Management Versus Preservation: Archaeological Heritage Management in a Transforming South Africa

Abstract

The discipline of archaeology has, like any other discipline, undergone transformation of various kinds over years. Such transformation is encouraged by various factors, which may range from the need to improve research techniques and theoretical frameworks to extract better results from the material culture to racial transforming within the discipline. The latter is true in the case of South Africa. An effort to bring about racial transformation within South African archaeology was initiated in 2007 by three African archaeologists who had the desire to see meaningful changes happening in the discipline following the democratic transition in 1994. A transformation charter was approved by the professional structure of archaeology in Southern Africa a year later. In it, we not only strive to achieve racial balance within the archaeological discipline, but explore how archaeology is practised in the context of archaeological heritage management. What does this transformation agenda mean for the management of archaeological resources? How can South African archaeological heritage management, through the transformation charter, bring about a truly post-colonial and Africanist archaeology? A review of post-colonial and Africanist ideology in the context of heritage management will be presented. In the case of South Africa, current archaeological heritage management principles are one-dimensional and Eurocentric in that the physical approach to heritage management is emphasized. This approach is at loggerheads with an approach based on African understanding of archaeological heritage management. To highlight this phenomenon, I shall briefl y discuss the current heritage legislation. I conclude the paper by arguing that a post-colonial and Africanist archaeology cannot be meaningfully achieved by a mere change of theoretical principles, but by the full incorporation of professionals from across the racial divide. In the context of the paper, archaeological heritage management should not be about managing African heritage for the Africans in their absence.

Rock Art Tourism

“…In many parts of the world, the appropriateness of rock art tourism first and foremost must consider local Indigenous cultural values, protocols, and aspirations (which usually themselves enhance the visitor experience of the art as 'living culture'). Such cultural concerns may vary considerably between regions (Loubser 2001;Ndlovu 2011). With the exception of a few northern Scandinavian sites (e.g., Mulk & Bayliss-Smith 2006), this is in marked contrast with the situation in Europe, where the art revolves around its visual qualities and as archaeological relics, rather than as living Indigenous sites.…”

“…For Indigenous communities, rock art sites are often part of living ancestral landscapes, with most sites valued and used for reasons greater than is evident from the art alone (e.g., Chirikure & Pwiti 2008;Jopela & Fredriksen 2015;Ndlovu 2011;Pearson & Sullivan 1995). Rock art management therefore involves more than 'preserving what we see'; it also involves 'preserving what we feel' and 'preserving what we use' (Ndlovu 2011). This requires a more integrated and holistic management approach than that normally used in Europe (Ndoro 2006).…”

“…Issues of authorship, cultural ownership, and ancestry are particularly potent in postcolonial contexts. There is the need to address past inequities while also recognizing the new complexities of postcolonial identities (Ndlovu 2011). Independent former colonies also have the difficult task of uniting diverse cultural groups within a new national framework that also respects cultural pluralism (Hampson 2013).…”

The Oxford Handbook of the Archaeology and Anthropology of Rock Art

“…In many parts of the world, the appropriateness of rock art tourism first and foremostly need to consider local Indigenous cultural values, protocols and aspirations (which usually themselves enhance the visitor experience of the art as 'living culture'). Such cultural concerns may vary considerably between regions (Loubser 2001;Ndlovu 2011). With the exception of a few northern Scandinavian sites (e.g.…”

Guest Editorial

“…In Africa rock art is mostly found in easily accessible open-air sites and these human factors are often linked with a variety of uses: domestic, spiritual, medicinal and/ or tourist. These factors are made more complex by polymorphic cultural and identity stakes (Duval 2012), as rock art sites are linked with the history of the peopling and the evolution of the activities and land uses (Pleurdeau et al 2012), today mobilised by various stakeholders in post-colonial contexts (Hampson 2013;Ndlovu 2011). All in all, because they have permeated people's natural, cultural and mental landscapes for such a long time, rock art sites not only raise the usual issues related to heritage-making process but also shed a revealing light on the relationships between stakeholders, space and time (Harvey 2001).…”