Zimbabwe’s Archaeological Heritage

with Mr Kundishora Tungamirai Chipunza, Director of Research and Development for the National Museums and Monuments of Zimbabwe (NMMZ)

An interview Conducted and Transcribed by

Dr Ezekia Mtetwa

MAEASaM Postdoctoral Researcher for Zimbabwe

University of Uppsala, Sweden

 

 

Over the past two months, Dr Ezekia Mtetwa has been working with museum staff at the National Museums and Monuments of Zimbabwe (NMMZ) in Harare on the digitisation of archaeological sites and monuments paper-based records. During this time, Dr Mtetwa met with Mr Chipunza, Director of Research and Development for NMMZ and collaborator of the MAEASaM Project, to seek his thoughts on current challenges and future possibilities for digital heritage management in a southern African context.

 

Q. What are the current challenges and needs in the preservation of heritage sites in Zimbabwe?

We have a diverse range of heritage in Zimbabwe that ranges from rock art, stonewalled buildings, historical monuments, liberation heritage, as well as natural history monuments, among many others. The current challenge is that the preservation techniques for these monuments and the methods that are used for their recording are all so different. For an institution like ours at the National Museums and Monuments of Zimbabwe (NMMZ) the capacity to match such diversity is a big challenge. It calls for diversity in expertise and in the technologies deployed for this type of work.

The current categorisation of monuments is an inherited system, the foundations of which have been largely rooted in colonial legacies.  The colonial frameworks are challenging to overhaul, and this is something we confront on an ongoing basis. Apart from the fact that we are not the originators of these past conservation frameworks, we are also not responsible for their significance rating. We also do not have a system where we declassify monuments. Of course, every monument is important because it forms part of our heritage. It means we must ensure that we carry everything with us and make it sustainable for future generations. It is also a legal challenge particularly on how the law applies to the status of heritage sites. As I mentioned, there is no room for declassifying monuments.

Most importantly, the people who had initiated the preservation of monuments and sites in Zimbabwe did not properly record the traditional protocols that were once used for the preservation of heritage prior to the coming of colonisation. In many instances these traditional protocols have been lost and there is a need to re-engineer such protocols by going back to the people who were once the keepers of such sites. This is something that I think will remain a challenge for future conservators.

 

Q. What are the current threats facing archaeological sites in Zimbabwe?

There are environmental threats induced by climate change, particularly in terms of natural heritage. It is changing the landscape and protocols for its future conservation. For example, owing to climatic shifts, wildlife such as elephant populations are moving longer distances in search of water sources, changing their pathways and corridors as they move. In some instances, these corridors are passing through cultural heritage sites where they once were avoided, causing quite a lot of destruction.

There are other challenges. For example, the land reform [which officially began in the 1980s in Zimbabwe] ushered in a new era in the population of the country. People were moved from areas, consequently severing physical connections to heritage landmarks. This led to the serious neglect of cultural and religious sites. There were also cases of sites which were previously being used for consumptive tourism. This was historically connected to the shift to agrarian reform where newly resettled farmers in many cases did not have the same view of heritage and for example, blocks from stonewalled sites were used for the construction of domestic architecture. Unfortunately, NMMZ could not keep pace with the land reform programme in order to protect monuments and sites ahead of these resettlements. This led to a loss of heritage, attrition, disturbances, and removal of parts of monuments. We are presently trying to look at this challenge in retrospect, but I think a lot of information and the physical aspects of monuments have been lost in the process.

Modern developments are another threat: expansion of urban areas, construction of roads infrastructure, development of electricity networks in areas that previously did not have such services, has and continues to transform the landscape. Many archaeological sites, including graves and aspects of living heritage sites, have been affected by modern developments.  We have mitigation measures in place in the form of pre-development surveys, but it is difficult to save everything.

The issue of staff is perhaps one of the largest challenges. NMMZ works with a skeletal staff complement. We are heavily centralised in urban areas, and we are not devolved to the district level, not to mention the ward level. We currently have a staff complement of 34 curators covering 62 districts in the country. We are pushing to get a curator per district so that we will be able to monitor and even generate archaeological surveys at district level. That has not been possible yet.

 

Q. How do you see digital archaeological databases in Africa contributing towards the global heritage arena?

I wish the use of digital archaeological databases had come much earlier. We continue to record sites in the hope to ensure their physical presence even when such sites are no longer there. Digital conservation is one of the ways of preserving such records. For example, Fort Makaha, a National Monument of Zimbabwe, had been recorded before it was obliterated by illegal mining in 2020, as was the ancient gold working site, Old Mazoe Jumbo, which had been destroyed by similar practices five years earlier. Because we have records of both sites and can digitise them, we are aiming to ensure that these once well-known sites are preserved for posterity. An advantage of digitisation is that sites do not need to be physically accessed in order to be analysed. In addition, digital heritage information can be shared with the global community. We have paper-based maps and site records at the Zimbabwe Museum of Human Sciences (ZMHS) Archaeological Survey for these destroyed sites, and once these are digitised, the global community can continue enjoying Zimbabwe’s heritage.

However, data theft and the purposeful targeting of sites at international levels are a fear. Policies, such as the prohibited taking of photographs in our museum, is perhaps one way of mitigating the impacts of targeted looting of objects housed here.  Sites may be at similar risk once digitised. For example, locational information may make a site more vulnerable to illegal excavations. There are certain levels where sensitive information should be secured so that safety is ensured. There is always risk when information is out there. However, you cannot organise a party and then not invite people to partake; heritage is about sharing. Other mechanics of security are something we should work on.

In summary, there is much information which concerns our heritage that should be made available to the citizens of Zimbabwe and to the global community. This information can only become sharable when it is digitised. We stand to reap more benefits from sharing our heritage information than keeping it to ourselves. Sharing will also help to flag some of the endangered sites.

---

The site of Bumbuzi

Hwange National Park, Zimbabwe

 

One site where NMMZ sent a stress call across the world is Bumbuzi, a dry-stone walled settlement in the Hwange National Park, Matabeleland. Bumbuzi was declared a National Monument in Zimbabwe in 1946 because of its importance as a rare surviving monument of pre-colonial civilisation and presently serves as a spiritual centre for the living descendents of the builders. In 2008, it was placed on the World Monuments Watch list (Bumbusi National Monument | World Monuments Fund (wmf.org) but currently does not have the requisite assistance for rehabilitation.

---

 

Q. In your opinion, can digital heritage help facilitate the decolonisation of history in southern Africa?

In Zimbabwe we have always battled with the issue of the burden of proof. The claims about the authorship of Great Zimbabwe are perhaps the most well-known example. Someone can ask for proof that your ancestors were the creators of such monuments in the past. Unfortunately for many of us, history starts only when colonialism sets in. Beyond 1506 and earlier, there is the assumption that there is no history. By digitising our records and sharing the information about the deep history, it enables us to move beyond the heavily constructed conception of history in the country. That is a powerful tool for decolonisation. It also helps in the decolonisation process by instilling a good sense of pride and self-esteem in Zimbabweans.

 

Q. How do you envision sustainable digital heritage in southern Africa?

The question of North and South comes back around. We are little players in the digital information exchange and process. If we narrow down to practical terms, sustainable digital heritage means the access to equipment for the continued digitisation of records – and ideally this should be simple equipment. We need capacitation to ensure that those who undertake digital heritage preservation will be able to train others so that the process continues. Networks are important too, to have digital platforms that ensure information is regenerated. If we are networked and connected to other systems and sharing the information, it puts pressure on us to keep pace with the rest of the global community. Storage spaces also come to mind here, for example e-cloud and other digital spaces that ensure sustainable longer lasting use. However, being small players in the digital league means that the security of our information is always at risk. We need to safeguard heritage information. Once we lose our information, we are recolonised.