![Sample our Museum and Heritage Studies journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5945/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Museum-Heritage-Studies.jpg"})
Abstract
Heritage management and cultural legislation have always existed in the African continent, even before the days of written laws. However, it is often perceived that it was with the 'taking over' of the continent that civilization and heritage legislation were first implemented. The 'new' legislation did not recognize the indigenous means of management and ignored the fact that heritage sites have existed long prior to the scramble for the continent. The first enacted legislation in South Africa was distinctively biased towards the Bushmen heritage. I argue that this was probably because it was not politically problematic as Bushmen were considered to be a dying nation with a culture going 'extinct'. Having legislation that promoted the heritage of the people you were colonizing might not have been strategically correct. Legislation over the years moved away from the 'Bushmen culture' to protecting colonial heritage sites. Whilst the post-colonial heritage legislation has improved on the previous legislation — as can be shown by its success in courts — there are still areas of concern. I find the whole heritage framework represented by the legislation to still be clearly non-African, with a top-down approach that has not much respect for African culture, especially the values that clash with Eurocentric ones. I conclude that indeed there has been significant progress made with legislation over the years, from 1911 to 1999 when the current legislation was promulgated. However, a lack of proactive measures from within heritage management, as well as external factors, are still a stumbling block to a successful implementation of heritage legislation and as a result heritage is still threatened.
