Repatriating more than Mapungubwe human remains: archaeological material culture, a shared future and an artificially divided past

Abstract

Apartheid's lingering ghost ensures that repatriation processes in South Africa are complex. Apartheid ideology not only separated black and white, but also made ethnicity the prime identity for Africans, many of whom internalised it. South Africa's ethicised past ensured that the process of repatriating Mapungubwe human remains was framed in ethnic terms. This resulted in quarrels between claimant communities, who tried to authenticate their claims by proving sole ownership of the human remains. In this potentially volatile context archaeologists were not only negotiating responsible repatriation, but also had to consider their role in a divided present, as squabbles over repatriation could harm both the dead and the living. Fluid group membership involved in the negotiation for the return of human remains from Mapungubwe meant that it would be difficult to exclude any claimants. It was therefore agreed that conflicting oral traditions should be viewed as equal, even when not supported by archaeological data. This acceptance of multivocality resulted in a joint claim by representatives of the Mapungubwe descendants.

Keywords:

• Mapungubwe
• repatriation
• ethnicity
• heritage
• archaeology
• multivocality

Acknowledgements

This paper was first presented at the 6^th World Archaeological Congress held in Dublin, 28^th June to the 4^th July 2008. We would like to thank conference participants for their valuable comments and suggestions. We also acknowledge the views of the claimants of the Mapungubwe human remains, whose energies and perceptions on repatriation were an invaluable source of knowledge and which informed this paper. We unreservedly apologise if some of the views given here misrepresent communities and personalities mentioned in this paper. The errors, omissions and interpretations remain our responsibility.

Notes

1. http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1099.

2. The term black was intensively interrogated during the anti-Apartheid struggle and within the Congress movement came to mean people with African, ‘Coloured’ and Indian ancestors. The use of the term shifted in post-Apartheid South Africa and is now more frequently used to mean people with African Bantu- language speaking ancestors and excludes people with ‘Coloured’ and Indian ancestors. This contemporary usage of ‘black’ generally also excludes people who self-identify as KhoeSan. In this paper our use of the term follows that of the Congress movement.

3. Race does not determine ideological positions and a few southern African archaeologists did challenge these oppressive systems (see Ucko 1987).

4. The situation is different in postcolonial Zimbabwe and Botswana, where the discipline has been transformed and black archaeologists outnumber their white colleagues.

5. We place the word accidental in quotation marks because it speaks of the selective historical amnesia of developers in Cape Town. Burials are all but unexpected in a layered urban landscape.

6. We recognise that racial classification is flawed as among other flaws it assumes that groups do not intermingle.

7. This comprises six individuals from Schroda, 109 from K2, one from K1, 13 from Mapungubwe and 16 from various locations on the park.