Empty Promises and False Hopes: the case of Matobo Hills Cultural World Heritage Landscape, South Western Zimbabwe

Over the last few decades, some African Archaeologists and Heritage Managers have carried out a lot of research on legislation and the management of heritage sites in sub-Saharan Africa. These researchers have shown and argued that before the sub Saharan African states were colonised by European countries, heritage sites were managed by traditional laws and regulations (see Ndoro and Pwiti 2005; Mahachi and Kamuhangire 2008; Makuvaza 2007, 2008; Musonda 2005). These traditional laws and practices protected heritage sites such as sacred groves and forests with an abundance of wild fruits or animals, rock shelters, streams, rivers, rainmaking shrines, royal and chiefly burial places, palaces and temples (Eborieme 2008; Mahachi and Kamuhangire 2008). The traditional methods were put in place by the local communities and they were passed from one generation to the next (Eboreime 2008), and these sites were protected by a culture of avoidance of abandoned villages and homesteads believed to be the abodes of the spirits of former inhabitants (Mahachi and Kamuhangire 2008). In Zimbabwe, some sites such as Njelele in the Matobo Hills and Great Zimbabwe (both World Heritage Sites) had permanent site custodians who were appointed to keep them and to receive pilgrims (Ranger 1999; Makuvaza 2008; Mahachi and Kamuhangire 2008), while others had no regular stewardship and they were revered and respected by the local people living around them (Chiwaura
2005).
The traditional laws were upheld by local communities and enforced by community elders such as traditional chiefs through their headmen, as well as by spirit mediums. However, these traditional laws and regulations were not written down and they constituted customary laws (Chiwaura 2005; Eboreine 2008; Mahachi and Kamuhangire 2008). According to Chiwaura, customary law is not usually recognized because it does not have formalized structure and it is understood through day to day norms and restrictions. Customary law is the product of the accumulation of indigenous
knowledge systems over long periods of time, and it involves people at the grassroots level where most of the heritage is found. All members of the community are expected to possess traditional community knowledge, which varies with gender, age, social and economic status. Punishment and penalties for contravention are based on traditional procedures at the traditional courts (Chiwaura 2005). When the sub Saharan African states were colonised, early European settlers assumed there was no law protecting heritage sites in the region. As a result, new laws based on European derived legislation were introduced to preserve heritage sites in much of this part of the continent. It has been argued, however that these laws clearly focused on the physical aspects of the sites, and the rules and regulations were prescribed to distance people from them (Ndoro 2001; Pwiti and Ndoro 2005; Munjeri 2005).
According to Munjeri (2005), many traditional practices such as rituals and ceremonies are still not allowed, and strict controls have been set up to regulate activities and use of the sites, and only tourists and educational groups have free access to them. Modern heritage legislation in this case has been criticised for overriding African traditional methods of preserving heritage sites and has
been seen as an instrument of oppression rather than of protection (Munjeri 2005; Mumma 2005). The traditional legal systems of managing heritage and the modern state systems have therefore competed for legitimacy and influence but the state based legal systems have predominated and have completely succeeded in marginalising the community based legal systems (Mumma 2005).
Based on the above arguments, some scholars have argued and advocated for the consideration and recognition of the traditional methods of managing sites when nominating them on the World Heritage List (WHL) (see Ndoro 2004; Sullivan 2004). In this regard, UNESCO has accepted and recognised the traditional measures in place when nominating sites on the WHL (see Paragraph 132 of the UNESCO Operational Guidelines 2008), and that the major categories of land ownership should be clearly indicated, which may include the state, provincial, private, community, traditional, customary, and non-governmental and others. This process of nominating sites on the WHL has made community participation a necessity and this has, as expected, raised hopes that after decades of being alienated from their heritage as a result of colonialism, communities would eventually be able to be involved in heritage management decisions, restore traditional methods of managing
these sites as well as owning and benefiting from them.
Using the Matobo World Heritage Site as a case study, located in south western Zimbabwe, this paper shows that before part of the area was created as a national park it was managed and preserved by traditional laws and regulations. It further shows that after the colonisation of Zimbabwe by the British settler government, and a national park was established in part of the area, modern legislation systems to manage heritage were put in place, replacing and suppressing the traditional management systems. Abolishing the national parks and giving land back to the local communities
and restoration of traditional methods of management was one of the objectives of waging a war of liberation in Zimbabwe and other African states in sub Saharan Africa. The paper demonstrates that the communities living around the site had hoped that this problem would be addressed when the country was liberated from the colonial rule but three decades afte independence, this has not happened. It further shows that the proclamation of the Matobo Hills as a Cultural World Heritage Landscape, which emphasised consultation and involvement of the communities would relax both the colonial and post colonial laws and lead to the reinstatement of the traditional laws and methods of managing the site. The paper then discusses and argues that although the nomination process for sites on the WHL says that the traditional methods of managing them should be clearly stated, this requirement does not necessarily mean that the traditional methods of management
would be reinstated in cases where they have been replaced by modern laws. For this reason, many World Heritage Sites in sub Saharan Africa, including the Matobo Hills have continued to be governed by modern legislation systems and the local communities have continued to be alienated regardless of their efforts to have the traditional laws and methods of management restored.