from the Koolhoven Pit at RGM. Nieuw Foto Creek is a stream situated south of the Donderbari landscape.
7
During the archaeological survey, some of the lines could not be surveyed in its entirety due to
disturbance of some parts (abandoned and active SSM).
The objectives for the archaeological survey were cultural heritage related:
 Community engagement: tracking the (im)material heritage through community
consulation.
 Archaeological field survey in the form of shovel testing in order to determine the cultural
material remains in the projected TSF3 area.
1.4 Guidelines
Multinational companies in the natural resource extractive industry should conduct archaeological
reconnaissance work prior to ground disturbance activities. This mandate is dictated by the World
Bank Group’s International Finance Corporation (IFC) Performance Standard 8 for Cultural
Heritage. IFC Performance Standard 8 refers to (1) tangible forms of cultural heritage, such as
tangible moveable or immovable objects, property, sites, structures or groups of structures having
archaeological, paleontological, historical, cultural, artistic and religious values; and (2) unique
natural features or tangible objects that embody cultural values, such as sacred groves, rocks, lakes
and waterfalls. Therefore, RGM will be held accountable for proper heritage research during the
TSF3 project according to IFC Performance Standard 8, articles:
 Art 2. The applicability of this Performance Standard is established during the
environmental and social risks and impacts identification process. The implementation of
the actions necessary to meet the requirements of this Performance Standard is managed
through the permit holder’s Environmental and Social Management System (ESMS), the
elements that are outlined in Performance Standard 1. During the project life-cycle, the
permit holder will consider potential project impacts to cultural heritage and will apply the
provisions of this Performance Standard.
 Art 5. The requirements of this Performance Standard apply to cultural heritage regardless
of whether or not it has been legally protected or previously disturbed.
 Art 6. In addition to complying with applicable law on the protection of cultural heritage,
including national law implementing the host country’s obligations under the Convention
Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage, the client will
identify and protect cultural heritage by ensuring the internationally recognized practices
for the protection, field-based study and documentation of cultural heritage are
implemented.
The archaeological survey at the projected TSF3 area would need to comply with the Ministry of
Education, Science and Culture Monument Law 2002 no. 72 (Article 20 and Article 21) for
immovable archaeological resources found during the archaeological activities.
8
Article 20 of the Monument Law 2002 describes the following:
- Monumenten die gevonden zijn bij het doen van opgravingen en waarop niemand zijn
recht van eigendom kan bewijzen, zijn eigendom van de Staat. 2. De eigenaar van de grond
waarin de monumenten zijn opgegraven, is verplicht tot overdracht van de gevonden
monumenten aan de Staat en heeft het recht op een vergoeding ten bedrage van de helft
van de waarde van die monumenten. 3. Monumenten, gevonden bij een onderzoek, als
bedoeld in artikel 19, kunnen op aanwijzing van de Minister naar een voor hun bewaring
geschikte plaats worden overgebracht.
English translation:
- Monuments that have been found during excavations and on which no one can prove their
right of ownership, are the property of the State. 2. The owner of the land in which the
monuments have been excavated is obliged to transfer the found monuments to the State
and is entitled to compensation amounting to half the value of those monuments. 3.
Monuments found during an investigation, as referred to in Article 19, may be transferred
to a place suitable for their preservation on the instructions of the Minister.
Article 21 of the Monument Law 2002 describes the following:
- Degene die anders dan bij het doen van opgravingen een goed vindt, waarvan hij weet
dertig werkdagen na de vondst aangifte te doen, met vermelding van de exacte locatie, het
tijdstip, het monumenten en de personalia van de ontdekker van de vondst. 2. De aangifte
dient te geschieden bij de District-Commissaris van het district waarbinnen de vondst is
gedaan. 3. De District-Commissaris geeft van deze aangifte onverwijld kennis aan de
Minister. 4. De vinder van het voorwerp is verplicht tot overdracht van het gevonden
voorwerp aan de Staat en heeft recht op een vergoeding ten bedrage van de helft van de
waarde van het monument.
- Anyone who finds an artifact other than during excavations, should report it thirty working
days after the discovery, stating the exact location, time, monuments and personal details
of the discoverer of the find. 2. The report must be made to the District Commissioner of
the district in which the find was made. 3. The District Commissioner shall immediately
notify the Minister of this declaration. 4. The finder of the object is obliged to transfer the
found object to the State and is entitled to compensation amounting to half the value of the
monument.
In addition, the archaeological activities in the TSF3 projected area may also need to comply with
the Ministry of Spatial Planning and Land Policy’s Stichting voor Bosbeheer en Bostoezicht (SBB)
9
Code of Practice (2011, Article 3.2.). Article 3.2. of the Code of Practice declares the establishment
of a 50-meter buffer zone, the stoppage of all ground and the notification of a government specialist
when an object of cultural heritage is discovered. This information is shared in Article 3.2.:
- Gebieden van cultureel belang, nederzettingen, akkers, cultuurhistorische, spirituele en

archeologische vindplaatsen heeft een minimaal vereiste bufferzone bescherming van
50m. Indien archeologische of cultuurhistorische vondsten gedaan worden, moeten
relikwieën en vindplaatsen onmiddellijk gerapporteerd worden bij het Directoraat
Cultuur van het Ministerie van Onderwijs, Wetenschap en Cultuur. De vergunninghouder
en zijn/haar personeel, contractanten of vertegenwoordigers zullen zich onthouden van
het op enigerlei wijze verstoren van dergelijke vindplaatsen en/of relikwieën.
- Areas of cultural interest, settlements, fields, cultural-historical, spiritual and

archaeological sites have a minimum required buffer zone protection of 50m. If
archaeological or cultural-historical finds are made, relics and sites must be reported
immediately to the Culture Directorate of the Ministry of Education, Science and Culture.
The Licensee and his/her staff, contractors or representatives shall refrain from disturbing
such sites and/or relics in any way.
10
2. CULTURAL SETTING
2.1 Introduction
pre-Colombian and colonial tangible heritage relevant to the projected TSF3 area. These consist
of the pre-Colombian cultures that traversed the tropical forest region, the colonial period and the
early mid-20th century tangible heritage.
2.2 RGM concession archeological setting
In November 1994, an archaeological study was conducted in the concession of RGM by Rescan
Environmental Limited to identify sites of archaeological significance. During the studies,
interviews were conducted with small-scale miners (SSM), RGM’s geologists, environmentalists
and staff members of the Geological Mining Division of the Suriname Ministry of Natural
Resources. A field reconnaissance was also carried out and did not provide archaeological finds.
According to Rescan (2002: 324, 327), plausible reasons for not finding any archaeological objects
were: (1.) dried-up waterways within the concession during the dry season, which forced residents
to migrate, and (2.) past mining activities that might have destroyed contextual archaeological
finds2. A report by ERM (2013: 43) does mention that artifacts such as potsherds, grindstones and
charcoal were found at several locations3 at RGM. Recently an immovable archaeological find
was located near the Pikin Saramacca Mine under supervision of the Directorate of Culture; this
mine is located some 30 km south of the TSF3 area. The find was categorized as a cave (Rupicola
cave) and also contained potsherds. Not long after, a polished green stone axe and potsherds were
also reported under RGM’s Chance Find Procedure at Sarpit 1, Pikin Saramacca Mine (RGM,
2021). Taking this in consideration, it can be assumed that with the proper archaeological methods
and techniques more finds can be located within & in the vicinity of the RGM’s concession area
2.3 TSF3 pre-Columbian archeology potential
Pre-Columbian sites have been extensively researched and inventoried. A large number of the pre-
Columbian archaeological sites are located in the interior of Suriname, especially on the high and
sandy banks of rivers and creeks. According to ethnohistoric records, many of the Indigenous
groups in the inland maintained short-lived villages, abandoning many of them after only five or
six years of occupation. The Carib and Arawak Indians of this region practiced slash-and-burn
cultivation, along with hunting, fishing, and the gathering of other natural resources (White, 2017:
9). As mentioned in Chapter 1, the projected TSF3 area is located on the Pre-Cambrian Guyana
Shield. This area was also home for the Tropical Forest Cultures, namely the Koriabo Culture and
the Brownsberg Culture.
The Koriabo Culture is believed to have originated in the lower Amazon often settling on
previously inhabited locations, making most of their sites two-component. Sites from the Koriabo
Culture are typically located in high sandy banks of rivers and creeks. The available data permit
2
Archaeological finds within RGM’s concession area can be affected by the company’s gold mining activities, Small-
Scale Mining activities, gravel mining, forestry and agricultural activities (Rescan, 2002: 351).
3
The locations are not mentioned in the RESCAN report, produced in 2002.
11
the differentiation of inland Koriabo sites, dated between AD 1200-1350, from coastal Koriabo
sites, dated between AD 1350-1600. The Koriabo Culture is characterized by stone axes used to
fell trees for slash and burn agriculture and a limited variety of artifacts, including ceramics with
decorations (Versteeg, 2003: 182-188).
Figure 1: Artifacts belonging to the Koriabo Culture. Left: Koriabo pottery with thin line incisions and applique.
Right: Stone axes found in the interior of Suriname (Versteeg, 2003: 181, 185).
The Brownsberg Culture dates to AD 1200-1500 and is situated on and at the foot of the
Brownsberg, along the middle reaches of the Suriname River. This Tropical Forest Culture is
specialized in mining metabasalt on the Brownsberg and processing it to semi-finished products.
The Brownsberg Culture can be recognized by ceramics with parallel or non-intersecting linear
incisions at the rim and the appearance of trade goods associated with the Koriabo Culture
(Versteeg, 2003: 189- 191, White, 2017: 9).
Figure 2: Brownsberg ceramic sherds with parallel incisions (Versteeg, 2003: 187).
2.4 Registered archeological sites near TSF3
Suriname’s archaeological record is biased towards Pre-Columbian sites, representing the majority
of 400 nationally registered sites. From these registered archaeological sites, 20 sites are situated
within 25 to 50 kilometers of the projected TSF3 area and are characterized as Pre-Columbian
(Table 1; Map 2). Throughout the years Maroon archaeological sites have been reported, identified
and excavated but not placed on the national register of heritage sites. The lack of the national
register status does not mean that Maroon sites do not exist in or near the projected TSF3 area.
12
However, no sites attributed to the Maroon cultural period were identified in or near the projected
TSF3 area.
Table 1: Archaeological sites in the vicinity of the proposed TSF3 area
Archaeological sites Radius (km) Description Culture
Sur-1 Afobaka-1 50 Settlement Brownsberg
Sur-9 Brownsberg 25 Settlement Brownsberg
Sur-36 Phedra 50 Settlement Koriabo
Sur-38 Rama: Murphyweg 50 Settlement Koriabo
Sur-117 Baboenhol 25 Settlement Unknown
Sur-120 Kleine Simonskreek-3 50 Settlement Unknown
Sur-121 Kleine Simonskreek-2 50 Settlement Unknown
Sur-123 Cassiporakreek-1 50 Settlement Unknown
Sur-124 Cassiporakreek-2 50 Settlement Unknown
Sur-125Sarwakreek-1 50 Settlement Unknown
Sur-127 Berg en Dal: 25 Settlement Unknown
Fernootkreek
Sur-129 Victoria 25 Settlement Unknown
Sur-130 Kaaimankreek 50 Settlement with Brownsberg
workshop
Sur-171 Rosebel 25 Settlement Koriabo
Sur-243 Brownsberg-2 25 Settlement Brownsberg
Sur-248 Wittikreek 50 Settlement Unknown
Sur-346 Victoria-2 50 Settlement Unknown
Sur-391 Klaaskreek Suriname 25 Stone axe with Unknown
rivier handle
13
Map 2: All registered (Pre-Columbian) archaeological sites within 25 km and 50 km radius in the vicinity of the
projected TSF 3 area (Kartosemito, 2021).
2.5 Colonial period heritage
At the turn of the 20th century (1880-1910) Suriname experienced its first gold rush in the
southeastern region of the country. At this time, there were numerous gold concession being
worked by Caribbean migrants. The Dutch government responded by attempting to build a railroad
to facilitate the exploration, development and operation of these mines. Between 1903 and 1912
the 173 km Lawa Railway was built from Paramaribo to Dam at the Sara Creek. The rail line was
not extended to the gold fields at the Lawa River as it was intended originally. In 1960s the Lawa
Railway was partially flooded when the Brokopondo hydropower dam was filled (Rescan, 2002:
48).
The concession area area currently used by RGM, has a history of mining in the late 19th - early
20th century, when Suriname experienced a gold rush. The Lawa Railway passed directly through
the concession that existed at the time, along a northwest-southeast axis (see map 3), and parts of
the abandoned railway may still be present at the RGM concession. The RGM concession, at
historic gold-mining sites, also contains or at least contained broken, rusty mining machines that
were abandoned in the bush in the late 19th - early 20th century. The historical value of the RGM’s
concession forever changed in the 1960s as a result of transmigration (Rescan, 2002: 48, 141, 327
& 470). The RGM’s concession has thus value in terms of industrial archaeology heritage.
14
In the EIA report by Rescan (2002: 327), industrial archaeology is mentioned as in need of study.
Within RGM’s concession. These industrial archeology resources would include the remnants of
the Lawa railway and the ruins of the equipment used during historic mining activities.
Map 2: Map depicting the overlapping of previous gold concessions of the 20 th century with the current concession
owned by Rosebel Goldmines (Bart de Dijn, 2022).
From 1897 to 1902, gold concessions—called 'placers' at the time, a Spanish-derived word--which
had previously been successfully worked by hand-mining, but which later yielded no benefit from
this kind of processing, were taken over (sometimes for considerable sums) for mechanized
mining. Working with hydraulic devices, excavators and dredges was put into practice, but without
yielding good results (Benjamins & Snelleman, 1918: 313). As indicated in map 3, four well
known placers were established in the early 20th century in the area where RGM currently operates.
They were: Guyana goudplacer, Placer De Jong, Gross concessions and the Mindrineti placer
Mavo. As seen in Map2 the Guyana goudplacer overlaped to some extent with the current projected
TSF3 area. The other concessions are situated approximately 3 to 5 kilometers further away. The
Njun Foto Creek (a k a Nieuw Foto Creek) was one of the creeks mined within the Guyana
goudplacer concession. In 1909 a bucket dredger belonging to the Guyana goudplacer was placed
in this creek after it was ordered from the Netherlands. The buckets were useless as they were
unable to take up the tough clay and the structure of the dredger was too heavy. Adjustments were
made, but this exploitation system did not last long (Bubberman,1980: 142).
15
3. METHODS
3.1 Introduction
The archaeology/tangible heritage baseline study for the TSF3 includes a desk study literature
review, community consultation and a field reconnaissance. Specific details are provided in the
sections that follow.
3.2 Desktop research
A preparatory desktop analysis of relevant literature and maps was undertaken. All efforts were
made to review available primary and secondary literature sources. These sources were
collectively analyzed and summarized to understand the cultural context of the TSF3 Project area
and to identify locations with the potential to contain tangible heritage resources.
3.3 Community consultations
The purpose of community consultation is to engage IAMGOLD’s study area communities about
their relationship to what they define as their traditional territory. This process helps to solicit and
confirm permission for access and study of said areas and to collect relevant data to help locate
and describe tangible heritage sites or areas with archaeological potential in the TSF3 Project Area.
Community consultation involves a visit to the study area community to inform residents about
the goal, objectives, methods and anticipated outcomes of archaeology/tangible heritage baseline
study TSF3. In addition, a short questionnaire was also conducted.
Table 2: IAMGOLD’s Stakeholder communities.
No Village Established Location Note

1 Nieuw 1964 Near vicinity of Camp Transmigrated from Koffiekamp
Koffiekamp David.
2 Marshallkreek 1964 Suriname River, 77 km Transmigrated from Ganzee
from
3 Njung Lombe 1964 Suriname River, 78 km Transmigrated from Lombé
from Paramaribo
4 Klaaskreek 1964 Suriname River, 77 km Transmigrated from Alasabaka &
from Paramaribo Eendracht
5 Balingsoela - Suriname River, 79 km Not a transmigration village,
from Paramaribo existing before Stuwmeer.
6 Brownsweg 1964 - seven transmigration villages:
Birihoedoematoe, Ganzee, Makambi,
Kadjoe, Djankakondre, en Wakibasu
1 en 2
7 Kwakoegron 1906 Saramacca River, 80 Not a transmigration village, existing
km from Paramaribo before Stuwmeer.
16
The community engagement was conducted on 7th June, 2022. The team members included
Santosh Singh (principal investigator) and two assistants Farisha Kartosemito and Sushmeeta
Ganesh.
3.4 Questionnaire
A questionnaire was put together to better understand the communities’ interest regarding potential
archaeological resources within the TSF3 area in the form of possible pre-Colombian and
Historical sites. The closest and only village near the TSF3 area is Nieuw Koffiekamp. For this
reason, Nieuw Koffiekamp, only, was chosen for the Questionnaire. All other villages mentioned
above (Table 2) were located at least 25 kilometers away from the study area. The people of Nieuw
Koffiekamp were notified and were gathered at the Nieuw Koffiekamp Krutu Oso, where the
consultation with the questionnaire commenced.
Nieuw Koffiekamp, also known as Janapaw or Kilometer 106, is located in an area enclosed by
the Donderbari landscape in the north, the Mindrineti Creek basin in the west, the Brownsberg hill
in the south and the Berg & Dal-Brownsweg Road in the east. The remnants of the Lawa railroad
tracks mark the south boarder of the village. The transmigration village was founded in 1964 after
Koffiekamp was flooded by the Brokopondo Reservoir, after the construction of the Afobaka Dam.
The residents of Nieuw Koffiekamp are Maroons and belong to the Auca tribe, but have always
been under the jurisdiction of the Gaaman of the Samaaka tribe (Gaaman Aboikoni), due to the
fact that the settlement is in the Saamaka territory. Most of the villagers are depended on SSM
activities and work mainly at the Royal Hill, Monsanto Hill and the Rosebel Hill area. Other
sources of income include government employment, independent professionals, forestry,
agriculture, hunting and fishing. (Rescan, 2002: 48, 300-301).
Furthermore, Nieuw Koffiekamp consists of three sections, which is a reflection of the three
matriarchal clans (lo). These are: (1.) the Maripa-ondro (north-west section) of the Misidjan lo,
(2.) the Kampu (middle section) of the Ansu lo, and (3.) the Bakam-buyu (southeast section) of the
Njaifaai lo. Each section is governed by a village council (dorpsbestuur) under the chairmanship
of the captain. In addition to the village council, other organizations of importance are: (1.) the
Moravian Church, contributing in the education system and health services, (2.) Stichting Koffie,
distributing food in the village, (3.) Nieuw Koffiekamp Collective, created with the objective to
negotiate in support of the Land Rights issue related to the concession and Nieuw Koffiekamp
with the government and RGM, and (4.) Women’s Organization, to empower women socially and
economically in order to solve problems in the community (Rescan, 2002: 303).
The questionnaire consisted of seven questions:
(Dutch version)
1. Heb je gehoord van het Lawa spoorlijn en de trein. Wat kan je daarover vertellen?
2. Er wordt beweerd dat Royal pit belangrijk is en er ook historische artefacten daar zijn
gevonden. Wat kan je daarover vertellen, is het waar? Was er ook een begraafplaats in de
buurt?
3. Ben je zelf ook oude voorwerpen tegengekomen in de omgeving? Zo ja, wat doe je als je
ze tegenkomt?
17
4. De Mindrineti kreek is een van de belangrijkste kreken daar. Maken jullie ook gebruik van
de kreek en voor welke doeleinden? Werd de kreek ook in het verleden (historisch) gebruikt
door voorouders, marrons etc.?
5. Hoe sta je ertegenover dat archeologen eerst een survey komen uitvoeren voordat grond
verstorende activiteiten worden verricht door IAMGOLD?
6. Vind je dat de archeologische werkzaamheden een bijdrage kunnen leveren aan jou
culturele erfgoed? Motiveer je antwoord.
7. Op welke manier zou IAMGOLD moeten optreden als een archeologisch feature/ site
wordt geconstateerd tijdens de survey. Welke rol zou volgens jou de community hierin
moeten hebben?
(English version)
1. Have you heard of the Lawa railway and the train. What can you say about that?
2. Royal pit is said to be important and historical artifacts have also been found there. What
can you say about that, is it true? Was there a cemetery nearby?
3. Have you come across old objects in the area yourself? If so, what do you do when you
come across them?
4. Mindrineti creek is one of the main creeks there. Do you also use the creek and for what
purposes? Was the creek also (historically) used in the past by ancestors, Maroons, etc.?
5. How do you feel about archaeologists coming to conduct a survey before soil disturbing
activities are carried out by IAMGOLD?
6. Do you think that the archaeological work can contribute to your cultural heritage? Justify
your answer.
7. How should IAMGOLD act if an archaeological feature/site is identified during the survey.
What role do you think the community should play in this?
Figure 5. Timeline of Maroon historical events (White 2017, 18).
18
The location of tangible heritage sites is not always quickly recounted by the average community
member. In light of this situation and to stimulate discussion, visual aids in the form of large maps
were used.
3.5 Reconnaissance
The goal of reconnaissance is to identify and record heritage sites in TSF3 Area Footprint. Local
communities reported no sites in the TSF3 Area. As a result, the impact assessment relied on
judgmental sampling based on desktop study results of archaeological and environmental
indicators applied via a pedestrian survey (transect lines) and shovel test pit units. The locations
for the shovel test pits were determined by the desktop study and community consultation as well
as available access and ground conditions.
Reconnaissance was conducted in two sessions. The first reconnaissance took place from the 8th
June, 2022 to 16th June, 2022. During this reconnaissance the team consisted of Santosh Singh
(principal investigator) and two archaeological field technicians Farisha Kartosemito and
Sushmeeta Ganesh. RGM also provided two-line cutters. The second reconnaissance took place
from 26th July 2022 to 30th of July 2022. During this reconnaissance the team consisted of Santosh
Singh (principal investigator) and three archaeological field technicians Farisha Kartosemito,
Jõvan Samson and Sushmeeta Ganesh. RGM provided the team with three-line cutters. This time
the team was divided into two groups (A & B). Each day the team was tasked with a separate
objective (see daily reports).
19
4. RESULTS
4.1 Introduction
The sections that follow provide a summary of the results of the desktop study, community
consultation and field reconnaissance.
4.2 Desktop study
Based on available records, there are nineteen pre-Columbian sites in a radius of the TSF3 area
(Table 1). The nearest recorded archaeological site to the TSF3 area Project is the Rupicola
Rupicola cave in Pikin Saramacca. The Lawa railway also ran approximately 2 kilometers away
from the TSF3 area, which is the closest historical activity that took place in the area. Although
the Lawa Railway has not been recorded archaeologically, it is still noteworthy to mention, due to
its archaeological and historical value acknowledged in the Rescan 2002 and its pre-1950
construction.
4.3 Community consultation
In total eight inhabitants of Nieuw Koffiekamp took part of the Community consultation session,
Including the Head Captain, Basja’s and village elders. No new archaeological sites or artefacts
relating to the pre-Columbian period were reported. Artefacts relating to the historical period
(Lawa railway period) were reported. Old machines, parts of railway tracks, colonial glass bottles
and stoneware were amongst the main categories. Below the summarized answer per question
based on the community consultation that took place on the 7th June, 2022.
1. Have you heard of the Lawa railway and the train? What can you say about that?
The train tracks came from the Zanderij area passed through the Nieuw Koffiekamp area and
extended to the Cable station (Kabelstation). An aerial cable car crossed the Suriname River, as
building a bridge was considered too expensive. the passengers had to disembark the train at the
Cable station (Kabelstation) and cross the river in a simple gondola lift. On the other side of the
river, another train waited to bring them to the terminus at the Sara Creek. When the Brokopondo
Reservoir filled up in the 1960s, the track from Brownsberg Nature Park to the cable car was
intentionally flooded and had to be taken out of use.
2. Royal pit is said to be important and historical artifacts have also been found there. What
can you say about that, is it true? Was there a cemetery nearby?
Not much can be said about artifacts found there. The group of people that came to the meeting
had no clue of artifacts being found at Royal Pit. They told the team to ask people who work at the
pit for more information.
The study group mentioned one cemetery near the RGM concession that is approximately a
hundred years old. It is currently being maintained or at least used to be maintained by RGM.
Sometimes people of Nieuw Koffiekamp still visit the cemetary.
20
3. Have you come across old objects in the area yourself? If so, what do you do when you
come across them?
Till date no pre-Columbian artefacts have been discovered, found or spotted by anyone of the
village as far as the people present at the community engagement knew of. The only significant
artefacts found are those belonging or linked to the gold rush period and the Lawa railway of the
early 20th century. Objects such as glass bottles, ceramics, bricks and remnants of the railways
and machines were named. Items such as bottles and ceramics are collected by some people and
stored as antiques in people’s houses. Remnants of the railway that used to be visible have
disappeared. The villagers suspect that someone might have taken and sold them. Colonial iron is
sold by the kilo’s and is worth a lot of money.
4. Mindrineti creek is one of the main creeks there. Do you also use the creek and for what
purposes? Was the creek also (historically) used in the past by ancestors, Maroons, etc.?
The people of Nieuw Koffiekamp mentioned that the mindrineti creek has no specific value for
them, because they only recently migrated to the area in the 1960’s. For more information on the
mindrineti creek, the team has been asked to contact the Matawai people, who have been present
in the area for a longer time.
5. How do you feel about archaeologists coming to conduct a survey before soil disturbing
activities are carried out by IAMGOLD?
The group present think it a great idea and really appreciate it that their opinion and thoughts have
also been taken into consideration prior to archaeological reconnaissance.
6. Do you think that the archaeological work can contribute to your cultural heritage?
Justify your answer.
The group present agreed that archaeological work can definitely contribute to cultural heritage.
Maybe not as much, as yet for their cultural heritage as a village, because their village is a young
one. They looked at the contribution on a broader level that is on a national level. For example, if
by chance an artefact of indigenous origin is ever found it will enrich the understanding of the
area and its past, by which they will also get more information about the area they live in. They
all agreed that this contributes to their identity and where they stand as a village within the pattern
of history.
7. How should IAMGOLD act if an archaeological feature/site is identified during the

survey. What role do you think the community should play in this?
IAMGOLD should notify or the nearby villages, so everyone can have an equal voice what might
happen with the feature/site and vice versa from the community’s side. A suggestion was made to
establish a small museum with the finds in Nieuw Koffiekamp.
21
4.4 Reconnaissance
Figure 6. Topographic card of TSF3 area with the twelve transect lines (Kartosemito, 2021).
Based on the results of the desktop research and community consultation, it was determined that
there are no previously recorded archaeological sites in the TSF Project Area. Based on available
information, areas with archaeological potential in the TSF3 Project Area include creek banks in
hilly areas.
From June 8th to June 16th, 2022 (9 working days) and from 26th July, 2022 to 30th July 2022 (5
working days) archaeological reconnaissance was undertaken in planned disturbance areas with
adjoining natural creeks in the TSF3 Project Area (Figure 6-8; Table 3). A pedestrian survey was
conducted at the sections of the survey lines, where earth moving activities already took place.
These sections have a reduced probability of archaeological resources, which makes it unlikely to
still have cultural remains in disturbed soil.
Due to characteristically poor ground visibility in the forest, pre-Columbian objects are not always
easily identified on the ground surface. As a recourse 0.50 x 0.50 x 0.50m shovel test pits and
sieving of its soil were applied to prospect for buried archaeological materials. Reconnaissance
points were taken every 50m during the survey. Sifting of soil was at intervals of 50m on the
undisturbed transect lines.
The consultants and two IAMGOLD workers used a GPS device with preset UTM coordinates to
locate and survey the transect lines in the TSF3 area.
22
More often than not, the transect lines were located on hilly areas and located under dense canopy,
which made surveying harder than usual (Figure 7). The dense canopy hindered the signals of the
GPS device, which in its turn hindered the progress of the survey. Once at the start point of a
transect line, survey and shovel test pits were completed as much as possible in a straight line.
Figure 7. Contours of TSF3 area with depicting canopy covering (RGM, 2021).
Figure 8. Map depicting elevations within the TSF3 area (Bart de Dijn, 2022).
23
Due the steepness of some hills, some GPS points could not be plotted for safety reasons (Map 5).
The total TSF3 Area was divided into 12 transect lines, the shortest line being 0.28 km and the
longest being 2.4 km. In total the 12 transect lines accumulate to 11.78 km, containing a total of
252 STP’s. During the archaeological reconnaissance 125 STP’s out of the 252 anticipated STP’s
were opened. Out of the 252 anticipated STP’S, 127 were either located on disturbed or
inaccessible areas. All 12 lines have been surveyed and are complete (figure 9, 10 & table 3).
24
Table 3. Completed Survey lines specified in conducted STP’s.
Survey Distance Interval Anticipated Conducted Status Note

line (km) STP (m) # STP’s # STP’s
TSF01 0.35 50 8 5 Completed 3 STP’s located on disturbed areas.
TSF02 0.39 50 9 6 Completed 3 STP’s located on disturbed or
unreachable area’s (slope).
TOTAL 11.78 252 125 127 STP’s not taken due to location
on disturbed or unreachable area
(slope).
25
Figure 9. Depiction of TSF3 area with the completed survey lines, specified in detail (Farisha Kartosemito, 2022).
26
Figure 10. Depiction of TSF3 area with completed survey lines on topographic layer (Farisha Kartosemito, 2022).
27
ESS - TSF3 Archaeology June-July survey 2022 (draft)
Figure 11. Location of the Donderbari Cave in relation to the TSF3 area (Farisha Kartosemito, 2022).
4.5 Donderbari cave
On June 12, 2022, a small rock shelter was discovered approximately 260 meters in the northeast
direction from the projected TSF3 area. The rock shelter is situated on the flat top of a hill and has
a height of 3 meters, the entrance has a width of 5 meters and the interior has a depth of 1 meter.
In addition, the rock shelter was accessible and allowed a maximum of three individuals to stand
in it. A quick reconnaissance led into the finding of ceramic sherds and charcoal. The
archaeological finds were reported to the Community Relation Department of RGM and a Chance
Find Procedure form was prepared. Since the Archaeological Service, a sub-department at the
MINOWC (Suriname ministry responsible for culture), is in charge of inspecting potential
archaeological finds, the archaeologist was notified and a field inspection was carried out by her
on June 16, 2022. The field inspection led to: (1.) demarcating a 50-meter buffer zone in order to
prevent the rock shelter from disturbance and (2.) collecting ceramic sherds and lithic on the
surface of the rock shelter. Since the rock shelter is situated in the Donderbari landscape, it was
decided to name it the ‘Donderbari cave’ (Photo 1,2,3 & Figure 12).
28
Photo 1: The Donderbari cave discovered 300m from the projected TSF3 area (Sushmeeta Ganesh, 2022).
Photo 2: view inside of the Donderbari cave (Sushmeeta Ganesh, 2022).
29
Photo 3: ceramic sherds and charcoal pieces collected on the surface of the cave (Santosh Singh, 2022).
30
Figure 12: the Donderbari cave, with 50-meter radius, in relation to the projected TSF3 area (Farisha Kartosemito,
2022).
Rock shelters, also known as crepuscular caves, are shallow cave-like openings at the base of a
bluff or cliff. Rock shelters form because a rock stratum such as sandstone that is resistant to
erosion and weathering has formed a cliff or bluff, but a softer stratum, more subject to erosion
and weathering, lies just below the resistant stratum, and thus undercuts the cliff. The rock shelter
(Donderbari cave) located 260 m from the TSF3 area, might have been formed due to erosion of
loose soil by water at the margin of a ferralitic duricrust. The duricrust is originally formed in the
soil and due to erosion now forms an escarpment at circa 150 m elevation. This escarpment
gradually breaks up. The rock shelter (Donderbari cave) is formed by such a ‘boulder’ remnant in
situ of the broken escarpment (ScienceDirect, n.d. & De Dijn, personal communication).
Furthermore, it can be discussed that cave sites or rock shelters have been used for variety of
purposes throughout the time. According to San Diego Archaeological Center (n.d.), the most
enduring use of caves, from the prehistoric times to the present, has been for shelter. The
prehistoric humanes often used them as living-places and left behind debris, tools and other
31
artifacts. Crothers et al. (2007: 29) and Morton (2015: 3-4) also included ceremonial offering,
(primary and secondary) burial purposes, galleries for pictographs and petroglyphs in connection
with religious rites and other ritual purposes. For the Donderbari cave, no statements can be given
yet on its purposes and occupation. An excavation, according to archaeological methods and
techniques is required to interpret the cave site. The recommendation section provides suggestions.
However, a survey was conducted to document streams, creeks and boulders in the vicinity of the
Donderbari cave in order to establish the context.
4.5.1 Field survey
On July 29 & 30, 2022, a survey was conducted in the vicinity of the Donderbari cave in order to
locate boulders, streams and creeks. A 500-meter radius was created to determine the overlapping
area within the projected TSF3 area. With the aid of extra survey lines (TSF13A-TSF13B,
TSF14A-TSF14B and TSF15A-TSF15B) the section within in the projected TSF3 area was
surveyed. As a result, a total of eight boulders were identified and recorded (Figure 13 & 14).
These were situated in the vicinity of survey line L8, the escarpment of circa 100m extent to the
south, southeast & east and approximately 300 meters from the Donderbari cave. Furthermore,
four boulders were also identified 100 meters from the Donderbari cave itself. The boulders were
inspected, however no archaeological finds were documented. In addition, a pedestrian survey was
conducted along streams and creeks. No additional archaeological finds were documented4.
Figure 13: tracks of the surveyed area within the 500-meter radius. The goal was to identify boulders, streams and
creeks in the vicinity of the Donderbari cave (Farisha Kartosemito, 2022).
4
The streams and creeks are recorded with a handheld GPS device, but not plotted in a map.
32
Figure 14: a survey was conducted in the vicinity of the Donderbari cave in order to document boulders, creeks and
streams. Eight boulders were identified and recorded. In the map, the boulders are represented with red dots (Farisha
Kartosemito, 2022).
4.5.2 Artifact analysis
As mentioned in paragraph 4.5., the survey and field inspection in the Donderbari cave resulted in
the finding of ceramic sherds, lithic and a piece of charcoal. During the finds processing, the
artifacts were washed, cataloged, analyzed and bagged. The objects are coded as 'DB22', followed
by the artifact number5. A total of 23 artifacts were collected, which include 19 soft paste ceramic
sherds, 3 lithic pieces and 1 piece of charcoal (Table 4).
Table 4: artifacts collected in the Donderbari cave
Donderbari Cave
Finders: Santosh Singh, Sushmeeta Ganesh, Farisha Kartosemito, Giovanni Linga, Evert
Dollar
Date Artifact type Amount
12-6-2022 -Ceramic sherd -17
-Charcoal -1
-Lithic -1
16-6-2022 -Ceramic sherd -2
-Lithic -2
5
DB22 refers to Donderbari 2022. An example of a catalog number is DB22-1.
33
Based on the ceramic analysis it can be interpreted that the sherds consisted of clay, quartz and
charcoal. The sherds had a brown- orange, gray color and were not decorated. The surface of the
sherds was eroded, making it difficult to identify any primary construction measure or link with
the known Ceramic Cultures in Suriname. The analysis of the lithic pieces indicate that they have
might have been used as scrapers. This can be speculated based on the shape (chipped), wear type
(flake) and the sharp ends (Photo 2 & 3).
Photo 2: artifacts collected in the Donderbari cave on June 12 th 2022. The artifacts consisted of soft paste ceramic
sherds, charcoal and lithic (Jõvan Ranalfo Samson, 2022).
Photo 3: artifacts collected during the archaeological field inspection on June 16 th 2022. The artifacts consisted of
lithic and soft paste ceramic sherds. The lithic pieces might have been used as scrapers (Jõvan Ranalfo Samson,
2022).
Keeping the above in consideration, it can be assumed that no absolute archaeological data can be
given on the finds made so far. With further surface and subsurface testing or an extensive
archaeological excavation additional data about the Donderbari cave site can be retrieved. Further
articulated in the recommendation section.
34
CONCLUSIONS
This baseline study was conducted to determine the presence of archaeological resources in the
TSF3 Project area. The results presented are based on desktop study, consultation with the study
area communities and reconnaissance in the TSF3 Project footprint.
The national register of heritage sites shows nineteen pre-Columbian archaeological sites located
within a 50 km radius from the TSF3 Project footprint. Maroon archaeological sites do not appear
on the national register of heritage sites. Other historical unrecorded archaeological phenomenon
in the area consists of traces of the Lawa railway and machines and objects of the goldminers
dating back to the beginning of the 20th century. Although present in the area, the railway does not
pass through the TSF3 area.
During the Community engagement session, the inhabitants of the Nieuw Koffiekamp village
claimed not to have come across any pre-Columbian artefacts, but did come across many colonial
artefacts such as bottles and traces of the Lawa Railway.
The total TSF3 Area was divided into 12 transect lines, the shortest line being 0.28 km and the
longest being 2.4 km. In total the 12 transect lines accumulate to 11.78 km, containing a total of
252 STP’s. During the archaeology reconnaissance 125 STP’s were opened. 127 potential STP’s
were either located on disturbed areas or were located on inaccessible areas, such as steep hills and
creeks. Where possible these points were plotted with the GPS, but no STP’s were opened.
All the 12 transect lines were surveyed successfully and no archaeological sites or artefacts have
been identified within the TSF3 area footprint.
A new cave was found approximately 260 meters in the North-eastern direction of the TSF3 area
and was named the Donderbari Cave. The consultants are awaiting further instructions from the
Suriname archaeological service. The SBB Code of Practice declares the establishment of a 50-
meter buffer zone, the stoppage of all ground and the notification of a government specialist when
an object of cultural heritage is discovered, therefore no further earth moving activity will take
place within the buffer zone. A 50-meter buffer around the cave has been established until further
notice and warning signs have been placed at the entrance of the cave.
We recommend the cave to be further investigated as soon as possible in order to gain more
archaeological evidence and historical understanding of the cultural group(s) that might have lived
in that area.
35
LITERATURE CITED
Benjamins, H. D., & Snelleman, J. F. (1918). Encyclopaedie van Nederlandsch West-Indië (1914-1917).
Den Haag/Leiden: Brill.
Bubberman, F. C. (1980). Goud in Suriname. In J. Fontaine, Uit Suriname's Historie: Fragmenten uit een
bewogen verleden. (pp. 125-151). Zutpen: De Walburg Pers.
Crothers, G., Willy, P. & Watson, P.J. (2007). Cave archaeology and the NSS: 1941-2006. In
Journal of cave and karst studies the National Speleological Society bulletin, volume 69, no. 1. P.
27-34. Retrieved from file:///C:/Users/User/Downloads/Cave_archaeology_and_the_NSS1941-
2006.pdf on Thursday, August 11, 2022.
Davies, W.E. & Morgan, I.M. (1991). Geology of caves. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of
the Interior/ U.S. Geological Survey. Retrieved from https://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/7000072/report.pdf
on Thursday, August 11, 2022.
De Dyn, B. (2021). TSF3 IAMGOLD Gros-Rosebel Concession: Financial & Technical Proposal.
Paramaribo: Environmental Services & Support N.V. (ESS).
Morton, S.G. (2015). The Taino use of caves: a review. Canada: University of Calgary/
Department of Archaeology. Retrieved from
https://fieldresearchcentre.weebly.com/uploads/1/8/0/7/18079819/morton_a_2015.pdf on
Thursday, August 11, 2022.
Rescan Environmental Services Ltd, (2002). Environmental Impact Assessment Rosebel Gold
Project, Suriname. Vancouver: British Columbia.
RGM, (2021). New Archaeological Find in Brokopondo, in Suriname. Retrieved from
https://www.iamgold.com/English/investors/news-releases/news-releases-details/2021/New-
archaeological-find-in-Brokopondo-in-Suriname/default.aspx on Wednesday, August 10, 2022.
RGM, (2021). Request for Proposals (RFP) for the service provision of TSF Consulting 2021 to
2023. Suriname: Paramaribo.
San Diego Archaeological Center (n.d.). The wonderful world of cave archaeology. Retrieved from
https://sandiegoarchaeology.org/the-wonderful-world-of-cave-
archaeology/#:~:text=Cave%20archaeology%20is%20still%20a,but%20also%20the%20natural
%20world on Thursday, August 11, 2022.
Versteeg, A. (2003). Suriname before Columbus. Paramaribo: Stichting Surinaams Museum.
White, C. (2017). Tangible Heritage: Produced in support of Sabajo ESIA report. Suriname:
Paramaribo.
36
5.APPENDIX 1: PHOTO LOGS.
37
Photo log 8th June, 2022

DATE: 08- SITE: Recorded on: 08-07-2021
06-2022 TSF01 Rcorder: Farisha Kartosemito
STP WAYPOINT NAME PHOTO PHOTO
- T1 - -
- T2 - -
STP1 T3 - -
STP2 20220608_131615
T4
STP3 20220608_133655
T5
- T6 - -
STP4 20220608_135450
T7
38
STP5 20220608_140111
T8
39
Photo log 9th June 2022

06-2022 TSF03 + TSF10 Recorder: Farisha Kartosemito
TSF03
STP WAYPOINT NAME PHOTO
PHOTO
- T9 - -
- T10 - -
- T11 - -
- T12 - -
- T13 - -
- T14 - -
- T15 - -
20220609_1
31633
STP6 T16
20220609_1
33058
STP7 T17
- T18 - -
- T19 - -
TSF10
- T20 - -
40

06-2022 TSF02+TSF11 Recorder: Farisha Kartosemito
TSF02
- T21 - -
IMG-20220610-
WA0035
STP8 T22
- T23 -
IMG-20220610-
WA0008
STP9 T24
- T25 - -
IMG-20220610-
WA0026
STP10 T26
41
IMG-20220610-
WA0009
STP11 T27
IMG-20220610-
WA0037
STP12 T28
STP13 T29 - -
TSF11
- T30 - -
- T31 - -
IMG-20220610-
WA0029
STP14 T32
42
IMG-20220610-
WA0011
STP15 T33
IMG-20220610-
WA0026
STP16 T34
IMG-20220610-
WA0018
STP17 T35
43
Photolog 11th June, 2022

STP WAYPOINT NAME PHOTO
PHOTO
TSF09
- T36 - -
- T37 - -
20220611_
091009
STP18 T38
20220611_
093207
STP19 T39
20220611_
095413
STP 20 T40
44
20220611_
100643
STP21 T41
20220611_
102338
STP22 T42
20220611_
102338
STP23 T43
45
20220611_
103716
STP24 T44
20220611_
103716
STP25 T45
- T46 - -
- T47 - -
TSF10
- T48 - -
- T49 - -
- T50 - -
46
20220611_
125006
STP26 T51
- T52 -
TSF09
- T53 - -
- T54 - -
20220611_
142150
STP27 T55
STP28 T56 - -
47
20220611_
143146
STP29 T57
20220611_
143657
STP30 T58
48
20220611_
144353
STP31 T59
20220611_
145004
STP32 T60
- T61 - -
TSF10
- T62 - -
- T63 - -
49

TSF09
STP33 T64 20220612_092
707
20220612_094
025
STP34 T65
50
20220612_094
623
STP35 T66
- T67 -
20220612_105
354
STP36 T68
TSF08
51
20220612_113
651
STP37 T69
20220612_114
825
STP38 T70
- T71 -
52
20220612_123
641
STP39 T72
20220612_124
546
STP40 T73
53
20220612_124
956
STP41 T74
STP42 T75 - -
20220612_130
622
STP43 T76
- T77 -
20220612_134
103
STP44 T78
54
20220612_135
350
STP45 T79
20220612_140
401
STP46 T80
55

TSF05
- T81 -
- T82 -
20220613_092
927
STP47 T83
- T84 -
- T85 -
TSF04
20220613_105
220
STP48 T86
56
20220613_111
146
STP49 T87
20220613_111
958
STP50 T88
57
20220613_112
610
STP51 T89
20220613_115
416
STP52 T90
- T91 -
TSF05
- T92 -
- T93 -
58
20220613_132
007
STP53 T94
20220613_132
744
STP54 T95
20220613_133
359
STP55 T96
59
20220613_134
040
STP56 T97
20220613_134
647
STP57 T98
20220613_135
350
STP58 T99
- T100 -
60
20220613_142
933
STP59 T101
20220613_143
947
STP60 T102
20220613_145
053
STP61 T103
61
20220613_150
306
STP62 T104
20220613_150
819
STP63 T105
20220613_151
458
STP64 T106
62
20220613_151
738
STP65 T107
20220613_152
213
STP66 T108
63

TSF05
STP67 T109 20220614_104
541
20220614_105
746
STP68 T110
64
20220614_111
849
STP69 T111
- T112 -
TSF04
20220614_123
153
STP70 T113
- T114 -
- T115 -
65
20220614_130
828
STP71 T116
20220614_131
954
STP72 T117
20220614_135
914
STP73 T118
66

06-2022 TSF06 Recorder: Farisha Kartosemito
- T119 -
20220615_093
553
STP74 T120
20220615_095
216
STP75 T121
- T122 -
- T123 -
20220615_105
245
STP76 T124
- T125 -
- T126 -
67
20220615_121
008
STP77 T127
20220615_121
608
STP78 T128
20220615_123
002
STP79 T129
68
20220615_125
749
STP80 T130
20220615_130
340
STP81 T131
20220615_131
515
STP82 T132
69
Photo log 26th July, 2022

DATE: 26- SITE: Recorder: Recorded on: 26-08-2021
07-2022 TSF07 Farisha Digital Recorder: Farisha Kartosemito
Kartosemito
- T133 - -
- T134 - -
- T135 - -
- T136 - -
20220726_124047
STP83 T137
20220726_131024
STP84 T138
- T139 - -
- T140 - -
- T141 - -
- T142 - -
- T143 - -
- T144 - -
- T145 - -
70
20220726_145557
STP85 T146
- T147 - -
71

Kartosemito
- T149 -
- T150 -
- T151 -
- T152 -
20220727_122130
STP94 T153
20220727_123222
STP95 T154
72
20220727_123939
STP96 T155
20220727_124913
STP97 T156
73

Kartosemito
STP100 T157 20220728_095329
20220728_100756
STP101 T158
- T159 - -
20220728_104250
STP102 T160
74
- T161 -
20220728_110729
STP103 T162
20220728_112621
STP104 T163
- T164 - -
75
20220728_114802
STP105 T165
20220728_120045
STP106 T166
- T167 - -
- T168 - -
- T169 - -
76
20220728_131204
STP107 T170
20220728_132001
STP108 T171
20220728_132955
STP109 T172
- T173 - -
77

07-2022 TSF08 Sushmeeta Rcorder: Farisha Kartosemito
Ganesh
STP122 IMG_6716
T233
IMG_6717
STP123 T234
IMG_6718
STP124 T235
78
IMG_6719
STP125 T236
- T237 - -
IMG_6720
STP126 T238
79
Photo log 31st July, 2022

07-2022 TSF08 Sushmeeta Digital Recorder: Farisha Kartosemito
Ganesh
STP127 IMG_6733
T239
IMG_6735
STP128 T240
IMG_6736
STP129 T241
80
6.APPENDIX 2. STP LOGS
81
ESS - TSF3 Aquatic Ecology Baseline Study: Initial Report Wet Season 2022 (draft)
STP log 8th June,2022

Site: IAMGOLD Proposed TSF3 Area
District: Brokopondo
Coordinates: 21 N 697373 569441
Date: 08-06-2022
Name of recorder: Farisha Kartosemito
Present on site: Santosh Singh; Farisha Kartosemito & Sushmeeta Ganesh

Line cutters: Arti Amania & mr. Astrano
# WP: 8
# STPS: 5
# KM: 0.35
Digitally recorded on: 03-07-2022

Location: Tamansarie, Commewijne
Name digital recorder: Farisha Kartosemito
TSF01
STP Waypoints Topography Soil Description Photo Finds UTM Coordinates Elevation (m)
Description
- T1 Flat; - - - 21 N 695449 569185 90
Disturbed; SSM Road
- T2 Flat; Disturbed; Creek - - - 21 N 695446 569285 60
Light - 21 N 695443 569244 70
STP1 T3 Slope Brown/Grey -
Light 20220608_131615 - 21 N 695418 569333 60
STP2 T4 Slope Brown/Grey
82
Light 20220608_133655 - 21 N 695436 569380 75

- T6 Flat; Disturbed; Road - - 21 N 695441 569433 74
Dark Brown/ 20220608_135450 - 21 N 695443 569498 82
STP4 T7 Flat Grey
STP5 T8 Slope Light Brown 20220608_140111 - 21 N 695421 569523 66
83
STP log 9th June, 2022

Coordinates: 21 N 697373 569441
Date: 09-06-2022

Line cutters: Giovanni Linga & mr. Everts
# WP: 12
# STPS: 2
# KM: 0.51

TSF03
Description
- T9 Slope; Disturbed; - - - 21 N 695673 569155 66
Creek
- T10 Slope; Disturbed - - - 21 N 695695 569193 54
- T13 Flat; Disturbed; Road - - - 21 N 695672 569353 48
84
Wet; Light 20220609_131633 - 21 N 695679 569500 46

Brown/Grey;
STP6 T16 Flat Roots
Wet; Light 20220609_133058 - 21 N 695668 569550 54
STP7 T17 Slope Brown; Roots
- T18 Slope Laterite - - 21 N 695682 569600 64
- T19 Flat Laterite - - 21 N 695662 569647 75
TSF10
85

Coordinates: 21 N 697373 569441
Date: 10-06-2022

# WP: 15
# STPS: 10
# KM: 0.7

TSF02
Description
- T21 Disturbed; Road - - - 21 N 695626 570604 82
Light Brown; IMG-20220610- 21 N 695625 570548 64

STP8 T22 Flat Stones WA0035 -
- T23 Steep Slope - - - 21 N 695638 570502 102
Light Brown; IMG-20220610- - 21 N 695615 570652 59
STP9 T24 Slope Stones WA0008
- T25 Disturbed - - - 21 N 695630 570700 41
86
Light Brown IMG-20220610- - 21 N 695639 570750 64

STP10 T26 Slope WA0026
Light Brown IMG-20220610- - 21 N 695617 570801 101
Light Brown IMG-20220610- - 21 N 695608 570848 98
STP13 T29 Slope Brown/Red - - 21 N 695614 570890 110
TSF11
- T31 Disturbed; Road - - 21 N 695700 570958 145
Slope Brown/Grey IMG-20220610- - 21 N 695754 570978 143
STP14 T32 WA0029
Slope Light Brown IMG-20220610- - 21 N 695794 570994 145
STP15 T33 WA0011
Slope Light Brown; IMG-20220610- - 21 N 695852 571003 104
STP16 T34 Stones; Roots WA0026
Slope Light Brown IMG-20220610- - 21 N 695878 571000 84
STP17 T35 WA0018
87

Coordinates: 21 N 697373 569441
Date: 11-06-2022

# WP: 28
# STPS: 15
# KM: 1.33

TSF09
Description
- T36 Disturbed; Dam 7 - - - 21 N 697157 568732 54
- T37 Disturbed; Dam 7 - - - 21 N 697143 568766 40

Dark Brown; 20220611_091009 21 N 697141 568863 52
STP18 T38 Slope Roots -
88
Light Brown; 20220611_093207 - 21 N 697193 568903 62

STP19 T39 Slope Rootlets
Light Brown; 20220611_095413 - 21 N 697161 568938 45
STP 20 T40 Slope Stones
Light Brown; 20220611_100643 - 21 N 697148 568986 53
STP21 T41 Slope Stones
Dark Brown; 20220611_102338 - 21 N 697135 569035 71
Light 20220611_102338 - 21 N 697151 569088 58
Dark Brown/ 20220611_103716 - 21 N 697161 569138 59
STP25 T45 Flat Dark Brown 20220611_103716 - 21 N 697144 569185 45
Flat; Disturbed; SSM - - - 21 N 697143 569249 41
- T46 Road
TSF10
- T50 Disturbed; Dam 7 - - - 21 N 697412 569280 30
Slope Light Brown/ 20220611_125006 - 21 N 697409 569365 79
STP26 T51 Grey; Stones
TSF09
- T54 Disturbed; Creek - - - 21 N 697123 569323 49
Light Brown; 20220611_142150 - 21 N 697138 569437 55
STP27 T55 Slope Roots
STP28 T56 Slope Light Brown - - 21 N 697138 569487 83
Light 20220611_143146 - 21 N 697152 569534 70
Brown/Grey;
Light Brown; 20220611_143657 - 21 N 697129 569578 86
STP30 T58 Flat Stones
Light Brown; 20220611_144353 - 21 N 697124 569632 85
Light 20220611_145004 - 21 N 697126 569689 98
STP32 T60 Flat Brown/Grey
TSF10
- T61 Disturbed - - - 21 N 697141 569730 82
89
- T62 Disturbed - - - 21 N 697410 569317 -

- T63 Disturbed - - - 21 N 697152 568824 -
90

Coordinates: 21 N 697373 569441
Date: 12-06-2022

# WP: 17
# STPS: 14
# KM: 0.8

TSF09
Description
STP34 T65 Slope Dark Brown 20220612_094025 - 21 N 697134 569832 111

- T67 Disturbed - - - 21 N 697117 569923 116
91
TSF08
STP38 T70 Slope Light Bron 20220612_114825 - 21 N 696853 569973 87
Light Brown; 20220612_123641 - 21 N 696818 570026 103
Light Brown; 20220612_124546 21 N 696853 570069 98
Light Brown; 20220612_124956 - 21 N 696857 570107 88
Slope Light Brown; - - 21 N 696842 570170 79
STP42 T75 Stones
Slope Light 20220612_130622 - 21 N 696860 570212 83
Brown/Red;
STP43 T76 Stones
- T77 Disturbed - - - 21 N 696848 570269 89
Slope Light Brown/ 20220612_134103 - 21 N 696866 570320 78
STP44 T78 Red; Stones
Light Brown/ 20220612_135350 - 21 N 696862 570363 85
STP45 T79 Slope Red; Stones
Light Brown/ 20220612_140401 - 21 N 696838 570406 97
STP46 T80 Flat Red
92

Coordinates: 21 N 697373 569441
Date: 13-06-2022

# WP: 28
# STPS: 20
# KM: 1.5

TSF05
Description
Disturbed; Start SSM - - - 21 N 696176 568796 32
- T85 area
TSF04
STP48 T86 Slope Brown/Grey 20220613_105220 - 21 N 695925 569004 80
93
Brown/ Red’ 20220613_111146 - 21 N 695937 569049 67

STP50 T88 Flat Brown/Grey 20220613_111958 - 21 N 695919 569102 40
STP51 T89 Flat Brown 20220613_112610 - 21 N 695920 569155 47
STP52 T90 Flat Brow 20220613_115416 - 21 N 695917 569216 43
TSF05
- T93 Disturbed; SSM - - - 21 N 696147 569270 33
STP53 T94 Slope Brown; Stones 20220613_132007 - 21 N 696150 569301 62
Brown/Red; 20220613_133359 - 21 N 696146 569404 81
STP56 T97 Slope Brown 20220613_134040 - 21 N 696149 569459 75
Dark Brown; 20220613_134647 - 21 N 696137 569506 74
Dark Brown; 20220613_135350 - 21 N 696139 569557 74
Brown/Red; 20220613_143947 - 21 N 696135 569703 69
Brown/Red; 20220613_145053 - 21 N 696138 569749 60
STP61 T103 Slope stones
Dark Brown; 20220613_150306 - 21 N 696138 569806 84
Dark Brown; 20220613_150819 - 21 N 696128 569850 80
Dark brown; 20220613_151458 - 21 N 696118 569910 71
Red/Brown; 20220613_151738 - 21 N 696126 569948 63
Red/Brown; 20220613_152213 - 21 N 696124 569999 72
94

Coordinates: 21 N 697373 569441
Date: 14-06-2022

# WP: 9
# STPS: 7
# KM: 0.4

TSF05
Description
STP67 T109 Slope Light Brown; 20220614_104541 - 21 N 696108 570056 54
Stones
TSF04
STP70 T113 Flat Brown; Stones 20220614_123153 - 21 N 695910 569564 35
- T114 Disturbed; SSM - - - 21 N 695905 569617 34
95
- T115 Disturbed; SSM - - - 21 N 695894 569664 43

STP71 T116 Slope Brown/Red 20220614_130828 - 21 N 695883 569705 47
96

Coordinates: 21 N 697373 569441
Date: 15-06-2022

# WP: 9
# STPS: 7
# KM: 0.8

TSF06
Description

- T123 Disturbed; SSM - - - 21 N 696407 568668 32
- T125 Disturbed; SSM - - - 21 N 696411 568770 -
- T126 Disturbed; SSM - - - 21 N 696414 568977 36
97
Dark Brown; 20220615_121008 - 21 N 696415 569027 38

Dark Brown; 20220615_121608 - 21 N 696412 569066 37
Dark Brown; 20220615_123002 - 21 N 696416 569117 36
Dark Brown; 20220615_125749 - 21 N 696403 569171 47
Dark Brown; 20220615_130340 - 21 N 696423 569218 56
Dark Brown; 20220615_131515 - 21 N 696418 569258 76
98

Coordinates: 21 N 697373 569441
Date: 26-07-2022
Present on site: Santosh Singh & Farisha Kartosemito (TEAM A)

Line cutters: mr. Everts
# WP: 16
# STPS: 4
# KM: 0.9

TSF07
Description
- T133 Disturbed - - - 21 N 696658 568488 84

- T135 Laterite - - - 21 N 696662 568587 58
- T136 Laterite - - - 21 N 696655 568637 49
Light 20220726_131024 - 21 N 696656 568752 59
99
- T139 Slope; Laterite - - - 21 N 696658 568808 52

- T141 Disturbed; SSM - - - 21 N 696656 568905 49
- T142 Disturbed; SSM - - - 21 N 696648 569000 39
- T143 Disturbed; SSM - - - 21 N 696666 569105 41
- T144 Disturbed; SSM - - - 21 N 696656 569151 38
- T145 Disturbed; SSM - - - 21 N 696627 569197 34
Slope Light 20220726_145557 - 21 N 696656 569260 47
Brown/Red;
STP85 T146 Laterite
- T147 Laterite - - - 21 N 696652 569306 65
100
Name of recorder: Sushmeeta Ganesh
Present on site: Sushmeeta Ganesh & Jovan Samson (TEAM B)

Line cutters: Giovanni Linga
# WP: 13
# STPS: 7
# KM: 0.7

TSF08
Description
- T200 - - 21 N 696904 568495 77
- T201 - - 21 N 696913 568544 79

T202 Light brown soil IMG_6658 - 21 N 696908 568600 76
STP87 Slope
T203 Brown soil with IMG_6659 - 21 N 696899 568630 73
STP88 Crown of hill roots
T204 Compost or dark IMG_6660 - 21 N 696900 568681 73
brown soil
Roots with
STP89 Crown of hill seprolite
T205 Abanoned Small scale - 21 N 696895 568729 74
- mining road
101
T206 Brown soil with IMG_6661 - 21 N 696895 568780 73

laterite and
roots
STP90 Slope
T207 Light brown soil IMG_6662 - 21 N 696893 568831 51
Roots
STP91 Slope
T208 Light brown soil - - 21 N 696893 568930 59
layer with roots
Slope down
- Slope 10 cm
T209 Dark brown soil - - 21 N 696891 568976 60
layer with
laterite
Slope down
- Slope 10 cm
STP92 T210 Small scale mining - IMG_6663 - 21 N 696888 569029 56
area
STP93 T211 Abandoned small - IMG_6664 - 21 N 696887 569078 52
scale mining area
- T212 Slope Light brown soil - - 21 N 696884 569126 41
layer with roots
T213 Slope Dark brown soil - - 21 N 696882 569177 36
layer with
- laterite
102

Coordinates: 21 N 697373 569441
Date: 27-07-2022

Line cutters: mr. Everts
# WP: 8
# STPS: 4
# KM: 0.3

TSF04
Description
- T149 Disturbed; SSM - - - 21 N 695908 569517 36

STP94 T153 Slope Dark Brow 20220727_122130 - 21 N 695844 570955 110
Red/Brown; 20220727_123222 - 21 N 695846 570905 101
STP95 T154 Slope Wet
103
STP96 T155 Slope Red/Brown 20220727_123939 - 21 N 695850 570857 87

STP97 T156 Slope Red/Brown 20220727_124913 - 21 N 695855 570808 71
104

Line cutters: Giovanni Linga
# WP: 5
# STPS: 2
# KM: 0.2

TSF08
Description
STP98 T214 Slope Light Brown; IMG_6674 21 N 696865 569873 55
Laterite
- T215 - - - - 21 N 696864 569823 55
T216 Light IMG_6675 - 21 N 696864 569777 70
Brown/Grey;
STP99 Edge Laterite
- T217 21 N 696872 569733 46
- T218 21 N 696896 569687 49
105

Coordinates: 21 N 697373 569441
Date: 28-07-2022

Line cutters: mr. Aarti Amania
# WP: 17
# STPS: 10
# KM: 0.9

TSF04
Description
STP100 T157 Flat Light Brown 20220728_095329 - 21 N 695860 570611 58

- T159 Disturbed - - - 21 N 695861 570501 93
Dark Brown; 20220728_104250 - 21 N 695863 570452 94
STP102 T160 Slope Laterite
- T161 Laterite - - - 21 N 695869 570408 90
106

- T164 Laterite - - - 21 N 695869 570252 92
- T167 Laterite - - - 21 N 695891 570109 88
- T168 Laterite - - - 21 N 695892 570068 80
- T169 Laterite - - - 21 N 695886 570010 74
Slope Light Brown; 20220728_131204 - 21 N 695880 569957 84
STP107 T170 Stones
- T173 - - - 21 N 695894 569765 74
107

Line cutters: Mr. Wimfred Main & Mr. Astrando Jozefzoon
# WP: 14
# STPS: 12
# KM: 0.8

TSF11 +
TSF05
Description
STP110 T219 Slope Light Brown IMG_6689 - 21 N 695949 571001 56
Roots
T220 Orange/Brown; IMG_6690 - 21 N 695994 571000 68
STP111 Slope Roots
STP112 T221 Slope Orange/Brown IMG_6691 - 21 N 696047 570997 90
STP113 T222 Slope Brown; Roots IMG_6692 - 21 N 696094 570997 106
Brown; Roots; IMG_6694 - 21 N 696096 570898 115
STP115 T224 Slope Laterite
Grey/Yellow; IMG_6695 - 21 N 696098 570847 108
Brown/Orange; IMG_6697 - 21 N 696102 570748 95
108
STP119 T228 Slope Orange/ Brown IMG_6698 - 21 N 696103 570697 82

Orange/Brown; IMG_6699 - 21 N 696105 570647 59
STP121 Flat Orange; Brown; IMG_6700 - 21 N 696106 570599 52
T230 Roots
- T231 Disturbed; SSM - - - 21 N 696108 570549 47
- T232 Disturbed; SSM - - - 21 N 696108 570402 44
109

Coordinates: 21 N 697373 569441
Date: 29-07-2022

Line cutters: mr. Aarti Amania
# WP: 8
# STPS: -
# KM: 0.3

TSF08
Description
- Boulder 1 - - - - 21 N 696864 570288 95
- Boulder 2 - - - - 21 N 696859 570275 92

- Boulder 3 - - - - 21 N 696871 570312 104
- B41 - - - - 21 N 696833 570181 104
- B51 - - - - 21 N 696867 570175 107
- B6 - - - - 21 N 696881 570167 106
- B81 - - - - 21 N 696834 570295 85
110
- B91 - - - - 21 N 696871 570284 84
111

# WP: 6
# STPS: 5
# KM: 0.3

TSF12
Description
STP122 Crown of the hill Orange/Brown; IMG_6716 - 21 N 696792 570422 87
T233 Roots
Brown-Orange; IMG_6717 - 21 N 696740 570426 83
STP123 T234 Edge Roots
Brown- Orange; IMG_6719 - 21 N 696847 570420 83
- T237 Stream - - - 21 N 696898 570415 74
112
STP log 31st June, 2022

Coordinates: 21 N 697373 569441
Date: 31-07-2022

# WP: 3
# STPS: 3
# KM: 0.8

TSF11
Description
STP127 Slope Brown/Grey; IMG_6733 - 21 N 696122 570956 114
T239 Roots
STP128 T240 Crown Brown; Roots IMG_6735 - 21 N 696149 570911 120
STP129 T241 Crown Brown; Roots IMG_6736 - 21 N 696162 570888 121
113

Archaeology Baseline Study TSF3 Complete Report 2022 - Singh (BDD Review..

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Archaeology Baseline Study TSF3 Complete Report 2022 - Singh (BDD Review..

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Archaeology Baseline Study TSF3 Complete Report 2022 - Singh (BDD Review..

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IAMGold – RGM Gros-Rosebel concession

Archaeology Baseline Study TSF3

IAMGold – RGM Gros-Rosebel concession

Reviewed by Bart De Dyn (director, and senior ESIA expert at ESS)

Submitted To IAMGold – Rosebel Gold Mines N.V. (RGM),

on behalf of Environmental Services & Support NV (ESS),

Paramaribo, September 7th, 2022

SSM (artisanal) Small-Scale (gold) mining / miner

1. SCOPE OF WORK AND PROJECT AREA

Map 1: the location of RGM in

1.2 Projected TSF3 area

In January 2021, RGM’s Environmental and Community Relations Department conducted a

Article 20 of the Monument Law 2002 describes the following:

Article 21 of the Monument Law 2002 describes the following:

- Gebieden van cultureel belang, nederzettingen, akkers, cultuurhistorische, spirituele en

- Areas of cultural interest, settlements, fields, cultural-historical, spiritual and

2.4 Registered archeological sites near TSF3

2.5 Colonial period heritage

Table 2: IAMGOLD’s Stakeholder communities.

No Village Established Location Note

Figure 5. Timeline of Maroon historical events (White 2017, 18).

7. How should IAMGOLD act if an archaeological feature/site is identified during the

Table 3. Completed Survey lines specified in conducted STP’s.

Survey Distance Interval Anticipated Conducted Status Note

4.5 Donderbari cave

Photo 2: view inside of the Donderbari cave (Sushmeeta Ganesh, 2022).

4.5.2 Artifact analysis

5.APPENDIX 1: PHOTO LOGS.

Photo log 8th June, 2022

Photo log 9th June 2022

Photo log 10th June, 2022

Photolog 11th June, 2022

Photo log 12th June, 2022

DATE: 13- SITE: Recorded on: 13-07-2021

Photo log 14th June, 2022

Photo log 15th June, 2022

Photo log 26th July, 2022

Photo log 27th July, 2022

Photo log 28th July, 2022

Photo log 29th July, 2022

Photo log 31st July, 2022

6.APPENDIX 2. STP LOGS

STP log 8th June,2022

Present on site: Santosh Singh; Farisha Kartosemito & Sushmeeta Ganesh

Digitally recorded on: 03-07-2022

Light 20220608_133655 - 21 N 695436 569380 75

STP log 9th June, 2022

Present on site: Santosh Singh; Farisha Kartosemito & Sushmeeta Ganesh

Digitally recorded on: 03-07-2022

Wet; Light 20220609_131633 - 21 N 695679 569500 46

STP log 10th June, 2022

Present on site: Santosh Singh; Farisha Kartosemito & Sushmeeta Ganesh

Digitally recorded on: 04-07-2022

Light Brown; IMG-20220610- 21 N 695625 570548 64

Light Brown IMG-20220610- - 21 N 695639 570750 64

STP log 11th June, 2022

Site: IAMGOLD Proposed TSF3 Area

Present on site: Santosh Singh; Farisha Kartosemito & Sushmeeta Ganesh