Cover Page
The following handle holds various files of this Leiden University dissertation:
http://hdl.handle.net/1887/59501
Author: Sharfman, J.
Title: Troubled Waters : developing a new approach to maritime and underwater cultural heritage in sub-Saharan Africa
Issue Date: 2017-12-19
LOOSE ENDS
There are many challenges that were made evident while completing this research but which could not be addressed within the scope of this book. It is important that some are highlighted here.
MUCH has developed significantly in the past decade. In the South African example, it has benefited from discussions surrounding the scope of the field and eventual production of strategic documents that informed an approach. Regional growth in the MUCH field has been observed. Robben Island Museum has remained committed to the field both in terms of developing their tourism offering to include a broader interpretation of the heritage landscape and in terms of continuing to develop capacity within the institution for the management of the submerged cultural resources that surround the Island itself.
Madagascar has committed to developing a maritime museum that addresses local maritime culture as well as European maritime legacies. Awareness of MUCH has also increased as evidenced by an increase in reporting of inappropriate behaviour to heritage management authorities in South Africa and at Ilha de Mozambique. Awareness raising efforts for maritime heritage at government level have also found traction. While action has been slow, MUCH has remained on the government agenda in the form of policy development and project implementation. MUCH was identified as a key area for development in the South African Department of Arts and Culture’s strategic goals and both Madagascar and South Africa have recently ratified the 2001 Convention. Field schools have been introduced at South African and Senegalese universities and UNESCO has completed a regional training workshop in Mombasa, Kenya. Nigeria,
Kenya and Mozambique have hosted African Underwater Cultural Heritage Regional Meetings.
It is questionable, however, whether this is enough. In the four years following the conclusion of the MADP, continued participation in MUCH management and research has been low across the southern African region. At a very local level it is still necessary to assess how people assign value to MUCH and how maritime archaeological sites can be promoted as a valuable resource that can contribute to development needs if assimilated into development strategies rather than as a burden that should be put on hold until pressing social challenges are addressed. In Africa where the management systems for heritage sites remain deeply entrenched in a western legislative framework, pathways must be found to ensure a locally relevant and cosmologically appropriate context can be established that allows stakeholders opportunities to contribute towards safeguarding the past and that can be incorporated into legislation.
Sub-Saharan Africa needs a management strategy that draws a line in the postcolonial sand. To address immediate needs and to set a course for MUCH in the developing world, legislators and managers must use the tools offered by the 2001 Convention coupled with national legislation that clearly define the national MUCH management strategies, and couple them with a new approach to the MUCH resource.
To expand on the concepts outlined above and propose a blueprint for the future of MUCH in the region MUCH managers could consider developing a detailed manual for a sustainable management approach that is relevant and applicable within local contexts and that promotes holistic management planning, and addresses capacity building strategies, training needs and educational necessities for MUCH
Future Research Potential
TROUBLED WATERS
Technological advances and the availability of networking platforms will continue to play a significant role in heritage management and engagement. Applications such as NYUAD heritage app have been mentioned briefly in this context but opportunities in this area must be more deeply explored.
Finally, there is an urgency to review and revise development approaches and structures generally.
New postcolonial discourses must be initiated to allow well-meaning practitioners opportunities to engage with and support the developing world more successfully. While this falls far outside of the scope of this dissertation, the approach proposed here may be an applicable tool outside of the heritage sector.
A basic understanding that African society is no different from any other would go a long way to changing the status quo. Recognising that challenges in the developing world are more complex than can be addressed by short-term interventions and that long-term, sustainable and relevant support that results in independence is more valuable than the application of developed world solutions that rely on continual external input. It is also necessary for western development workers to recognise that, just like anyone in the developing world, Africans have jobs, families, daily chores and worries that require their attention and that two weeks of awareness raising away from their daily lives is disruptive and demanding.
HERITAGE AND TOURISM
While much has been written on heritage tourism in the last two decades, this study has focused on the development of practical strategies for managing MUCH sites and their direct stakeholders. It did not expand to include this area beyond mentioning its potential to contribute towards economies and management buy-in. However, management and tourism have been closely linked and there is rich potential for future research on opportunities and challenges.
The economic value of heritage, especially in the tourism industries, means that any interactions with- or activities aimed at- heritage must include proposals
for using heritage as an economic driver. This is particularly true in the developing world where heritage may be perceived as a luxury. Research aimed at establishing a monetary incentive for preserving and engaging with heritage is vital both as a tool for development and as a tool for heritage management – it is easier to convince stakeholders that good management practice, conservation, access control and research are viable activities that should be promoted and facilitated if economic benefits are seen to accrue. Because economic benefits of heritage are an essential element of any heritage approach and because the proposed approach seeks to find conduits for local communities and stakeholders to directly access and retain economic benefits, it was important that there was a basic understanding of current thinking surrounding heritage tourism.
It has been recognised for some time that heritage tourism is not only a growing market, but that it can positively contribute towards growing economies in the developing world (Prentice 1993, Bowitz and Ibenholt, 2009). However, as Aas et al. (2005) point out, the goals of heritage management and tourism may not adequately align. Because tourism initiatives are driven primarily by profit, the potentially negative impact of visitors on heritage sites is of secondary consideration to business development. This does not suggest that business is unsympathetic to heritage management goals. It is, in fact, in the interests of tourism that heritage sites are not only conserved for their aesthetic value, but that heritage management strategies limit damage, promote continuing investigation and provide space for an evolution of product offerings. The Robben Island World Heritage Site is a case in point for this approach to management. Recognising the challenges of the limited scope for visitor activities together with the deterioration of the built and natural environment on the Island, the Robben Island Museum revisited and revised their Integrated Conservation Management Plan (Robben Island Museum 2013) to promote better sustainability. Amongst the strategic revisions were measures to open opportunities for using the Island’s heritage spaces for promoting a more holistic narrative of the heritage landscape. It was concluded that by increasing visitor numbers to previously neglected spaces, it would be possible to better
conserve the associated buildings, intangible heritage and historical sites. The intentions to expand tourism offerings were made explicit in the proposition of heritage trails by students from Leiden University.
The power of heritage tourism lies in fostering narratives that are both locally relevant and that have global appeal. Heritage sites cannot be viewed as singular entities with singular meanings. Not only are sites reflections of historical events or epochs, but they are imbued with wide ranging significance. “[T]here is a more complex setting that includes the present-day ecosystem, local communities, and the socio-political networks that must also be considered” (Walker and Carr 2013:14). Because heritage had been a driver for tourism since long before archaeologists and heritage managers recognised its potential or brought it into the mainstream of practice, it is important that heritage managers take cognisance of some of the experiences of the tourism industry (Walker et al.
2013). In particular, heritage managers must adapt to the evolution of both the tourism and the heritage industries. On the one hand, tourism has entered heritage management as a means for engaging local communities at heritage sites and as a justification for better, localised heritage management practices while on the other hand, heritage has entered the tourism sector as a solution to the challenges of economic development in rural or poor areas. In both instances, sustainability is the powerful driver for promoting broad buy-in. As both sides have promoted their agendas in creating an environment for tourism, be they economically or managerially motivated, various universal concerns have presented themselves. Firstly, heritage managers, archaeologists and the tourism sector have questioned the impact that non-professional visitors will have on sites and, therefore, the sustainability of tourism (Comer and Willems 2011). Secondly, the challenges associated with engaging communities living at or near sites and satisfying their needs and wants, have forced heritage and tourism practitioners to reflect on the engagement process. Aas et al. (2005) summarised some of these challenges by asking whether community participation is truly possible. To best gauge community views, it is necessary to consult as widely as possible. But what is “the community”, and how does it differ from a “stakeholder” (p 31)?
How do heritage practitioners determine whether the individuals or groups that they have addressed represent the wider community views (p 30)? Aas et al. (2005) did not dismiss the value of community participation and collaboration in decision-making, but warned against the notion that a single-minded approach will satisfy any situation regardless of political, cultural or social constructs of different societies.
The issues associated with community participation and consultation have been illustrated by the Lake Fundudzi case study. In this instance, site declaration was delayed for several years as sectors of the community jostled to assert various agendas, priorities and needs. The process was further hampered by individuals or groups who felt that their voices were not being heard and that their needs were not being met. As discussed, low prioritisation and poor support for heritage is a recurring problem in the developing world (Breen 2007). While heritage managers in the developed world argue that heritage is poorly funded globally, a comparison between South Africa, ranked 25 on both the World Bank and the CIA World Fact Book in terms of Gross Domestic Product (purchasing price parity) and Africa’s highest ranking economy in terms of GDP (PPP), the Netherlands, ranked 23, and Australia, ranked 17, shows that there is a substantial disparity between the developed and developing world. Between 2010 and 2014 South Africa’s budget for all operational costs for SAHRA, including special projects and external fundraising, was approximately €12 million (SAHRA 2009 - 2013). Over the same period, Australia spent €68 million just on special projects (Department of Environment, Water 2010), while, according to its website, the Netherlands’ Rijksdienst voor het Cultureel Erfgoed boasted a budget of over
€80 million for maintenance of monuments and sites for 2014 alone. If heritage is to become a driver for economic development in the developing world, it is essential that government spending and investment is increased to reflect a commitment to this sector of the economy and to provide a platform from which growth can take place.
In the absence of government spending, MUCH suffers the same challenges as its terrestrial
TROUBLED WATERS
counterpart; it is compounded, however, by the lure of treasure. The global battle between archaeologists and treasure hunters underpins this issue. Although heritage practitioners promote good heritage management as a sustainable practice for long-term economic development, individuals and communities, in the developing world in particular, must weigh up the long-term benefits against their immediate basic needs. This opens the opportunity for treasure hunters promising quick gains to promote their own activities as preferable to those of the heritage specialists. Archaeology is particularly vulnerable in this regard. Small, local museums with small research budgets and poor funding support must ensure that their collections offer visitors the spectacular while maintaining low curatorial costs. Wares (2013), in her dissertation examining maritime museum collections noted: “In speaking to the management of the Bredasdorp Shipwreck Museum about the apparent disjuncture between underwater salvage and maritime archaeology, it is clear that although they are aware of the contests, they do not see it as their fight. Ultimately those in charge of the museum believe if the objects have been salvaged in the past, they deserve to serve a purpose to the public by being placed in collections and on display.” (p 65). Museum managers’
concerns are for their own institution’s well-being.
Because of this, museums often shy away from entering into the MUCH management debate and, inadvertently, promote treasure-hunting practices.
Aside from ethical considerations, museums, through their collection or display policies, run the danger of creating false histories (Fabian 2013) or promoting only authorised narratives. The objects and sites targeted by treasure hunters are specifically commercial in nature. Treasure hunters search for and recover objects from treasure ships and ignore other vessels whose historical influence may be more important. In the Bredasdorp/Cape Agulhas area, underwater cultural heritage forms an important component in the fabric of the heritage landscape.
There are numerous shipwrecks, stone walled fish traps, pre-colonial shell middens and other maritime related archaeological sites. In addition, there is a rich intangible heritage associated with the sea. Because the museum’s acquisition policy is indiscriminate, its collection is formed by the
discards of the treasure hunting community and is skewed. Wares (2013) indicates that the museum has neither a research focus nor is it representative of the history of the region, although this is not made explicit to the visitor. Important shipwrecks such as the Dutch slave ship Meermin (1766), fish traps and other archaeological sites lie within the catchment of the museum but none are represented.
Visitors leave the museum with a constructed history and with little interest in exploring the surrounding region. The drawback of this from both a heritage tourism and heritage management perspective, is that the potential for visitors to go to the sites not represented in the museum is lost. Potential revenue streams flowing into the area outside of Bredasdorp are forfeited. In addition, the motivation for communities surrounding other sites to safeguard their history falls away. Finally, by marginalising the heritage of large sections of the citizens of the area, the museum marginalises their culture and identity.
The current economic climate and the challenges faced by developing world governments means that it would be unrealistic to expect heritage activities and tourism to attract government spending. But, since heritage will not provide economic opportunities is it then ethical to outlaw treasure hunting practices that might benefit those communities? The onus for stating the case for MUCH protection has been put firmly on archaeologists and managers.
Treasure hunters have opened their treasure chests and allowed people to peek inside. The promise of museums, tourists and quick profits is alluring in the face of poverty and is attractive despite warnings against conmen and plunderers that shaped attitudes in the Ilha de Mozambique and Eastern Cape case studies. It is up to heritage practitioners to promote archaeological ethics and good practice, find ways to create low-cost heritage management strategies, encourage community buy-in and participation and, most importantly, show that they have a better alternative to treasure hunting.
Heritage tourism is undoubtedly a driver for economic development. Although the projects described incorporated tourism as an important element in developing management strategies it was not the focus of interventions and has, therefore,
not been rigorously assessed. However, there are many research opportunities surrounding heritage tourism still available and in need of investigation, and the use of the proposed approach offers solutions to accessing new data. Tourism strategies that will provide local benefit must be rooted in local infrastructural, expertise and capacity contexts. The constraints that exist in rural and semi-rural areas must determine how implementation of initiatives is executed. Again, by adopting the community driven approach to heritage tourism, it is possible to make it sustainable and viable.
SOME THOUGHTS ON POSTMODERNISM AND POSTCOLONIAL THEORY
The analysis of MUCH management approaches described in this book have been framed by a critical realist methodology. Although I chose a different theoretical approach, I recognised the postcolonial and postmodern undercurrent that ran through this work and believe that there is a need to expand these discourses more deeply into MUCH. This afterword therefore flags the need for further theoretical engagement and suggests a platform for future research.
To understand change, this research examined the effects of interventions in various aspects of MUCH engagement, management and archaeological practice and tested their effectiveness and influence using a critical realist perspective. Having now observed outcomes in case study applications, it is necessary to retest the approach through the lenses of alternative theoretical frameworks that operate within each of the critical realist domains and which have influenced the development of the MUCH management status quo. For example, colonial heritage management frameworks have formed the backbone of legislation in the “real” domain, have guided implementation methodologies in the “actual”
world, and have influenced the way in which MUCH is perceived at the “empirical” level.
Given that the evolution of the approach to MUCH that has been described in this book was applied in contexts weighted with the postmodern and postcolonial constructs, it is perhaps prudent to
identify some of the key concepts from each of these theoretical perspectives as they related to the work and offer some pegs on which to hang future investigations of new iterations of the MUCH management approach and MUCH research. It should be noted, however, that a rigid application of theoretical constructs may be a stumbling block in community engagements and developments in heritage practice (Mehari and Ryano 2016, paragraph 4) where “… stagnation, colonial legacies, and emerging postcolonial marginalization deny African communities engagement, … cultural respect, and basic community development” ((Mehari and Ryano 2016, paragraph 91).
Postmodernism is critical in the development of new approaches to MUCH in that it promotes and validates multiple historical narratives.
Postmodernist thought gained traction post World War II as historians realised that the grand (authorised) narratives that were used to explain a progressive, developmental history were inadequate in explaining and recording events and could no longer be applied to historical research and thought (Claus and Marriott 2012). Instead, it was necessary to contemplate multiple influences that inspired an individual or group perception of the past and current events. Postmodernism proposed the possibility that historic processes were irrational and that progress did not inevitably equate to improvement on what had gone before. An illogical society influences historical sequence, which means that it is driven by human idiosyncrasy and perception rather than predictable advancement. This implies that history will be imbued with different interpretations depending on which side an individual or group happened to find themselves. It also meant that the meanings that historical narratives impart are shaped by the medium through which they are presented, be it political ideology, professional historical research or storytelling (Claus and Marriott 2012).
Postmodernism has faced criticism in that it fails to ascribe historical truth to facts alone, but allows for historical truth to be shaped by societal perceptions of events. This malleability of meaning has meant that postmodernism is difficult to describe. However, As Leake (2012, 634) points out: “demonstrating the elusiveness of meaning is part of the point”.
TROUBLED WATERS
Postmodernism provides a theoretical understanding of the development of identity or identities of individuals and groups (Leake 2012) that is relevant to the arguments presented in the preceding chapters.
Postmodernists argue that identity is flexible and that individuals can possess multiple identities that are influenced or made dominant by circumstances and by the environment of “truths” in which they find themselves. This is a key consideration when examining the ways in which societies produce, interact with and understand their heritage.
Furthermore, it is a critical element in devising pathways for heritage communities to develop strategies for managing their past in a manner that accommodates both historical fact and historical meaning. A flexibility of management policy is needed to address the ebb and flow of significance of sites. The symbolism and value of shipwrecks, for example, changes over time. This does not imply that their management should be limited only to times when they are recognised as important. Heritage management should be cognisant of changing perceptions and multiple stakeholders and should ensure that sites (and practices) are safeguarded regardless of current expedience. Once again, the cultural landscape provides a powerful framework in which management can take place.
While postmodernism recognises multiple narratives, postcolonialism recognises multiple perspectives of single narratives. In other words, where postmodernism recognises that there are multiple versions of the truth, postcolonial theory recognises that there are multiple perspectives on any of those versions of truth. For example, colonial expansion may be viewed by the postmodernist as the story of developing trade, of globalisation or of changing politics. The postcolonialist recognises that changing politics can be an example of both dominance or domination at the same time. In other words, it could be understood from the position of both perpetrator and victim.
Postcolonial theory recognises that historical perspectives have traditionally been shaped by the view through the western lens and that the perspective needed to be expanded. Young (2003), describes postcolonial thinking as a set of perspectives that
may be oppositional or contradictory, but that provide multiple spaces for, and relationships between, knowledges of both the west and the non- west. It also recognises that most narratives that have been produced have been achieved through western methodologies and theories that have been applied to the archaeological and historical sciences.
The interpretations of archaeological assemblages and historical documentation assume that western culture, education, politics and economy are the pinnacle of society towards which everyone should strive. European colonial powers believed that by enforcing their own set of norms and standards, they were helping the “primitives” of the colonies to achieve a better, modern society (Claus and Marriott 2012). At the same time, those societies saw their own cultural norms and histories dwindling as they were superseded by western society. Postcolonial theory challenges dominant concepts of how we generate knowledge and how we have come to know things (Iwowo 2014).
By adopting the role of the driver in recording history, the coloniser is given the opportunity to describe the history of other people through his/her understanding of that people. Local perspectives or input is not solicited. As such local histories are decontextualised and made inferior (Young 2003).
By giving the history of the “other” a lower status, the coloniser subjugates the colonised not only by physical, but also by intellectual force. The heritage that is taught is someone else’s heritage, authored in academic research institutions and authorised by outsiders. Additionally, this historiography skews historical processes by writing a narrative that espouses European triumphalism and largesse. The example provided by Claus and Marriott (2012) of history recording that India gained independence because of British generosity rather than through nationalist struggles, effectively highlights the way history is distorted in favour of the coloniser.
Postcolonial theory is a platform from which imbalances and inequalities can be addressed. It provides a means for developing a system of heritage engagement that is culturally respectful and tolerant, that provides for rights to cultural well-being and that recognises the contributions of developing nations
and ex-colonial cultural influences on the west.
(Young 2003). While the theory must differentiate the colonial rulers from the colonised to establish an alternative view from which to study the world and to delineate between the forced authorised narratives and the perspectives of unofficial stakeholders, it must also take care to ensure that the position is not reversed. Postcolonialism should not merely replace one dominant narrative with another, but must find ways in which the western knowledge systems find a voice where relevant. Postcolonialism must, therefore, not be about flipping the system to benefit a new master but must seek to find pathways to change the system.
The dominant western narrative of the past five centuries has, after all, had a profound influence on the way societies and the world have developed.
Culture is not static, it can no longer be argued that a culture is purely African or purely European.
Cultural mixing or cultural evolution has resulted in a hybridised heritage and a hybridised experience.
Whether, in terms of history this is a shared, conflicting, contested, opposed or parallel set of heritages depends on the perspective of the individual or group experiencing them. By applying postcolonial thinking to heritage, it is no longer necessary to become something different, to become European or African, to assimilate cultural elements into one’s own identity. A cultural disconnect is produced by efforts to retain pure cultural identities that are static and immutable, which has consequences for developing societies in a globalised world. For heritage managers, and for those espousing a new approach to heritage management in sub-Saharan Africa, a delicate balancing act that recognises a multiplicitous, evolving discourse and is acceptable to a diverse society must be achieved.
There is a profound need for postcolonial thinking to be applied to the management of MUCH in Africa.
Not only will it open opportunities for new research and a better understanding of the past, but it will fulfil the human need to have personal perspectives and understandings of the past recognised and validated, as was required in all the case studies presented above.
If the reader remains unconvinced of the need for recognition and validation of individual perspectives
and self-determined narratives and is sceptical that this need is valid outside of contemporary developing world nations railing against the West, consider the following:
“When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.”
– Preamble of the US Declaration of Independence 1776
And it is with these words that my journey through this research comes to an end.
