Shared Heritage? Shared Responsibility?
Reflections on the role of ‘shared’ colonial heritage within capacity
building programs in the postcolonial world
Dr. Robert Parthesius
Abstract
The Centre for International Heritage Activities (CIE) has been involved in developing
Maritime and Underwater Cultural Heritage Programs (MUCH) in Asia and Africa since the
1990s. Although these programs aimed for a general development of capacity and awareness
for MUCH in the specific region, often the focal point of the program was international
(colonial) heritage sites. Although understandable from the practical implication of funding
opportunities and available expertise of the international trainers, our experiences showed that
this focus was not ideal for the establishment of a sustainable policy on MUCH management
in the post colonial countries.
Building on that experience CIE has developed a vision on international cooperation that
places MUCH in a broader perspective by including a platform of local and international
stakeholders in all stages of the program. Through discussions about the relevance of the
MUCH sites for the various stakeholders awareness can be raised for each other’s perspective
on this type of heritage.
Since the United Nations Education, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) 2001
Convention on the Protection of Underwater Cultural Heritage (2001 Convention) explicitly
promotes international cooperation and given the reality that many MUCH sites in Asia and
Africa are linked with the past of European expansion, it is important to develop a vision on
the role of this colonial heritage that is seen by some as ‘shared heritage’ within the national,
regional and global context.
This paper evaluates the MUCH programs of the CIE in Asia and Africa and hopes with this
to open the discussion on best practices in establishing a sustainable MUCH program on a
local/regional level but promotes at the same time international cooperation to be inclusive for
all types of MUCH.
Introduction
From the 16th century, Dutch mariners explored the world outside Europe in the wake
of other European nations. In the space of only a few decades they built up an
international shipping and trade network. The diverse activities that derived from this
commercial expansion, military expeditions and the later colonial rule have left many
traces behind. For quite some time, the Netherlands has been interested in the
legacy of the age of Dutch and European expansion. This is seen as an important
period that is associated in the Dutch national memory with mixed feelings of pride
and shame. In many countries where the traces of this period have been preserved,
this period also forms an important marker in their history and national identity.
Netherlands policymakers introduced Mutual Cultural Heritage in the 1990’s to label
the heritage of the Dutch expansion and colonial period. This term, which can also be
translated and used as Common or Shared Cultural Heritage, has been the subject
of some debate because the remnants of a Dutch presence do not automatically lead
to mutual appreciation (Fienieg and Parthesius 2008).
The overall objective of the Dutch Mutual Cultural Heritage Policy (MCHP 20092012:PAGE) is to, ‘collaborate on the sustainable maintenance and management of
common cultural heritage, on the basis of reciprocal political and substantive
involvement’. The aims and the associated funds of the MCHP also provided an
excellent basis for programs focusing on the management of Maritime and
Underwater Cultural Heritage (MUCH) sites like shipwrecks and maritime
installations that the Dutch East India Company (VOC) and the West India Company
(WIC) left behind worldwide. Since the 1990’s, the author and the Centre for
International Heritage Activities (CIE) have been involved in the development of
MUCH capacity building programs in Asia and Africa.
Between 1998 and 2007 a program was implemented around the remains of the
VOC-ship Avondster wrecked in 1659 in the Bay of Galle, Sri Lanka. In 2007 another
MUCH capacity building program was initiated in Southern Africa (Tanzania,
Zanzibar and South Africa). Although the funding still came mainly through Dutch
funds, the set-up of these programs changed from a focus on colonial heritage to a
focus on the development of a local vision on the relevance and importance of
MUCH. The Dutch Culture and Development programme turned out to be another
valuable framework (and funding source) for the set-up of more general MUCH
programs that not only focus on the remains of the European expansion but also on
the development of strategies to raise awareness for local perspectives on MUCH.
The UNESCO World Heritage Convention 1972 and the 2001 Convention formed a
framework for the international cooperation.
In this paper, the structure, results and development of some of these MUCH
programs are discussed. Specifically, the programs in Sri Lanka and South Africa are
compared in order to investigate the role that colonial/shared cultural heritage has in
the development of a sustainable capacity building program. Is it possible to use a
colonial heritage site to stimulate a local perspective on MUCH and to build capacity
in the partner country?
Sri Lanka: the Avondster project
Since the early 1990’s, a team of Sri Lankan and international maritime
archaeologists, historians and museum curators has conducted research, on request
from the Sri Lankan authorities, in the Bay of Galle and in the extensive archives in
Sri Lanka and the Netherlands. Underwater surveys have revealed an impressive
number of heritage sites, dating from the 13th century up to modern times
(Parthesius, 2007).
Based on this first inventory of underwater heritage sites in the Bay of Galle, an
ambitious capacity building programme was formulated in order to establish suitable
infrastructure for the management of MUCH sites. In 2001, a Maritime Archaeology
Unit (MAU) was formed under the Mutual Heritage Centre, managed by the Sri
Lankan government agency, the Central Cultural Fund, in cooperation with
international partners in the Netherlands, Australia and Mexico, and sponsored by
the Netherlands Cultural Fund (derived from MCHP). Their first major project was
the excavation of the Avondster, one of five Dutch East-Indiamen wrecked in the
World Heritage Site Galle (for details see Wijamunige this volume).
During the 1993, 1996 and 1997 expeditions to Galle Harbor, the wreck of the
Avondster was discovered and identified (Green, et al. 1998). A survey and testexcavation in 1998 and 1999 revealed a site in an excellent state of preservation; a
rich source of material finds and historical knowledge was anticipated. The wreck site
is situated about 80 metres off the beach in about 4 metres of water. From a diving
safety perspective it was deemed suitable for training, although visibility was often
poor. The site was relatively easy to interpret underwater, enabling the
archaeologists to understand the construction techniques used on a 17th century
East- Indiaman. The Avondster was also historically well documented, which allowed
the Sri Lankan archaeologists to be introduced to historical-archaeological research.
The Avondster site was also selected because it was under threat. Due to changes
on land caused by the building of a sea wall and the channeling from storm-water
drains, the Avondster had become increasingly exposed throughout the 1990s
(Parthesius 1998).
The Avondster project had a number of aims in addition to the survey, excavation
and conservation of the site and the artefacts. One of the primary goals was, through
the involvement of the Sri Lankan archaeologists and conservators, to build up local
capacity and the associated infrastructure, so that they could continue with a
maritime archaeology programme in Sri Lanka into the future. Another important goal
was the development of a Maritime Museum, based to some extent on the material
recovered from the Avondster but also incorporating Sri Lanka’s broader maritime
history, its sites and the people involved.
Figure 1. NAS training of the members of the Maritime Archaeological Unit, Sri
Lanka, 2001
The opportunity to conduct a professional archaeological excavation using the
highest possible standards was seen as an appropriate step to take in protecting the
site. It would also demonstrate how important archaeological information could be
obtained and disseminated to the community. The Avondster-project involved the
pre-disturbance survey of the exposed part of the site, excavation of trenches in the
bow, midships and stern areas, and the recovery of about 3,000 artefacts, an iron
cannon and a large iron anchor. In addition to the archaeological requirements, the
development of a conservation infrastructure, conservation training, and
implementation of conservation techniques were also deemed to be of equal
importance (Parthesius, et al. 2005). In cooperation with the Conservation
Department of the Western Australian Maritime Museum, the Amsterdam Historical
Museum and The Instituto National de Antropologia e Historia in Mexico, a wellequipped conservation laboratory was built. A small team of conservators was
trained in many of the techniques required to conserve maritime archaeological
objects.
Since the inception of the Avondster-project in 1998, the primary aim of the work
carried out by the foreign consultants has been to train members of the MAU as
conservators and maritime archaeologists so that they would have the skills to
function autonomously. This aspect has been emphasized during every field season.
As part of this training, many foreign consultants with various skills have worked with
the MAU team. The use of different consultants has broadened the MAU team’s
exposure to different experiences, thereby giving them the benefit of alternative
approaches and many years of accumulated experience and knowledge. To
accompany the training provided by specialist consultants to the Sri Lankan team, a
detailed system of assessment was designed. A very significant outcome of this
project was that the Sri Lankan team collaborated with the foreign consultants who
produced a two-volume publication on the work implemented on the Avondster
(Parthesius 2007). In addition, through a UNESCO initiative, the Galle MAU served
as a regional training centre in maritime archaeology for the Asia/Pacific region with
field schools in 2006, 2007 and 2008 (http://www.unescobkk.org/index.php?id=4944).
Figure 2. Preparing a barrel for raising from the Avondster-site, Galle, Sri Lanka,
2004
The Avondster-project is considered a success but there is an important side note to
make that refers to the sustainability of MUCH management through well-established
awareness and a sense of ownership. The program in Sri Lanka was possible
because a Dutch VOC vessel was under threat and we could persuade the
Netherlands Cultural Fund to invest in a capacity building programme around this
colonial shipwreck that has been labeled ‘mutual heritage’. The built capacity turned
out to be sustainable because the focus on a colonial shipwreck against the
background of the fortified city of Galle is seen as important heritage and connected
with the cultural identity of Sri Lanka.
Maritime and Underwater Cultural Heritage (MUCH) Programme in
Southern Africa
On invitation by South Africa and Tanzania, the CIE took the opportunity in 2007 to
build on the experience gained in Sri Lanka and formulated a four-phased MUCH
capacity building programme that recognized the importance of establishing a local
tradition and vision on this specific type of heritage. Key in this set-up is to bring all
relevant stakeholders together and encourage full involvement, ranging from political
commitment to community engagement. Unlike the project in Sri Lanka, the focus on
Mutual Cultural Heritage in South Africa would not be developing a framework for the
‘new MUCH programme’. For South Africa this would start the cooperation on the
wrong footing since the colonial heritage has a negative annotation. An ‘open
definition process’ started with multiple stakeholders deciding relevant subjects and
sites for a MUCH programme. A universal framework for the MUCH programme was
found in the context of the UNESCO World Heritage Convention 1972 and the 2001
Convention.
Figure 3. Surveying an intertidal shipwreck on Robben Island, South Africa, 2010
South Africa
Since 2007 CIE has assisted the South African Heritage Resources Agency
(SAHRA) in developing a MUCH program in South Africa. The Netherlands
involvement came about through their funding contribution to the program through
the Netherlands Culture and Development Program. South Africa contains some of
the oldest evidence of human occupation in the world and some of this evidence may
be found around its coastline and underwater. The ongoing importance, use and
exploitation of the sea and inland waterways by communities are evident today from
numerous types of sites, traditional cultural practices and customs. Many shipwrecks
from the activities of foreign explorers, traders and colonialists can also be found in
its waters. South Africa therefore contains a range of tangible and intangible heritage,
significant and relevant to contemporary communities and contributing toward the
cultural identity of the country.
The workshops organized on Robben Island in 2010 and 2011 included a number of
participants, particularly those from South African stakeholders other than SAHRA,
being educated in parts of the NAS theoretical and practical training program. One of
the aims of the practical workshops was to build-up a database of the Robben Island
MUCH sites (on land and underwater). Robben Island and its surrounding waters
contain in excess of 100 sites (many with poor provenance and lacking
documentation) and the outcomes of the practical work will assist the Robben Island
Museum in beginning the documentation and management of this component of its
cultural landscape.
Apart from the direct capacity that has been built amongst various representatives of
government agents, students, volunteers and of course the SAHRA staff, the project
has a important focus on the development of public awareness and an African vision
on MUCH. The discussions with many stakeholders and relevant communities have
led to the selection of so-called “Legacy Sites”, representing the vision on MUCH in
South Africa. They are not intended to be an exhaustive list, they are simply
‘highlights’ to begin to describe how diverse South Africa’s relationship with water
actually is. In this stage of the programme four Legacy Sites have been selected:
The shipwreck site of the Barrel Wreck in the Table Bay shows the strong
linkages of South Africa with an international shipping network (Sharfman,
2012). It was selected as a legacy site because not only is it a good example
of a ‘traditional’ underwater archaeological site but it is relatively easy to
access and monitor, thus use for training and specialized studies can help
answer conservation and management questions regarding similar sites.
Robben Island is also linked with the international maritime connections. As a
place of isolation, it has a long history of banishment and imprisonment,
stretching back to the first settlers who brought their political opponents from
the colonies in the Far East (Deacon, 1996). The fact that the site is an Island
means that almost all the activities that took place there have an inherent
connection with the ocean.
The fish weirs at Stillbaai and Arniston are an important element in the
MUCH sites because they represent the relationship of local communities with
the sea. These stonewall fish traps are of undetermined age but were used by
local fishermen for at least the past century. The fish weirs could be anything
from 200 to 2000 years old. This poses several interesting questions regarding
traditional fishing practices and interactions between settlers and indigenes.
Lake Fundudzi has been identified as Legacy Site due to its intangible
connection with water. The lake is situated in the northeast of the Limpopo
Province and is viewed as the only natural inland lake in Southern Africa. For
the Vhavenda people, however, the lake is more than just a natural water
body, as it forms a rich heritage of folklore, myths and ceremonial rituals. It is
their burial site and is therefore sacred and believed to be the home of
ancestral spirit of the Vhatavhatsindi people who claim their ancestors
discovered the lake when they moved into South Africa from Zimbabwe
(Sharfman, 2012). The living heritage that surrounds the lake, such as the
communities’ cultural practices, could be extrapolated to a broader
understanding of African ways and means of dealing with its past, for instance
broader African religious and spiritual relationships with water. These
practices often provide a tangible element to the intangible aspects of spirits
and their mediums with water. Broader research needs to be included in the
submission as water is a central feature in the living heritage of numerous
people.
Figure 4. Lake Fundudzi, Limpopo, South Africa, 2010
Considerations and conclusions
As emphasized by the Avondster-project, sustainability in a country or region is only
possible when a capacity building programme has been put together in collaboration
with the relevant stakeholders (political, academic and bureaucratic). To obtain this, it
is important that an awareness of the different values of maritime and underwater
cultural heritage (MUCH) is appreciated between all stakeholders. It is in that context
also necessary to create and implement practicable measures to stimulate public
awareness. This can be achieved in part through community engagement
programmes, which implement MUCH projects for the benefit of contemporary
communities. In addition to reviving or helping to maintain traditional cultural
practices and protect and preserve indigenous sites in less developed countries, one
of the benefits could be an economic gain through the re-use of UCH and through
tourism managed by the local community.
Cultural heritage sites from the colonial period, that have been labeled Mutual
Cultural Heritage from the Dutch perspective, take a prominent position in both Sri
Lanka and South Africa. Through the nature of the European expansion, many of the
remains of this period (e.g. port cities, harbor installations, fortifications and
shipwrecks) can be considered MUCH sites. The fact that they are located in
prominent places and that the Netherlands consider it Mutual Cultural Heritage,
doesn’t mean automatically that the partner countries may also consider it important
heritage linked with their own cultural identity.
Sri Lanka and South Africa are different in that respect. In Sri Lanka the built heritage
of the so-called Dutch Period (1640-1796) is considered heritage of ‘Dual
Parentship’. The World Heritage Site Galle is considered as the highlight of that
heritage. The wreck of the VOC-ship Avondster does not fall under that concept. It
was in a sense new heritage because before its discovery in 1993 neither the
Netherlands nor Sri Lanka were aware of its existence. Placed in the context of
Galle, but not as a product of Sri Lanka-Dutch design, the Avondster-site was
considered Mutual Cultural Heritage instead of heritage of Dual Parentship.1 This
concept made the Avondster very suitable and reciprocal for research and for the
development of capacity and heritage management strategies for this site. However,
it kept the perspective on the MUCH sites in the whole of Sri Lanka very narrow.
The context for cooperation in South Africa was totally different. Cultural heritage
plays an important role in the development of the ‘New South Africa’ after the first
democratic elections of 1994. Cultural identity is key in the nation building process
after the country was divided and scattered under the Apartheid regime (1948-1994).
Although the authorities are acting very responsibly towards the inclusion of the
cultural heritage of the former repressors, it is clear that VOC heritage is not
generally and popularly linked with the South African cultural identity. Consequently
these types of sites could not be a starting point for the set-up of a capacity building
program. The cooperation was therefore centered on the technical assistance that
international experts could bring to the development of MUCH management in South
Africa. Since stimulating the development of a local vision on MUCH is a key activity
in the CIE’s capacity building vision, this element was also included in the
programme. The sometimes-heated discussions during the workshops on the
relevance of MUCH for South Africa led to a vision on the heritage that expressed the
relationship of the communities with the sea and water in general. The identification
of the four Legacy Sites shows how inclusive this vision is.
The work that is in progress on the Legacy Sites has only scratched the surface of
the rich and diverse MUCH of South Africa. A great deal of work is still required. This
will entail an examination of the challenges of redefining MUCH and the collecting of
data to describe and analyze the sites. With diversification of the scope of MUCH
comes the question of fitting MUCH into the heritage themes that are currently
significant in South Africa. Is the new approach to MUCH relevant, and how are the
identified sites relevant to all South Africans? The field has moved beyond the
confines of “physical sites”, “maritime” or “underwater” cultural heritage towards an
integrated and holistic, seamless study of heritage associated with varied bodies of
water within which tangible and intangible heritage can be explored. This is a very
exciting process of reciprocity in which we could assist with the transfer of technical
skills and knowhow, and where together we created a platform of discussion in the
region that has led to a unique vision on ‘water heritage’ from an African perspective.
Bibliography
Deacon, Harriet
Fienieg,A.,
Parthesius, R.
2008
The Island, A History of Robben Island
“Heritage trails: International cultural heritage policies in a
European perspective”, in (ed) Gert, Oostindie, Migration and
cultural heritage in the Dutch colonial world, KITLV Press,
Leiden
Green,
J.
N., Report for the Sri Lanka Department of Archaeology Galle
Devendra, S. and Harbour project 1996–1997 archaeology, history, conservation
Parthesius, R.,
and training, Special Publication No. 4, Australian National
1998
Centre of Excellence for Maritime Archaeology, WA Maritime
1
Ironically the site can be considered as heritage of Anglo-Dutch dual parentship since the Avondster
was a captured and modified ship from the English East India Company.
Museum.
Archives and Wreckes: Australian-Dutch co-operation. in
Green, J (ed) The Ancods colloquium. 68-74.
“Preliminary Report on the Excavation of the 17th-Century
Anglo-Dutch East-Indiaman Avondster in Bay of Galle, Sri
Lanka”, in International Journal of Nautical Archaeology, 34, 2
pp. 216-237.
Excavation report of the VOC-ship Avondster, The AngloDutch East-Indiaman that was wrecked twice in Ceylon,
Centre of International Heritage Activities special publication
No. 1, Amsterdam.
R., Dutch Ships in Tropical waters. The development of a
shipping network in Asia 1595-1660, Amsterdam University
Press.
J. New Perspectives on Maritime and Underwater Cultural
Heritage in South Africa. Cape Town 2012 (in print)
S.L.,
Parthesius, R.,
1998
Parthesius,
R.,
Millar, K., Jeffery,
B.,
2005
Parthesius,
R.,
2007
Parthesius,
2010
Sharfman,
Masuku-Van
Damme,
Parthesius, R.
MCHP
2009-2012
UNESCO
fieldschool
2008
Common Cultural Heritage Policy Framework 20092012, AVT09/BZ93771
http://awad.kitlv.nl/home/show_news/71?page_name=news
http://www.unescobkk.org/index.php?id=4944
2006-