ChapterPDF Available

The monument we deserve:: authenticity and the conservation of dry-stone walls at Naletale National Monument, Zimbabwe

Authors:
  • National Museums and Monuments of Zimbabwe
379
Chapter 17
The monument we deserve:
authenticity and the conservation of dry-stone
walls at Naletale National Monument, Zimbabwe
Nyasha Agnes Gurira, Munyaradzi Manyanga, Clapperton
Gutu and Charity Ndlovu-Nyathi
Abstract
Restoration is an acceptable conservation method that is intended to
retain the values of monuments. These, however, should be done in
a manner that conforms to the design of the original builders.
Evaluated against international conservation principles and charters
and existing traditional knowledge on dry-stone walling in southern
Africa, some past restorations at Naletale National Monument
compromised the authenticity and integrity of the site. The use of
cement mortar, cement plaster and steel reinforcements in the 1930s
is a distortion of the original design of the monument. While post-
independence work conformed to international best practice in
restoring the tangible aspect of the site, it continuously fails to restore
the intangible aspects which the local communities highly value.
Keywords: authenticity, integrity, cultural and social values,
guiding principles, tangible, intangible, local community, Naletale
Introduction: the importance of Naletale in Zimbabwe culture
Naletale is a Zimbabwe culture site which is typical of the Khami
Phase. The distribution of the Zimbabwe culture covers much of the
Zimbabwean plateau, northern South Africa, eastern Botswana and
central Mozambique (Figure 17.1). Naletale represents a later phase
380
in the stone building traditions and dates to around the seventeenth
and eighteenth centuries AD. Referred to as Nhandare in Rozvi
praise poetry and traditions (see Hodza 1974), Naletale is thought to
have been a royal retreat of the Torwa and Rozvi rulers when their
main capital was at Danamombe.
Figure 17.1. Zimbabwe culture sites in southern Africa (after Chirikure
et al. 2013)
The main enclosure consists of an elliptical wall, about 60 m in
diameter, the outer portion of which has chevron, herringbone, cord
and checker patterns, as well as a variety of coloured stone inserts.
The site has both freestanding and retaining walls in P, Q and R styles
with rectangular entrances. It is at Naletale that the incorporation of
geometric designs in dry-stone walls reaches its peak (Figure 17.2).
The blending of all dry-stone wall decoration displays an artistic
development of a high level of craftsmanship, creativity and
381
imagination in dry-stone walling that defines precolonial Shona
civilisations. These decorations are also a symbolic expression to
those who built and occupied this settlement. Thus the monument
has historical value, architectural value, cultural value, aesthetic value,
educational value and research value, all of which informed the
restoration at the site. Owing to the passage of time, vandalism and
natural agents of decay, Naletale has seen several major wall
collapses. This compromised the aesthetic appeal of the monument
hence as early as the 1930s, well-intended but poorly informed
restoration efforts were attempted at the site (see Ndlovu 2015; Gutu
2016)
Figure 17.2. The western elliptical wall at Naletale National
Monument, arguably the best example of decorated dry-stone wall sections
in southern Africa
Naletale, like most dry-stone walled sites in southern Africa, went
through various episodes of building, repair, and restoration and in
other instances, modifications. Beginning with the original builders,
walls were rebuilt, restored and maintained. It is well known that
382
material and structural decay is a natural and inevitable process. In
this case, the primary goal of heritage management is to try and arrest
deterioration by employing various methods to maintain these social
and cultural treasures through such processes as reassembling,
reconstruction, or restoration. Traditional approaches to
conservation left monuments to natural decay and this resulted in the
loss of aesthetic values. The introduction of formal management
systems saw conservation efforts focusing on the documentation
(Figure 17.3) and preservation of the fabric of these monuments in
respect of the aesthetics, historical data, and the physical integrity of
the monument. In most of sub-Saharan Africa these monuments are
regarded as the residences of the ancestors and so were sanctioned
as sacred areas where traditional practices such as rituals were
performed. Little to no attention was given to the fabric of the site,
hence these monuments were subject to collapse and ruin. With
formal management systems, there was also the introduction of
international benchmarks for restoration and conservation practice
which all aimed at maintaining the original values associated with
monument and ensuring professional and ethical approaches to
retaining a monument’s authenticity and integrity. This chapter
evaluates restoration undertaken at Naletale National Monument and
assesses the extent to which these restorations respected the
authenticity of the monument.
Conceptualising authenticity in heritage conservation
Authenticity, as defined in the UNESCO World Heritage
Operational Guidelines (OGs), relates to the originality of a
monument. It calls for strict adherence to maintaining the original
values that are found at a place (Jokilehto 1994, 1999). Values can be
defined as those unique attributes of a monument that make the
monument worth looking after (see Avrami et al. 2003). Values are
often understood as the symbolic expression of society which it
attaches to its heritage places (Lowenthal 1999; Munjeri 2003).
383
The concept of applying the test of authenticity has its roots in
the nineteenth century debates by John Ruskin and Eugène Viollet-
le-Duc who differed on the best approaches for monuments
conservation. They present two extreme ideals, where the former
discusses the idea of letting monuments remain in ruins while the
latter rationalises the need for restoration. These arguments were
based on maintaining a monument’s originality. The need to maintain
a monument’s originality is emphasised in the Athens Charter of
1931 which asserted that, ‘… Restoration projects were subjected to
knowledgeable criticism to prevent mistakes which will cause loss of
character and historical values to the structures’. The word
‘authenticity’, however, was introduced by the Venice Charter of
1964 preamble which specifically stated that, ‘… It is our duty to
hand them on in the full richness of their authenticity’.
Figure 17.3. Naletale site plan with wall numbering used in
conservation work (after Gutu 2016)
384
This notion of authenticity and integrity was adopted by the
World Heritage Committee (WHC) in 1977 for all properties to be
inscribed on the World Heritage List. Further developments in the
idea saw attempts to explain the application of this test and the
creation of standards of practice including such notions as the fact
that reconstruction should be done and only be accepted on the basis
of complete and detailed documentation of the original structure
and to no extent on conjecture. It saw authenticity defined into four
categories namely authenticity of material, authenticity of setting,
authenticity of workmanship and authenticity of design (Rossler
2008). These four broad categories were aimed at capturing the
diverse manifestation of originality in the conservation of
monuments. These ideals, however, were heavily criticised for their
Eurocentric archetypes, which essentially froze heritage. According
to Droste and Bertilsson (1995), the ideals made the test problematic
with regard to its application in non-European contexts such as Asia
and Africa, where some sites have strong living traditions which
transform sites from time to time. The concept of authenticity
remained elusive, especially to heritage practitioners with regard to its
application. Examples include the inscribing of such World Heritage
Sites (WHS) on the World Hertage List as the Ashanti traditional
buildings in Ghana and the Buddhist monuments in the Horyu-ji area
in Japan. These two WHS are essentially made of grass and bamboo
respectively, which are degradable materials that need constant
change, hence the test which asserted the maintenance of the original
fabric is always difficult to apply. It was realised that the test of
authenticity was one of the reasons why there were inconsistencies
in the worldwide representation on the World Heritage List
(Jokilehto 1994; Rossler 2008; Silverman 2015). Plans were initiated
to come up with a holistic approach to the concept of authenticity
through a global strategy which saw a shift from the traditional
understanding of the concept of authenticity, to a more elaborated
concept of authenticity through the Nara Document. Diversity in
culture was considered an important variable in all judgements on
heritage. To this extent, world heritage experts realised that it is not
385
possible to judge value and authenticity by fixed criteria. Cultural
heritage is considered and judged within the cultural context to which
it belongs, whereas heritage credibility is measured by established
values from reliable information sources. Aspects of these sources
may include form and design, material and substance, use and
function, traditions and techniques, location and setting, and spirit
and feeling (Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the
World Heritage Convention 2013). The use of these sources allows
for the elaboration of the significance of the cultural heritage being
examined. These later developments in the concept of authenticity
are applied in the evaluation of the restorations that have been done
at Naletale National Monument.
It was emphasised that respect for heritage diversity requires
conscious efforts to avoid imposing mechanistic formulae or
standardised procedures in attempting to define or determine
authenticity; hence determination of authenticity requires
approaches which encourage cultures to develop analytical processes
and trends specific to their nature and needs (see Ferrero 2000). The
Nara Document also stressed the need for a multidisciplinary and
community consensus of the values identified (Nara Document
1994). This means that value investigations should be holistic and
inclusive in nature. The need for context-specific realities called for
regional input for defining the concept, where Africa, Asia, Australia,
and even the Americas, needed to elaborate their own perception of
how authenticity should be regarded.
The past decade has also seen recommendations coming from
Africa that advocate for adjustments to the Nara Document to merge
the cultural and natural criteria, enlarge the definition of integrity,
and clarify the role of local communities at all properties in the
nomination and management processes (see Ferrero 2000). This was
based on the fact that in Africa there is rarely a distinction between
culture and nature (see Muzzouri 2001). At Himeji in 2013, the issue
of progressive authenticity was discussed in an effort to
accommodate the inclusion of heritage that has gone through a shift
in values through time (see Robben Island Report 2014). This is
386
based on the fact that heritage is dynamic in nature, and values are
continually changing as a place continues to interact with society.
Recently, at a seminar held at Robben Island in July 2014, a more
critical look was given to the context of authenticity within the
African setting, where representatives noted the need for adjustments
within the 1994 Nara Document so as to accommodate African
cultural heritage dynamics.
The 2013 Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the
World Heritage Convention have incorporated those perspectives of
authenticity found within the Nara Document. It identifies eight
attributes for credibility; these are elaborated in Article 82 which
takes a broader perspective to include: form and design; materials and
substance; use and function; traditions, techniques and management
systems; location and setting; language and other forms of intangible
heritage; spirit and feeling; and other internal and external factors.
These perspectives were used as the basis for the application of the
test of authenticity at Naletale National Monument.
Conservation history of Naletale National Monument
The conservation history of Naletale National Monument can be
divided into two main eras: namely, the colonial and postcolonial.
These periods represent different approaches to conservation. In
1905, Randall-McIver described the site and noted that there were
four monoliths; two of them were still standing while the other two
had fallen. He also took photographs of the site and carried out an
excavation which resulted in the sinking of trenches into two of the
house platforms. In 1937, an inspection of the site revealed that the
most decorated facade required attention as it had deteriorated. The
monoliths which had been standing in 1905 had been removed by
D.M. Kirstein, the custodian. The little plinths which supported the
monoliths were giving in, and two courses of stone work had been
disturbed and were collapsing. The wall was in danger of collapsing
entirely and this called for intervention. The infilling of the wall had
become waterlogged and was exerting lateral pressure. The top
387
courses of stonework were laid loose and other stones were loosened
as the soil was washed out. In 1937, Captain Stevenson and Kirstein
thought it necessary to protect the top courses using lime
cement/concrete and steel. The two also decided to restore the four
monoliths without referring to Randall-MacIver’s reports and
publications. It was also noted that there were two gaps on the main
wall in the south-west. Collapses were recorded in the south and the
north walls due to undergrowth which dislodged the stones
(Summers 1971).
In 1982, another collapse was recorded on the eastern side and
this called for restoration. This was done by National Museum and
Monuments with the help of Chaplain High School students. In
1991, serious problems were noted on the second entrance to the
east of the enclosure in the form of bulges and voids. A collapse was
also noted to the south-east. Inspection was done and the problem
areas were monitored through the use of glass-wires and
measurement of gaps using vernier calipers was done. The most
impressive decorated wall to the west was also deteriorating. Below
the sixth monolith from the entrance, a bulge had developed in the
middle of the wall. In 1994, a section of the girdle wall 1.9 m long
and 1.2 m high also collapsed. During the same year restoration of
one of the radial walls was undertaken by staff of the National
Museums and Monuments of Zimbabwe.
In 2003, restoration of the eastern entrance was undertaken by
team of experts from the National Museums and Monuments of
Zimbabwe. In 2004 another restoration project was carried out at the
south western side on wall 5. This project was a response to damage
that was done by baboons which removed top courses blocks in
search of insects. In 2012, a team from the NMMZ restored a 16.2
m stretch of the northern perimeter wall, starting at a 4.2 m point
from the main entrance in a clockwise direction. Restoration work
continued in 2014, which focused on the entire monument. Areas
targeted for restoration included the remaining collapsed sections of
the perimeter wall, collapsed sections of radial walls and the main
entrances on the north western side of the monument.
388
Assessing the authenticity of the restorations
Authenticity in material
In 1937, Kirstein and Stevenson restored walls designated as wall
1 and 5 at Naletale National Monument and included cement as a
binding agent for the walls. Wall 1 had cement and steel introduced
to it and was covered on the top with dhaka to conceal the added
cement. Wall 5 has two parts that were bonded with cement. The
addition of new materials compromised the authenticity of the site
as a dry-stone wall as the main characteristic of the construction of
these walls is that were erected without the use of mortar where
blocks are locked using core materials (Pikirayi 2013). Further
distortions were done to the plaster and wall through the inclusion
of steel reinforcements on wall 1. The use of cement instead of dhaka
and steel reinforcements compromised the authenticity of the site.
There is a need to note that the 1937 restorations were done before
the reaching of a global consensus on the standard benchmarks that
guide restorations of historical buildings. Today, walls 5 and 1 are
distorted; although they look relatively stable owing to the use of
cement to bind the stone blocks. These walls, however, can still be
restored to their pre-1937 condition owing to the availability of some
the wall descriptions (see Randall-MacIver 1906) and photographic
records. The original dhaka plaster is still visible on some of the wall
sections and the character of this original plaster can be ascertained
and information used to restore the original plaster on wall 1 (Figure
17.4).
389
Figure 17.4. The original dhaka plastering is still visible on some wall sections,
which Kirstein and Stevenson mistook for cement.
Authenticity of form and design
Post-independence restoration practice in Zimbabwe was guided
by international principles as propounded in the Venice 1964, the
Burra Charter of 1999 and the Nara Document on Authenticity of
1994. The application of the test of authenticity however still has its
challenges especially in situations where important information
sources such as photographs are lacking. Restoration in Zimbabwe is
largely based on previous photographic records. Absence of such
records complicates the process and may require the use
archaeological investigations to gather reliable evidence. This was the
case in the restoration of walls 3a and 3b (Figure 17.5a, b & c) and
the north entrance on wall 1. This was the only option available after
the realisation that no photographs existed of the walls before they
collapsed. Archaeological approaches were used in studying the
collapses and to establish the relative positions of the displaced stone
blocks (Figure 17.5a). The ruminant wall (Figure 17.5b) found after
the excavation exercise was also studied for evidence of decorations.
Wall sequencing of construction was also established as justification
in the differences in the level of decorations for the wall. Historic
sources from the writings of Randall-MacIver (1906) were also used
in informing the restorations.
390
Figure 17.5a. Wall 3a and 3b showing the collapsed sections
Figure 17.5b. Systematic investigation of the collapsed sections of wall 3a and
3b revealed a ruminant wall with a single checker decoration and an exposed inner
wall.
391
Figure 17.5c. The restored wall 3a and 3b based on the archaeological study
of the collapse and descriptions of the wall by Randall-MacIver (1906)
The sudden break in decoration and the presence of decoration
at different course levels on walls 3a and 3b may appear as
inconsistencies in the original construction of the wall. The
restoration of walls 3a and 3b were guided by the pictorial
representation by Randall-MacIver (1906) and the archaeological
study of collapse which supported that the break and misalignment
in decoration was indeed the case. Thus though questionable because
of the single checker on the wall the current restorations seem
authentic based on the archaeological evidence, historical evidence
and the overall design of the monument. This is in line with the
recommendations of the Nara Document of 1994 that encourages
the use of a variety of information sources to lend credibility to
validate authenticity where reliable information sources such as
photographs are not available. Using both the photographic and
collapse record the wall was successful and authentically restored.
An overall assessment of the form and design of the monument
reveals that sudden breaks in decoration are consistent with the
joining of other walls and abutments as illustrated in templates were
there are similar cases of break in decoration on walls 3c and 5. The
critical use of different evidence presented in the research is in line
with the stipulation of the 2013 Operational Guidelines for the
392
Implementation of the World Heritage Convention which emphasise
that judgements of authenticity should be based on evidence and
information sources. This also falls in line with the arguments set
forth at the Robben Island seminar (2014) where participants
asserted that all evidence should be considered and that no source
should be discredited for academic inconsistency unless otherwise
proven.
Authenticity of workmanship, traditions and techniques
Authenticity of workmanship, traditions and techniques is mainly
associated with the use of traditional knowledge and technical know-
how. The restoration work at Naletale was led by experienced stone
masons who have done similar work at Great Zimbabwe and Khami.
Most of the experienced stonemason hail from families with a long
and known tradition in dry-stone wall masonry. Other masons were
interested individuals from the local community while the rest were
on apprenticeship with the National Museums and Monuments.
Their work was complemented by a surveyor, archaeologists and
architectural conservators with extensive knowledge of dry-stone
walling. To a large extent, one would say that the post-independence
restorations relied on traditional knowledge, technical know-how and
professional expertise which ensured good workmanship.
Zimbabwean stonemasons are a valuable source of traditional
knowledge of stone masonry
Authenticity of the spirit and intangible cultural values
Interviews with the local community revealed the existence of a
lineage of people in the vicinity of Naletale who used to conduct
traditional ceremonies at the site in the past. From an African
perspective, Naletale’s fabric is a manifestation of its tangible and
intangible elements. Restoration practice at the site adheres to
international accepted guidelines to the respect of the original
material. This is in line with the stipulations set forth in the 1964
Venice Charter. From that perspective, the restorations at Naletale in
the post-independence era are authentic. However, this specifically
393
deals with the tangible elements of the site and does not consider the
relationship that exist between the tangible and the intangible which
is inseparable (see Munjeri 2003). The restoration of the intangible
aspects demands the involvement the descendent communities in
restoring the sacredness of the site. This sacredness has been
compromised through traditionally ‘unsanctioned’ conservation
measures. This can be corrected through traditional ceremonies by
cultural sanctioned individuals to restore the sacredness of the place.
One of the resolutions at the Robben Island Report (2014) encourage
the Nara Document to shift its ideals of being narrowly materialist
and encourage it to embrace the African realities of heritage where
there is no separation between the physical and the spiritual world.
In this case, although restorations adhere to principles of
conservation, they overlook the realm in which tangible heritage
exists thus making the restoration of the fabric only a component of
the overall restoration of the site.
Restorations are accepted practice in the conservation of dry-
stone walled monuments. It is the most acceptable method of
conservation for the sake of prosperity and in retaining the value of
the monuments. A heritage manager’s nightmare, however, begins
when issues relating to maintaining authenticity and site integrity
come into play. Modern heritage conservators have to deal with the
idea of maintaining the monuments originality and its integrity, while
adhering to national and international best practice benchmarks. This
has always been the approach in the restoration work at Naletale in
the post-independence era. Restoration work sought to return the
structures to their last known best condition. Despite following these
ethical considerations, it should always be recognised that once a
monument undergoes reconstruction, its authenticity is
compromised. This is a conservation dilemma that architectural
conservators all over the world have to grapple with. Pre-
independence ‘conservation’ works by Kirstein and Stevenson in the
1930s distorted sections of the south-eastern and south-western walls
as well as the western palisade wall. While these distortions can be
394
reversed, this will require a huge investment in time, research and
financial resources.
Post-independence conservation efforts at Naletale present a test
case for the wholesale application of international charters and
conventions as a guide to restorations. It has been noted that often
these ideals do not always fit into the context of the heritage being
conserved. In situations where there were no photographic records,
written descriptions and the study of collapses aided in the
restoration of some wall sections at Naletale with some degree of
success. Schools of thought assert the need for context based and
inclusive approaches in heritage management. Jokilehto (1994)
asserts the idea that maintaining monument authenticity relates to the
degree to which one can reassert the values that are found at the site.
Restorations at Naletale have stabilised sections of the monument
which had obvious structural problems. Visitors to Naletale today
will also attest to the aesthetic appeal of the monument following the
recently completed restorations.
Conclusion
Colonial conservation measures dismally fail the test of
authenticity from both a Eurocentric and an Afrocentric perspective.
The use of mortar on dry-stone walling is a major distortion in terms
of fabric, material, design and workmanship. The distorted wall
sections still await correction. Post-independence efforts adhered to
international protocols and practices on the tangible aspects, but
failed to restore the intangible aspects of the monument. Naletale is
a classic case where African realities with regard to the intangible
values have been inadequate when it comes to capturing the scope of
authenticity. Restoration has enhanced the site’s aesthetic value yet
the site’s sacred and spiritual values have been lost (see Ndoro 1995).
It is disheartening to note that after decades of progress in
conservation techniques, the benchmarks for testing authenticity of
African heritage continue to be measured by instruments with little
bearing on the value attached to the restored monuments. While the
395
restoration gets the thumbs-up from global institutions, local people
continue to frown on the loss of the spiritual and sacred values that
result both from the restoration and traditionally inappropriate use
of heritage places. Restoration creates a beautiful monument without
a soul, without ancestors and without the sacred. Could this be the
monument that we as Africans deserve?
References
Avrami, E., Mason, R. and De la Torre, M. (eds) (2000) Values and
Heritage Conservation, Los Angeles: Getty Conservation Institute.
Burra Charter. (1999) The Australia ICOMOS Charter for Places of
Cultural Significance, Australia: ICOMOS.
Chikwanda, G. (2006) ‘The conservation efforts on dry-stone walled
structures from the original construction to date: a look at
Great Zimbabwe and related sites’, Zimbabwea, 8(4): 2230.
Chirikure, S., Manyanga, M., Pikirayi, I. and Pollard, M. (2013) ‘New
pathways to socio-political complexity in southern Africa’,
African Archaeological Review, 30(4): 338366.
Dickens, J. and Walker, P. (1992) An Engineering Study of Dry-stone
Monuments in Zimbabwe, Vol 1, Nottingham: Loughborough
University.
Ferrero, G. (2000) Authenticity and integrity in an African context:
Expert Meeting. Great Zimbabwe: UNESCO.
Gutu, C. (2016) A study of the retaining and freestanding walls at
Khami Phase sites in central Zimbabwe: the case of Naletale,
Dhlodhlo and Regina National Monuments’, unpublished MA
dissertation, University of Zimbabwe.
Hodza, A.C. (1974) Ugo hwamadzinza avaShona. Harare: Mercury
Press.
Jokilehto, J. (1994) Questions about authenticity. In: Larsen, K.E.
and Marstein, N. (eds) Conference on Authenticity in Relation to the
World Heritage Convention: Preparatory Workshop (pp925), Norway:
Riksantikvaren.
396
Jokilehto, J. (1995) Authenticity: a general framework of the
concept’. In: Larsen K.E. (ed.) Proceedings of Nara Conference on
Authenticity, Japan 1994 (pp1734), Trondheim: Tapir Publishers.
Lowenthal, D. (1995) ‘Changing criteria of authenticity’. In: Larsen
K.E. (ed.) Proceedings of Nara Conference on Authenticity, Japan 1994
(pp121135), Trondheim: Tapir Publishers.
Munjeri, D. 2003 Intangible heritage in Africa: could it be a case of
“Much and about nothing”? ICOMOS News 10(2): 79.
Nara Document on Authenticity. (1994) Nara Conference on
Authenticity in Relation to the World Heritage Conventions’,
held at Nara, Japan, from 16 November 1994. Downloaded
http://www.international.icomos.org/charters/nara_e.htm
Ndoro, W. (1995) ‘The restoration of dry-stone walls at Great
Zimbabwe archaeological site’, Conservation and Management of
Archaeological Sites, 1: 8796.
Ndlovu, C. (2015) ‘An Evaluation of the Conservation of Dry Stone
Monuments in Zimbabwe: Case study of Naletale National
Monument’, unpublished MA dissertation, Midlands State
University.
Pikirayi, I. (2013) Stone architecture and the development of power
in the Zimbabwe tradition AD 1270–1830. Accessed from:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/raza20
Randall-MacIver, D. 1906. Medieval Rhodesia. London: Macmillan.
Robben Island Report. (2014) ‘From Himeji to Robben Island: the
future of Nara Document in Africa: Recommendations from the
Robben Island seminar on the Nara Document’, 89 July. Cape
Town, South Africa
Rossler, M. (2008) ‘Applying authenticity to cultural landscapes’,
APT Bulletin, XXXIX (23): 4754.
Silverman, H. (2015) Heritage and authenticity. In: Waterton, E. and
Watson, S. Palgrave Handbook of Contemporary Heritage 1st edition
(p76), London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Summers, R. (1971) Ancient Ruins and Vanished Civilizations of Southern
Africa. Cape Town: Gothic Printing.
397
UNESCO. (2013) Operational guidelines for the implementation of
the World Heritage Convention. Paris: World Heritage Centre.
Venice Charter. (1964) International charter for the conversation and
restorations of monuments and sites. Retrieved from:
http://www.international.icomos.org/charters/venice_e.htm
Von Droste, B. and Bertilsson, U. (1995) Authenticity and World
Heritage. In: Larsen K.E. (ed.) Proceedings of Nara Conference on
Authenticity, Japan 1994 (pp315), Trondheim: Tapir Publishers.
Weerasingh, J. (2011) ‘Living sacred heritage and authenticity in
South Asia. In: Anheier, H and Isar, Y.R. (eds) Heritage, Memory
and Identity (pp137147), London: Sage Publishers.
Zimbabwe Expert Meeting. (2000) Recommendations of the Expert
Meeting on Authenticity and Integrity in an African Context.
Great Zimbabwe National Monument, Zimbabwe, 2629 May
2000.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
Article
Full-text available
Within the Zimbabwe Culture, stone architecture was not a mere reflection of the existing power of élites; rather, the process of creating architecture was also one of creating élite power. Creating architecture involved manipulation of the natural environment, the elements of which were extended or appropriated to constitute the built environment. There is a clear relationship between architecture and natural power, which provided links with the ancestral world. Thus, the construction of monumental architecture in the Zimbabwe Culture was a process of constructing social and political power through the manipulation of ideology, including the appropriation of nature. The Great Zimbabwe and Khami architectural styles express two distinct architectural forms with two distinct conceptual relationships to nature. Great Zimbabwe (AD 1290-1550) period architecture was apparently an extension of the natural environment, while Khami (AD 1400-1800) architecture arrogated elements of nature wholly transforming them into monumental built environments. Understanding these ideological differences is critical to understanding the dynamics of ancient states on the Zimbabwe Plateau.
Article
Full-text available
Much is known about the economy and spatial organization of Zimbabwe culture entities of Mapungubwe, Great Zimbabwe and Khami but less in terms of their origins and relationship with each other. Based on little tangible evidence, it is believed and widely accepted that the societies based at Mapungubwe (ad 1220–1290), Great Zimbabwe (ad 1300–1450) and Khami (ad 1450–1820) rose, developed and eclipsed in tandem. A recent reexamination of the relationship between these settlements and related ones using local ceramics, imported artefacts, stone architecture and Bayesian modelling suggests this may not have been the case. The synthesis proffered revelations which temper the widely accepted assumption that sociopolitical complexity in southern Africa began in the Shashi-Limpopo Valley before anywhere else in the region. Firstly, there are numerous Zhizo and Leopard’s Kopje sites that predate Mapungubwe but contain prestige goods and stone structures dating from the late first millennium ad. Secondly, material culture studies and modelled radiocarbon dates indicate that Great Zimbabwe evolved out of Gumanye while Khami, like Mapungubwe, may have developed out of the Leopard’s Kopje. In fact, Great Zimbabwe was already a place of importance when Mapungubwe collapsed. Thirdly, Khami and Great Zimbabwe overlapped for over a century, before the latter buckled. Therefore, the evolution of sociopolitical complexity in southern Africa may have followed trajectories that are different from what the current understanding implies.
Chapter
The heritage crusade, as Lowenthal (2003) called it, is inextricably linked to an authenticity craze. Authenticity in heritage has been sought, tested, praised, critiqued and denied from the perspectives of art, architecture, landscape, anthropology, archaeology, tourism, museums and other fields. In a popular book, The Authenticity Hoax (2010), Andrew Potter observed that ‘authenticity is a contrastive term’ and ‘is something people definitely want. That is, when something is described as “authentic”, what is invariably meant is that it is a Good Thing’ (2010, p. 6). Though some argue that profitable discussion of authenticity has reached its end, I believe that the concept remains vitally important, albeit changed from earlier understandings.
Article
The notion of heritage and the practice of conservation have changed significantly since the 1964 Charter of Venice stipulated that the intent of conservation was “to safeguard…[monuments]… no less as works of art than as historical evidence” and that the aim of restoration was “to preserve and reveal the aesthetic and historic value of the monument … based on respect for original material and authentic documents.” Since then the scope of heritage has expanded, both in terms of type and scale, and in relation to the time interval between creation and preservation. The characteristics and contexts of different types of heritage places have necessitated the revision of conservation principles and guidelines.Today conservation is understood to encompass any action designed to maintain the cultural significance of a heritage object or place, and is a process that starts at the moment a place is attributed cultural values and singled out for protection. In this complex environment, the protection of values and significance has been seen as a unifying principle of practice. These values are attributed, not intrinsic; mutable, not static; multiple and often incommensurable or in conflict – can challenge established conservation principles. The nature of cultural values has serious implications for the impact of conservation on the values of a place, the universality of conservation principles, and the protection of the heritage for future generations.
Article
Recently Great Zimbabwe National Monument has become the focus of many international and national efforts to preserve its ruined dry-stone structures. This paper outlines certain of the theories and methods shaping the thinking behind some of the restoration programmes at this famous archaeological site. The problems of external prescriptions to the archaeological site are discussed alongside the interests and concerns of the local population. The focus is on the restoration of two sections on the Hill Complex of the site, highlighting the importance of reconciling radical engineering solutions with conservation issues.
The Australia ICOMOS Charter for Places of Cultural Significance
  • Burra Charter
Burra Charter. (1999) The Australia ICOMOS Charter for Places of Cultural Significance, Australia: ICOMOS.
The conservation efforts on dry-stone walled structures -from the original construction to date: a look at Great Zimbabwe and related sites
  • G Chikwanda
Chikwanda, G. (2006) 'The conservation efforts on dry-stone walled structures -from the original construction to date: a look at Great Zimbabwe and related sites', Zimbabwea, 8(4): 22−30.
An Engineering Study of Dry-stone
  • J Dickens
  • P Walker
Dickens, J. and Walker, P. (1992) An Engineering Study of Dry-stone Monuments in Zimbabwe, Vol 1, Nottingham: Loughborough University.
A study of the retaining and freestanding walls at Khami Phase sites in central Zimbabwe: the case of Naletale, Dhlodhlo and Regina National Monuments
  • C Gutu
Gutu, C. (2016) 'A study of the retaining and freestanding walls at Khami Phase sites in central Zimbabwe: the case of Naletale, Dhlodhlo and Regina National Monuments', unpublished MA dissertation, University of Zimbabwe.