‘An extreme case’: the removal of rock art from uMhwabane (eBusingatha) rock art shelter, Bergville, KwaZulu-Natal

285

Southern African Humanities Vol. 20 Pages 285–315 Pietermaritzburg December, 2008

http://www.sahumanities.org.za

‘An extreme case’: the removal of rock art from uMhwabane(eBusingatha) rock art shelter, Bergville, KwaZulu-Natal

ıJeremy C. Hollmann and 2Lawrence MsimangaıNatal Museum, P. Bag 9070, Pietermaritzburg, 3200; University of KwaZulu-Natal,

School of Anthropology, Gender & Historical Studies, P. Bag X01, Scottsville,3209 South Africa; [email protected]

2P.O. Box 199, Bergville, 3350 South Africa; [email protected]

ABSTRACT

uMhwabane Shelter (also known as eBusingatha Shelter) is a rock art site alongside the eBusingatha Riverin the amaZizi Traditional Authority Area. It is one of KwaZulu-Natal’s problem rock art sites. Today it stillcontains at least 50 hunter-gatherer paintings but there used to be many more. As with other easily accessiblerock art sites that have no access control, the art has suffered from vandalism. Authorities responded byremoving some 31 painted rocks at the time of the visit of the British royal family to South Africa in 1947.The institutions entrusted with their care subsequently neglected the art. Action is now being taken toconserve and display the removed rock art. In this paper we piece together oral traditions, documents andimages to tell the history of an extreme case of archaeological intervention, its consequences and futureprospects.

KEY WORDS: Bushman rock art, Cinyati, eBusingatha, Drakensberg, Natal Museum, rock art management,rock art removals, Royal Natal National Park, uKhahlamba, uMhwabane.

Alongside the eBusingatha River in the amaZizi Traditional Authority Area is a paintedoverhang, 55 m long, 6 m deep and 6 m high (Figs 1 & 2). Like so many places in SouthAfrica, this overhang has more than one name. Anthropologist and rock art researcherLeo Frobenius called it ‘Cinyati’ (Frobenius 1962). Archaeologists, officials and touristscall the place ‘eBusingata’ (more correctly, eBusingatha), after the name of the valleyitself.1 The people in the eBusingatha Valley call it uMhwabane. This is the name of thegreat snake that, until recently, is believed to have lived in a pool below the shelter.Inside the overhang there is a rock painting of a large serpent that is said to be a depictionof uMhwabane itself (Fig. 3). uMhwabane’s eggs were said to lie in and around theoverhang and at night, the glow of the eggs could be seen from across the river.

People in the valley still fear this snake. Author Lawrence Msimanga grew up hereand is in his early thirties, but visited the place for the first time only in 2005. uMhwabaneis dangerous, although it will not attack abelungu (white people). Forty or fifty yearsago, the snake killed twins crossing the river near the pool. In the late 1990s, however,the pool filled up with silt and the river changed its course. A large slab of rock insidethe overhang fell down. These events were taken as a sign that the snake had left.Nevertheless when, on a graffiti removal trip in 2008, archaeologist Janette Deacondecided to sleep inside the overhang, author Msimanga realised with trepidation that hewould have to pass the night there too. Others joked that uMhwabane would come thatnight and take him away. People who heard about it afterwards marvelled that he haddared to sleep at uMhwabane. It is this combination of fear, comparative isolation and

1 The name ‘Ebusingata’ can be confusing. There is more than one rock art site in the eBusingatha valley, aswell as an unpainted overhang used as an overnight stop by hikers that is also called eBusingatha.Archaeologist Van Riet Lowe identified it as ‘Ebusingata Number One’, which helps somewhat to obviateconfusion. Local residents, however, would not know this name.

286 SOUTHERN AFRICAN HUMANITIES, VOL. 20, 2008

Fig. 2. uMhwabane Shelter is in the amaZizi Traditional Authority Area between the Royal Natal NationalPark in the north and Cathedral Peak in the south.

Fig. 1. uMhwabane Shelter (also known as eBusingatha Shelter) in the northern Drakensberg formerlycontained a hundred or more (San/Bushman) hunter-gatherer paintings. Over 30 painted rockswere removed from the site in late 1946 or early 1947 to coincide with the visit of the Britishroyal family in February 1947.

HOLLMANN & MSIMANGA: UMHWABANE ROCK ART SHELTER 287

Fig. 3b. The painting of the serpent photographed in 2008 (arrowed).

Fig. 3a. Anthropologist Leo Frobenius copied the rock art on the western wall of uMhwabane Shelter in the1930s (Frobenius 1962: plate 127). Note the large serpent painted in white. Local amaZizi residentssay that this painting depicts the snake they call uMhwabane; the snake is believed to have livedin a pool just below the shelter until the late 1990s.


easy accessibility that makes the rock art at uMhwabane Shelter so vulnerable to damage,as we explain later.

In this paper we relate the recent history of the rock art at uMhwabane Shelter. Wedescribe why and how the rock art was removed and then kept in substandard conditionsfor over fifty years. We then recount how recent co-operation between the Natal Museumand amaZizi rock art monitors has rekindled interest and concern for the site itself andfor the rock art that was removed. Finally we offer an assessment of the removals andmake suggestions about the future safekeeping of uMhwabane and the rocks removedfrom the site.

THE REMOVAL OF ROCK ART FROM UMHWABANE SHELTER

The amaZizi have probably lived in this part of the uKhahlamba/Drakensberg sinceabout 1700 (Bryant 1929: 355) but it is not clear how long people have maintainedbeliefs about the snake uMhwabane and therefore avoided the place. The fact that aplace is generally associated with a dangerous entity does not mean that no one willvisit it or make use of it. Certainly, agriculturists in KwaZulu-Natal have made use ofshelters formerly occupied by hunter-gatherers; for example, at Mzinyashana 1, about100 km south-east of Dundee, agriculturist occupation dates from the first millenniumAD (Mazel 1997: 31–3) and at iNkolimahashi Shelter, a painted site in the ThukelaBasin an agriculturist presence dates back to the early second millennium AD (Mazel1999: 18–19). Regardless of beliefs about uMhwabane or the presence of many Bushmanpaintings, the overhang has the makings of a good kraal. A letter by H.C.B. Wylde-Browne, written in 1937, alludes to its use as a kraal and storage place:

Fig. 3c. The serpent’s body is finely decorated.


These paintings were in a poor state of preservation when I last visited them in 1923. A very badlybuilt stone wall has been erected around them but with the natives and goats using the cave, feel surethat that flimsy contrivance must be on the floor now. Before these paintings were damaged, nativesstored thatch grass up against them, this was set alight by a grass fire and did much harm.2

Does Wylde-Browne imply that there was a wall to protect the art? Perhaps so, but wehave seen photographs, probably taken in the 1940s, of a packed stone wall atuMhwabane Shelter that looks more like a ‘native’ goat kraal (Fig. 4).

Then, in the mid 1940s a chain of events was set in motion that resulted in the removalof rock art from uMhwabane Shelter. The South African Prime Minister at the time,General Jan Smuts, who was keenly interested in archaeology and rock art (Schlanger2002) “contemplated a visit by the [British] Royal Family to the prehistoric rock paintingsin the cave at Ebusingata near the Natal National Park”.3 Details of how Smuts knewabout uMhwabane Shelter are not clear, nor do we know why he was so interested inthis particular site. Whatever the case, the Prime Minister’s office informed theCommission for the Preservation of Natural and Historical Monuments, Relics andAntiques4 of reports from the Natal Provincial Administration that “the cave andpaintings [had] been badly damaged”. Consequently, in September 1946, Secretary of

Fig. 4. An undated photograph of uMhwabane Shelter shows a packed stone wall and a large tree, neither ofwhich exist today. The presence of the stone wall suggests that the site may have been used as akraal. The photograph was possibly taken by archaeologist Van Riet Lowe in the 1940s prior tothe removal of rock art from the site. Photograph courtesy of the Rock Art Research Institute,University of Witwatersrand.

2 Document VRL-ECT-002 in Van Riet Lowe Collection, Rock Art Research Institute, University of theWitwatersrand.

3 Document (probably the minutes of a meeting) on file in Cape Town at SAHRA. Copy in possession ofJ. Hollmann.

4 A predecessor of the South African Heritage Resources Agency (SAHRA).


the Commission as well as Director of the Archaeological Survey, Clarence “Peter”van Riet Lowe visited uMhwabane with Mr N.O. Jackson, Natal’s Provincial Architect,and a stonemason. Correspondence kept at the Rock Art Research Institute at theUniversity of the Witwatersrand makes it clear that this was not the first time that VanRiet Lowe had visited the site. Their fears about the site being damaged were confirmedwhen Van Riet Lowe got to uMhwabane; it had been vandalized. In a letter to Smutsdated 1 October 1946 he writes:

My dear General,

ROYAL VISIT TO SOUTH AFRICA: 1947

As a result of an adverse report received via your office from the Administrator of Natal, I visited theEbusingata cave with its frescoed walls last week and very much regret having to report that suchdamage and destruction to the paintings as well as to the cave itself that I feel it would be unwise totake the Royal Family to the place. The damage inflicted during the past year is appalling—so muchso that I almost despair of curing our fellows of that peculiar form of exhibitionism which impelsthem to scribble or carve their names or initial in such precious places. The cave has been ruined andwe would simply be seeking further trouble and vandalism if we failed to salvage what is left. Muchas I disliked doing it, I recommended to the Province that immediate steps be taken to remove whatis left and to incorporate the originals (under glass and special lighting) in a special room at the NatalNational Park hostel—the exhibition to have added to it explanatory notices which I shall provide—the notices to include further appeals to visitors and the public generally not to damage the paintingsin the remaining (lesser) sites in the vicinity.

The Natal Provincial Architect who is responsible for getting the hostel ready for the Royal Familyaccompanied me to the site and discussed with me the details of salvage. He brought a stone masonfrom the hostel and seemed thoroughly appreciative of the issues and task before him. I also discussedthe final housing of the specimens with him and pending further investigation by him, we tentativelyagreed to build the salvaged originals into a blank end-wall of what is to be a writing and readingroom for adults only. Their Majesties will therefore at least be able to see some Bushman paintings—and say, I hope, that it is a pity that they had to be removed from the gallery for which they wereintended.

The difference between seeing and studying a rock painting in a cave and seeing the same thingunder glass in a museum or a hostel is, as you know, literally as great as the difference between chalkand cheese, but until our fellows are cured of their exhibitionism and a constantly recurring desireamong not a few to throw stones or dung at paintings which cannot reasonably be protected in situwe shall be repeatedly forced deliberately to remove originals to places of greater safety. We shallnaturally only do this as an extreme measure, but that we shall have to do it in many cases I have nodoubt whatever. Ebusingata is an extreme case and I have therefore acted accordingly. I’m sorry todisappoint you, but must assure you that I had no alternative and can only hope that you will understand.

With warm and respectful greetings,Believe me,My dear General,Yours very sincerely,C.V.R.L.5

Apparently the original intention was for the British royal family6 to cross the river andview the paintings. This is important because subsequently a story has grown up thatthe paintings were removed to spare the royal family the inconvenience of wetting theirfeet. The letter makes it clear that it was not the motivation for the removals. Nonethelessthere are indications that General Smuts did prevail upon Van Riet Lowe to remove theart rather than to consider alternative solutions. We substantiate this claim shortly.

Removal was not an unprecedented practice during this era and was carried out muchmore often and for a wider variety of reasons than today (Henry 2007; see Anderson5 Letter on file at SAHRA Head Office, Cape Town. Copy in possession of J. Hollmann.6 King George VI, Queen Elizabeth I and Princesses Elizabeth and Margaret.


2008 for a recent report on rock art removals), but still only used as a last resort. A shortnotice in the editorial notes of the South African Archaeological Bulletin (1946, Volume1(3): 59–60) published in the same year as the removals from uMhwabane describes arange of threats to rock art “from weather, seepage and the destructive hand of man”and the means of protecting the art against them. These include “wire-mesh or closefencing…the appointment of a resident caretaker” and “[w]here no protection is possible,the painting may be removed by experts, with the minimum of damage, and housed inthe nearest museum”. The notice originated from Van Riet Lowe and was part of acommendable effort by the Archaeological Survey to establish a database of threatenedrock art (see Van Riet Lowe’s 1956 Distribution of prehistoric rock engravings andpaintings in South Africa). Note that negotiation and consultation with communities,central to rock art management today, are not explicitly included as ways of dealingwith threats to rock art. It may be that in the social climate of the time these processeswere perhaps not even considered.

But even by the standards of the day, removals were only carried out where theauthorities “despaired” (to paraphrase Van Riet Lowe) of protecting the art. Did thesituation at uMhwabane really warrant the final, extreme step? Instead of removing it,the rock art at uMhwabane could have been secured; as we have just seen, this was partof the repertoire of protective measures. Alternatively, the royal family could have beentaken to see other easily accessible, though admittedly smaller and less spectacular,rock art sites within the Natal National Park.

Smuts’s wish for the royal family to see specifically the uMhwabane paintings mayhave been a factor behind the decision to remove the art instead of conserving it in situ.Consider that when Van Riet Lowe visited the site to investigate the damage it was inresponse to a request from Smuts and in the company of the Natal Provincial Architectand a stonemason. Evidently Van Riet Lowe was already anticipating the most extremeoption. An additional hint that it was Smuts who had suggested removal may be gleanedfrom a letter written by Van Riet Lowe to the Natal Provincial Secretary in 1951 andreproduced in full later in this article. Van Riet Lowe admonishes the secretary that“the task [i.e. the removal of the art] was undertaken at your request and expense inresponse to a suggestion from the then Prime Minister …” (our brackets and italics).7

The “suggestion” to which Van Riet Lowe alludes may have been the removal of theart.

Certainly both Smuts and Van Riet Lowe had obligations and expectations concerningthe royal visit. Smuts had close links with the British royal family, who recognisedSmuts’s contributions with the award of the (British) Order of Merit on the day of KingGeorge VI’s arrival in South Africa (Fig. 5). Both men with military backgrounds,Smuts and Van Riet Lowe were “firm friends” and “had long and serious discussionson archaeological subjects” several years before, in 1932, when they returned to SouthAfrica from the United Kingdom on the same ship (Malan 1962: 40). Van Riet Lowe’sdesire to please was quite explicit. In his letter to Smuts he apologizes for disappointinghim. Again, in a letter8 to the Provincial Secretary of the Natal Provincial AdministrationVan Riet Lowe expresses his desire “not [to] unduly disappoint the Prime Minister who7 Letter from Van Riet Lowe to the Provincial Secretary of Natal, 23 May 1951. On file at Ezemvelo KZN

Wildlife, Queen Elizabeth Park, Pietermaritzburg (Folder A/1).8 Letter from Van Riet Lowe to the Provincial Secretary, Natal, 1 October 1946. On file at SAHRA.


wished me to accompany Their Majesties to Ebusingata”. And so, if the site was nolonger fit for a king, then the paintings would be removed, for their own protection tobe sure, but also to enable the royal family to view, in suitable surroundings, the art thatSmuts so fervently desired them to see.

It seems therefore that there was a political dimension to Van Riet Lowe’s decision.He was under pressure from Prime Minister Smuts who had apparently set his heart onshowing the British royal family the uMhwabane art. Perhaps, in view of the imminentarrival of the royal family, Van Riet Lowe felt obliged to make an urgent decision. Inour opinion his feelings of obligation and admiration for Smuts and the royal status ofthe visitors may have influenced his decision to remove the rock art rather than toconsider alternatives. This is not to condemn Van Riet Lowe, whose contribution to theconservation of rock art was significant; we merely point out that these pressures mayhave influenced the decision-making process.

On the same day (1 October 1946) he wrote to Smuts, Van Riet Lowe issued a permitfor the removal of rock paintings from uMhwabane (Fig. 6). He explained to theProvincial Secretary of the Natal Provincial Administration that he had entrusted theremovals to Mr Jackson. In a letter to Jackson9 he asks him to remove the paintings byDecember 1946.

Fig. 5. On the same day that he arrived in Cape Town, King George VI presented Jan Smuts with the(British) Order of Merit. Such close and cordial relations between the British royal family andSmuts provide the background against which Smuts’s insistence on showing the uMhwabane artto the British royal family must be evaluated.

9 Letter from Van Riet Lowe to Provincial Architect of Natal 1 October 1946. On file at SAHRA.


Fig. 7. Sketches of some of the paintings from uMhwabane Shelter and a section drawing of part of the site,made by Van Riet Lowe and dated 25/12/46.

Fig. 6. The permit for the removal of rock art “from a cave known as EBUSINGATA or CINYATI in theUpper Tugela Location at Natal National Park for the purpose of housing the originals in NatalNational Park Hostel”.


Fig. 8. The western wall of uMhwabane Shelter; Van Riet Lowe may have taken these photographs in 1946prior to the removals. These paintings were not removed and are still at the site although they areexfoliating. The identity of the person in the photograph is not known. Photograph courtesy ofthe Rock Art Research Institute, University of Witwatersrand.

Fig. 9. The interior of uMhwabane, possibly taken shortly before rock art was removed in late 1946 or earlyin 1947. Note the many fallen rocks and the stone wall in the background. The people in thephotograph have not been identified. Photograph courtesy of the Rock Art Research Institute,University of Witwatersrand.


Fig. 10a. A panel of rock art, probably photographed by Van Riet Lowe prior to its removal. Photographcourtesy of the Rock Art Research Institute, University of Witwatersrand.

Prior to the removals Van Riet Lowe made several drawings of rock paintings and asection drawing of part of uMhwabane (Fig. 7). He also compiled a short pamphlet thatdescribes details of several of the removed pieces of rock art.10 Van Riet Lowe mayalso have taken the 29 or so black and white photographs of uMhwabane that are in theVan Riet Lowe Collection at the Rock Art Research Institute, University of

Fig. 10b. Part of the same painted rock, Natal Museum accession number A552, now housed in theArchaeology storeroom of the Natal Museum. Note that the rock has been broken and the surfacescratched; this damage is probably the result of its removal and subsequent improper storage.

10 Typewritten notes entitled Royal Natal National Park: Bushman paintings. Interpretations. In FolderA/18, Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife, Queen Elizabeth Park, Pietermaritzburg.


Fig. 11a. Details of two sets of rock paintings before they were removed from uMhwabane Shelter. There isa third set of images on the same block but it is not shown in this photograph (see Fig. 12).Photograph courtesy of the Rock Art Research Institute, University of Witwatersrand.

Fig. 11b. One of the two sets of rock paintings shown in Fig. 11a (Natal Museum accession number A544).Notice the black line made around the paintings; this line was made perhaps to identify thesepaintings for removal.


Fig. 11c. The second set of paintings (Natal Museum accession number A549) shown in Fig 11a.

Witwatersrand.11 The pictures give us a view of uMhwabane before the removals werecarried out. A stone wall (the goats’ kraal?), no longer present today, spans part of themouth of the overhang; a large tree grows near the drip line (Fig. 4). It too has gone. Anunidentified man stands in front of a section of painted rock from the western wall (Fig.8) while another photograph shows four unknown men amongst a jumble of fallenstones inside the overhang (Fig. 9).

A few photographs afford tantalizing glimpses of the rock art before removal. Thephotographs of the rock art on the western rock face, which were not removed, enableus to judge the rate of deterioration of the rock surface by comparing the images as theyappear today. Other photographs enable us to locate the position of four of the paintedrocks now in the Natal Museum. One of them is on a large slab at the back of theoverhang, probably the block marked ‘B: Centre panel’ on Van Riet Lowe’s drawing(Fig. 10). Other photographs show a slab that was subsequently broken into at leastthree pieces (Figs 11 & 12). There is also a brief description of the art in situ by SouthAfrican artist Walter Battiss (1948: 73), who mentions paintings on a “large, almostupright slab fallen from the main wall” (perhaps CVRL’s Block C?), and paintings ofcattle and other images “on the left on the vertical sides of low-lying slabs which havefallen from the roof of the shelter in comparatively recent times”.

Besides these photographs and descriptions we have not found any documentationabout the original location of the removed art or the removal process. There are nophotographs of the well-known ‘Elephant Man’ painting (Fig. 13), nor any documentationof the vandalism. Possibly there are details in the Provincial Administration files towhich Van Riet Lowe referred in his letter (despite enquiries to the National Archivesin Pietermaritzburg we have not been able to locate these) but it would not be surprising11 http://ringingrocks.wits.ac.za. Accessed 30 July 2008.


Fig. 12b. The same rock art images after removal (Natal Museum accession number A545a & b).

if no records were kept about the original positions of the paintings on the shelter walls.The priority after all was to ‘salvage’ the art in time for the royal visit.

Despite their visit to the site and Van Riet Lowe’s confidence in the stone mason, hewas not pleased with the removals. In a letter to Battiss he notes that “the paintingswere not well removed”.12 Rock art researcher Harald Pager (1962: 45), points out “ill-

Fig. 12a. Rock paintings before removal. Photograph courtesy of the Rock Art Research Institute, Universityof Witwatersrand.

12 Letter from Van Riet Lowe to Walter Battiss, 12 March 1947. On file at SAHRA. Copy in possession ofJ. Hollmann.


Fig. 13. The ‘Elephant Man’ panel, perhaps the best known example of the art removed from uMhwabaneShelter. The Elephant Man combines human and elephant features (head, trunk and tusks). Noticethe traces of drill holes on the rock around the Elephant Man; these have been filled in with acement-like substance.

Fig. 14. Archaeologist Van Riet Lowe complained that the removals from uMhwabane Shelter were notwell carried out. This detail of a domesticated bovid shows how the removers disfigured the rockart with an indelible black substance.


placed drill holes next to the ‘Elephant Man’” (Fig. 13). The removers also disfiguredsome of the rocks by outlining the selected paintings with thick black lines of a water-resistant pigment (Fig.14).

People in the eBusingatha Valley have their own version of these events. The oldergenerations know that paintings were removed from uMhwabane but they do not speakof Van Riet Lowe or the British king and queen. Rather they see monetary gain as thereason for the removals. There is a story that the erstwhile Natal Parks, Game and FishPreservation Board (known as the Natal Parks Board and now Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife)and neighbour to the north and west of the amaZizi’s lands, poached the paintings.Others tell that the iNkosi of the amaZizi enriched himself by selling off the paintings.

One of us (Jeremy Hollmann) was told that the huge, fallen boulders within theoverhang were dislodged by blasts of explosives and that the exfoliating paintings onthe west wall were the result of shrapnel damage. This is doubtful. The removers didapparently use explosives but not in such a dramatic and uncontrolled fashion. Thetechnique probably involved drilling holes into the rock and packing these with charges.

Fig. 15. Prime Minister Smuts films the British royal family during their sojourn at Royal Natal NationalPark. During their stay and probably in Smuts’s company they would have viewed the rock artthat was removed from uMhwabane Shelter. Photograph from Souvenir of the Royal Tour 1947:pictures from the Cape Times, Rand Daily Mail, The Natal Mercury and Sunday Times, p. 42.


There are traces of drill holes on some of the removed painted slabs. The exfoliatingpaintings and the fallen rocks are natural weathering processes, although the use ofexplosives may have exacerbated, perhaps even created, fractures and faults in the rockformation. Most visitors to uMhwabane would not even notice the few drill holes in therocks, the only obvious signs that much of the art was removed from the shelter walls.There is no other indication that the site once housed hundreds of paintings. uMhwabanewas now divided between two centres, the overhang in the eBusingatha Valley, and theremoved rocks, taken first to the nearby Natal National Park and then to the exhibitionhall and storerooms of the Natal Museum, Pietermaritzburg.

JOURNEY OF THE PAINTED ROCKS

During their stay at the Park13 from 13 to 17 March 1947 and, no doubt, in Smuts’scompany, the royal family would have rested from their busy schedule (Fig. 15) andviewed the art. After the royal departure the rocks remained on display at the Park.Soon, however, problems with the care and protection of the removed rock art developed.Van Riet Lowe wrote to the Provincial Secretary of Natal in 1951, five years after theremoval:14

Sir,

ROCK PAINTINGS ROYAL NATAL NATIONAL PARK

With reference to your No. 4/3671 of the 22nd October 1946 and subsequent interchanges I had withyour Provincial Architect on his File No. P.W.O. 291, I have learnt with distress that the care andcondition of the paintings at the Royal Natal National Park leave a great deal to be desired. The glassover one of the cases, I am told, is missing; other cases were open, printed, explanatory cards were indisorder and dust everywhere. Apparently some of the paintings are disfigured and garden tools areheaped against the painted blocks.

You may recall that I went to a great deal of trouble to supervise the removal of these paintings to theHostel just prior to the Royal visit and that the task was undertaken at your request and expense inresponse to a suggestion from the then Prime Minister. In view of their local interest and value, Irecommended that the paintings be kept at the Hostel hoping that they and the printed explanatorynotes which I drafted, would have a cultural and educational value. If it is now found that thesevaluable relics cannot be properly looked after at the Park, I would recommend that they be removedto the Natal Museum where they will be cared for and appreciated. In any event, I should be gratefulif you would be kind as to let me know if my information is correct or not, and if you are satisfied thatthe paintings are completely safe and properly cared for at the Park. You will, I know, appreciate myconcern when I reassure you that I am approaching you not only in my official capacity, but also asa member of the Historical Monuments Commission.15

I have the honour to be,Sir,Your obedient servant.(Sgd.) C. van Riet Lowe.DIRECTOR

Van Riet Lowe’s anger, disappointment and frustration are evident. Certainly, this isnot the “special room” with the painted rocks “under glass and special lighting” that hehad envisaged when authorising the removals.

13 After the royal visit the word ‘Royal’ was prefixed so that it became the Royal Natal National Park.14 Letter from Van Riet Lowe to the Provincial Secretary of Natal, 23 May 1951. On file at Ezemvelo KZN

Wildlife, Queen Elizabeth Park, Pietermaritzburg (Folder A/1).15 His official capacity was Director of the Archaeological Survey (the erstwhile Bureau of Archaeology),

but he was also a member, and at one time also Secretary of the Commission for the Preservation ofNatural and Historical Monuments, Relics and Antiques (Malan 1962: 41).


The letter was passed on to the Natal Parks Board and enquiries were made to the Wardenat Royal Natal National Park, Mr Peter C. Pope-Ellis. One pane of glass was indeed missing(but a replacement had already been ordered) and the painted rock was dusty. It was correctthat garden tools, pegs, bowling scoreboards and a summer umbrella tent had been storedbehind the paintings. “As regards paintings being disfigured”, stated Pope-Ellis, “I canassure you there has been none of this whatsoever to my knowledge.” 16

Pope-Ellis reported too that the “museum” had been cleaned, the paintings dusted,the printed cards set in order and the hotel gardener instructed to remove his tools. TheWarden recommended in addition that the Department of Provincial Works be requestedto close in the ground floor of the “Museum” to keep out dust, “prevent children playingwith paintings … [and] … [p]revent Hotel tools being stored behind paintings”. Thereis no record that this enclosure was ever constructed although it may have been.

The Natal Parks Board Secretary, Joe Stanton, replied to the Natal ProvincialSecretary17 that much of Van Riet Lowe’s “hearsay” information was incorrect. Despitethis assurance, however, Stanton then seems to contradict himself:

Much of the alarm is engendered by the fact that some modern tourist stole a portion of rock paintingfrom the Park Museum recently; a regrettable and quite unavoidable incident, because one does notexpect hostel guests to stoop to emulating Scottish nationalism by purloining lumps of rock.

The incidental manner in which he mentions the theft of rock art from the “museum”seems casual, even dismissive. One wonders too what Stanton meant by saying that thetheft was “unavoidable” and whether any further action was taken to protect theremaining rocks. The incident is not mentioned in the Warden’s letter and we have notfound any further details regarding this “theft”.

The rather flippant reference to “Scottish nationalism” and the theft of rocks must beto the Stone of Scone, a 152 kg block of red sandstone upon which Scottish monarchswere crowned. The stone was seized in 1296 by Edward I and taken to WestminsterAbbey where it was incorporated into the coronation throne on which all but onesubsequent English monarch was crowned. The relevance to the theft of uMhwabanerock art is that only six months before Stanton’s letter, four Scottish students had brokenin and taken the stone back to Scotland (Hamilton 1952).

Five years later, and notwithstanding Stanton’s assurances, the Archaeological Surveydid find it necessary to write again, in 1956, after Berry Malan, now Director in VanRiet Lowe’s place had visited “the collection of rock paintings displayed in the shelterfacing the bowling green”.18 Malan’s letter mentions several of the points that Van RietLowe had brought to the Provincial Secretary’s attention:

Some of the paintings are protected by glass, but a number rest on the floor and are not protected.They collect dust, serve as a hiding place for bowls placed there by bowlers, chairs are pushedagainst them and they may easily be scribbled on or damaged by thoughtless children. I discussedthe matter with the curator of the little museum at the park and he endorsed the desirability ofproviding protection, but felt that the work requires the services of a trained carpenter.

16 Letter dated 15 June 1951 from the Warden, Royal Natal National Park to the Secretary (Natal ParksGame and Fish Preservation Board), on file at Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife, Queen Elizabeth Park,Pietermaritzburg (Folder A/1).

17 Letter dated 21 June 1951 from the Secretary (Natal Parks Game and Fish Preservation Board) to TheProvincial Secretary, Natal, on file at Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife, Queen Elizabeth Park, Pietermaritzburg(Folder A/1).

18 Letter to the Provincial Secretary of Natal dated 23 October 1956, reference no. B.24., on file at EzemveloKZN Wildlife, Queen Elizabeth Park, Pietermaritzburg (Folder A/1).


Van Riet Lowe’s brief descriptions of the paintings19 indicate where these were displayed:numbers 1 to 14 were “behind glass”, while painted rocks 15 to 18, and 19 to 23 wereon the floor to the left and right, respectively, of the glass display cases. Photographs intwo publications (Willcox 1956: Plate 65; Pager 1962: Plate 6) show painted rocksfrom uMhwabane on the floor and propped against the wall (Fig. 16).

Malan’s comments suggest that nothing further had been done to protect the paintingssince Van Riet Lowe’s complaint. In addition, he raises another issue:

A number of stuffed birds, donated by the Natal Museum, have been placed in the glazed casescontaining the paintings. They are hardly appropriately displayed and detract from the paintings.The position would be much improved if additional glazed cases could be provided for them alongthe sides of the shelter.

Fig. 16. A slab bearing paintings of cattle and anthropomorphs stands on the floor in the pavilion at RoyalNatal National Park that doubled as a ‘museum’ and seating area from which spectators couldwatch bowls. The paintings were kept in these sub-standard conditions for about 18 years beforethey were taken to the Natal Museum in Pietermaritzburg. Photograph by Alex Willcox (Plate 65Rock Paintings of the Drakensberg 1956).

19 In Folder A/1 at Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife, Queen Elizabeth Park, Pietermaritzburg.


Aside from issues of conservation and preservation, Malan also mentions problemswith the provision of information about the rock art to visitors. Recall that Van RietLowe had prepared printed “explanatory cards” and that in his letter of complaint of1951 these were found to be in disorder. Malan now reported that although “a veryinteresting roneoed leaflet describing the paintings” was available on request, thepaintings themselves had no labels, making it difficult to relate the text to the rock art.

Although it expresses concern about the neglect of the paintings, Malan’s letter isnevertheless conciliatory:

I trust that these comments will be accepted in the spirit in which they are offered. My intention isnot to be unnecessarily critical, but to offer suggestions which will improve the display, and ensureits adequate protection.

The letter was forwarded to the Secretary of the Natal Parks Board who wrote to WardenPope-Ellis at Royal Natal National Park.20 He includes an extract from Malan’s letter,and concludes tersely:

Kindly…furnish me with:

(a) Your comments on the statements made.(b) Your recommendation concerning the steps to be taken.(c) An estimate of the cost involved.

It is noted that the preservation of these paintings was the subject of a minute addressed to you by theDirector on the 8th June 1951, arising from a similar complaint from the previous Director ofArchaeological Survey.

Pope-Ellis’s response was swift (Stanton’s letter is dated 10 November and the Wardenreplied on 16 November). He explains that the “museum”

was not built as a museum entirely, but also a pavilion for the use of guests watching bowls, so thatthere can surely be no objection to chairs being placed there and it is ridiculous to suggest that theyshould cause damage to the Bushman paintings.21

Pope-Ellis agrees nonetheless that “There is a possibility of children scribbling on theunprotected paintings, and I agree it is quite unnecessary for bowls paraphernalia to beanywhere adjacent to the paintings”. He recommends that the paintings be protected inaccordance with the sketch which Malan had enclosed in his letter and that the stuffedbirds be displayed separately. He asks Stanton to approve expenditure of £40 to payMentz and Unsworth, Builders and Carpenters, to undertake the job. Stanton, however,considered the quote

far too high. Kindly furnish me with a list of the materials required and they will be supplied. Nodoubt you have someone on your staff who could do the work with your supervision and assistance.’22

Correspondence on file at Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife indicates that timber, nails, reinforcingrod, glass runners and plate glass were ordered for the project23 but we have found nofurther documentation about the “museum” at Royal Natal National Park.

20 Letter dated 10 November 1956 from the Secretary, Natal Parks, Game and Fish Preservation Board tothe Warden, Royal Natal National Park. On file in Folder A/18 at Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife, Queen ElizabethPark, Pietermaritzburg.

21 Letter dated 16 November 1956 from the Warden, Royal Natal National Park, to the Secretary, NatalParks, Game and Fish Preservation Board. On file in Folder A/18 at Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife, QueenElizabeth Park, Pietermaritzburg.

22 Letter from the Secretary to the Warden Royal Natal National Park, 20 November 1956, Folder A/18 atEzemvelo KZN Wildlife, Queen Elizabeth Park, Pietermaritzburg.

23 Letter from Warden Pope-Ellis to Secretary Stanton, 27 December 1956. Folder A/18 at Ezemvelo KZNWildlife, Queen Elizabeth Park, Pietermaritzburg.


THE MOVE TO THE NATAL MUSEUM

The next stage in the journey of the painted rocks was from Royal Natal National Parkto the Natal Museum. Had he known how they were destined to be stored for the nextthirty years however, Van Riet Lowe may have reconsidered his earlier opinion that atthe museum the rock art would be “cared for and appreciated”. We do not know preciselywhen the transfer took place or what precipitated the move, though one may supposethat it concerned the neglect of the painted rocks. Valerie Ward, employed in themuseum’s then Department of Archaeology from 1978 till 1998, has found, in an “oldaccession book … Dr Pringle’s [Director of the Natal Museum from 1953 to 1967]writing recording the rock paintings [accession number 3117] but no date at all” (emaildated 28 February 2008). The entry is between other accessioned items dated 1961 and1964. An old site record of uMhwabane notes that the accession of the rocks was in“about 1964”. There is no list of painted rocks received, however, and there is evenuncertainty about whether certain stones in the museum’s collection originate fromuMhwabane: the accession cards give the origin as “eBusingatha (?)”. It is also possiblethat certain painted rocks (e.g. A175 a, b and c) broke, perhaps during transportation,although this damage is not recorded.

From around 1965, when the new Natal Museum building was constructed, the rockswere kept in the basement. This space was used as a general store room and was notdesigned for the safekeeping of archaeological artefacts. Ward recalls that despite theprovision of warning signs she often had to remove planks and other objects that hadbeen placed on top of the rocks (email 22 January 2008). No funds were allocated forthe proper care of the rocks and Ward provided covers for them with old cotton clothsbrought from her home.

This sad history of neglect has taken its toll on the painted rocks. Most of them bearmarks of abrasion—evidence of rough and careless handling (Fig. 17). According to

Fig. 17. Disfiguring scratches mar the face of Natal Museum accession A164. Many of the uMhwabanestones that were removed bear evidence of rough and careless handling. This damage may havebeen inflicted while transporting the stones, while they were at the Royal Natal National Park orin the basement of the Natal Museum where they were kept for over thirty years.


Fig. 18b. Until recently the larger painted rocks from uMhwabane were crowded together under a staircasein the Archaeology storeroom. They have subsequently been given more space and will soon beprotected by an archival-standard cardboard housing.

Fig. 18a. Since 1997, the smaller painted slabs removed from Mhwabane Shelter have been kept on metalracks and covered with calico to protect them from dust. The cloth covering will soon be replacedby covers made from archival-quality board.


Ward this damage could have been inflicted when the rocks were removed fromuMhwabane Shelter, during their sojourn at Royal Natal National Park and in the museumbasement, or even while being transported up to the Archaeology store room. In addition,the rocks were all extremely dusty, probably as a result of improper storage conditions.

In 1997 the storage conditions improved when the rocks were moved up to theircurrent location in the Archaeology storeroom. The smaller painted rocks are stored onbaked enamel metal racks (Fig. 18a). Each painted stone is covered with a piece ofunbleached calico. The larger rocks (approximately 30 kg and upwards) are stored onthe floor underneath the stairs that lead to the mezzanine level in the Archaeologystoreroom. The painted surfaces of these large rocks are covered with plastic sheetingand cotton fabric (Fig. 18b).

These conditions are still not ideal. Dust from pedestrian traffic on the metal gridstairs has filtered down onto the covers of the rocks. Nor should the painted surfaces bein contact with any material, so the current practice of covering the rocks with plasticand cotton fabric needs to be changed urgently. Funds have been obtained to replacethese with archival-quality cardboard that will be used to create an enclosing boxfor each stone. The work will be completed in 2009. A little later we shall discussfurther details of the conservation of the uMhwabane rocks in the care of the NatalMuseum.

UMHWABANE TODAY

uMhwabane Shelter is still vulnerable. While most people feel no need to go there, foryoungsters, especially boys, it is a place that is easy to get to and yet out of the way.During school holidays it becomes an umuziwentsizwe (‘boys’ home’), a sort of holidayclubhouse. Here they play, hunt for mice and express themselves by writing and drawingon the walls, using charcoal sticks (Fig. 19).

Heritage authorities have carried out two clean-ups at uMhwabane. In 1995 JanetteDeacon and Aron Mazel (then from the Natal Museum) facilitated the removal of graffitiat the site. Unfortunately this restoration work did not discourage the boys and youngmen who use the site as their playground for very long. After the team’s departure theboys returned to the site and continued to write and draw on the walls. We discuss thesecond graffiti removal later.

ROCK ART MONITORING GROUPS

More recently, however, residents of the amaNgwane and amaZizi Traditional AuthorityAreas have become aware of the value of the rock art. Education about the significanceand meaning of the paintings and an appreciation of their tourist potential has changedpeople’s minds at least about the economic value of the rock art. As one eBusingatharesident put it: “We need to benefit from tourists, the children must leave something forthe community to benefit”.

The formation of rock art monitoring groups in the amaNgwane and amaZiziTraditional Authority Areas in 2005 is an important development. The Mnweni Culturaland Rock Art Monitoring Group (MMG) and the Mdlankomo Cultural and Rock ArtMonitoring Group (MCG) are non-profit organisations of local residents who workmostly on a voluntary basis. The two groups were formed as a result of the Amagugu


Fig. 19. Charcoal graffiti on the western wall of uMhwabane Shelter; note the paintings at the bottom of thepicture. This graffiti was removed in February 2008 but subsequently a small amount of graffitihas reappeared.

Esizwe Project (‘Amagugu Esizwe’ means ‘National treasures’). Funded by the Maloti-Drakensberg Transfrontier Project this collaborative effort between the communities,the University of KwaZulu-Natal and Bergwatch, a non-governmental organisation,produced a management plan of the natural and cultural resources of the six mountaincommunities in the two Traditional Authority Areas. This plan covers several interrelatedaspects: range management (including grazing and fire management), soil reclamation,nature-based and cultural tourism, as well as cultural and rock art management.

The Amagugu Esizwe Project also implemented a teacher-training programme forrock art. Although the project ended in 2006, members of the monitoring groups continueto make presentations about rock art at the twelve local schools and organise outings torock art sites. In the words of one of the monitoring group members, “We must try tospread the gospel of conserving our treasure”.

Meridy Pfotenhauer, who has facilitated work in the area since 1995, and Vicky Nardell,then employed by the province’s statutory enforcement body, Heritage KwaZulu-Natal,


the two monitoring groups have drawn up rock art management and monitoring plans forall the known sites in the area. The monitoring groups have also applied to HeritageKwaZulu-Natal for six rock art sites to be ‘opened’ for public visitation under supervision—only certain rock art sites in KwaZulu-Natal are open to the general public, and then onlywhen accompanied by an accredited custodian. uMhwabane Shelter is one of the sites putforward for declaration as an ‘open’ site. Many members of the two monitoring groupshave been accredited with Heritage KwaZulu-Natal as rock art custodians. Thesecommunity-led initiatives may be the most effective way of changing people’s attitude andbehaviour towards rock art as we discuss later.

Community involvement certainly has changed many individuals’ attitudes towardsgraffiti. Both monitoring groups have requested Heritage KwaZulu-Natal to removegraffiti from ‘their’ sites. These two requests were preceded by extensive discussionwith members of the homesteads closest to the rock art and with the co-operation oftraditional ‘owners’ of rock art sites. Heritage KwaZulu-Natal granted permits in bothcases and, with contributions from the Natal Museum, has funded the graffiti removal.As a result five rock art sites, including uMhwabane, have been cleaned of charcoalgraffiti (Fig. 20; Hollmann 2007; Deacon & Hollmann 2008). In cases where the affectedrock art sites were used as shepherds’ accommodation or kraals, the monitoring groupsarranged for the site’s traditional owner or the shepherds to be present while the graffitiremoval was done.

The monitoring groups have returned to these sites as part of their monitoring schedule.Four of the five sites have remained free of graffiti. At uMhwabane, however, graffiti

Fig. 20. The removal of charcoal graffiti from uMhwabane Shelter in 2008 was supervised by JanetteDeacon. The removal of graffiti involved staff of the Natal Museum and members of theMdlankomo Cultural and Rock Art Monitoring Group. Shown here is Nkululeko Sibetha, TechnicalAssistant in the Department of Human Sciences, Natal Museum.


reappeared within five months of cleaning. Disappointing as this is, it is not surprisinggiven the ease of access to the site. Persistence is required. The partnership betweenheritage authorities and the monitoring groups must be maintained and the work ofeducating people and cleaning off the graffiti has to continue. Perhaps, as we discusslater, additional strategies are necessary to safeguard the place.

THE TWO CENTRES MEET

The impetus behind the most recent conservation activities at uMhwabane comes fromthe meeting of the two centres—the shelter and the museum—that are uMhwabane.This ‘reunion’ took place in mid-2007 through the museum’s involvement in mentoringthe rock art monitoring groups. Author Hollmann presented an interpretation of theimages at uMhwabane Shelter to MCG members. He mentioned that several paintedrocks had been removed. Some monitoring group members were not aware that thishad happened and many were shocked, upset and angry by what they saw as the theft oftheir community’s assets. Elsewhere in KwaZulu-Natal researcher Frans Prins reportsa similar response to the threat of rock art removals. He told residents of Qudeni areanear Eshowe that twenty years previously there had been talk of removing rock artfrom the area for conservation purposes: “this idea was met with fury and disbelief.Informants emphatically maintained that this action would have led to widespreaddiscontent and even violence” (Prins 1998: 11).

As a result of this recent co-operation between the monitoring groups and theNatal Museum, author Msimanga, a filmmaker, came to the Natal Museum to see

Fig. 21. A mixture of dried grass and soil adheres to the corner of Natal Museum accession number A548. Itis not known how or when this painted rock got to be in this state. This dirt has subsequently beenremoved with cotton wool swabs moistened with deionised water.


the painted rocks in 2007. The visit was fruitful; author Hollmann, newly employedat the museum, became aware of the significance of the painted rocks and of theirneglected condition. For Msimanga it was a shock to see the dusty rocks in theArchaeology storeroom, some 200 km removed from their origins. We both realisedthat something had to be done. An opportunity was soon identified. The ElephantMan, one of the best-known paintings from uMhwabane and on display at theNatal Museum since 1991, was becoming increasingly unclear. The images appearedto be fading but in fact the rock was simply extremely dusty. It was cleaned andthe images were once again clearly visible. This was the ideal time to change theElephant Man display to explain the origins and history of the painted rock. Thenew exhibit therefore incorporates information about the uMhwabane removalsand shows photographs of some of the other painted rocks removed fromuMhwabane Shelter.

Changing the display also allowed us to carry out conservation work on the uMhwabanerocks before photographing them. The images on the painted rocks were obscured by dust(Fig. 21). Author Hollmann, the museum’s Rock Art Curator, and Nkululeko Sibetha,Technical Assistant, carried out the work having first taken advice from Janette Deacon,well-known archaeologist and rock art specialist and June Hosford, Preventative Conservator

Fig. 22. Cleaning the painted rocks removed from uMhwabane took place over several months. HereNkululeko Sibetha tests small areas of pigment on Natal Museum accession number A175c forfastness using a lightly moistened cotton swab.


at Iziko Museums of Cape Town (Hollmann & Sibetha 2008). Cleaning and photographytook place over two months (Fig. 22) and the new Elephant Man display was completedlate in February 2008 (Fig. 23). An important stage in the ‘rehabilitation’ of the uMhwabanerocks entrusted to the Natal Museum had been completed.

LESSONS LEARNT?

Can we learn anything about rock art conservation from the way in which the problemsconcerning uMhwabane were handled? Rock art sites are inherently vulnerable. Fewcan be afforded the resources required to monitor and police them continuously, althoughthe establishment of community rock art monitoring groups suggests that this may notbe an unattainable goal in some areas. Nonetheless, where locations of sites cannot bewithheld and especially where these places are easily accessible, their continued existencedepends to a large degree on people’s forbearance. If this is not forthcoming, as atuMhwabane and several other sites in KwaZulu-Natal, the art may be abused.

But was removal was the right thing to do, both ethically and from a conservationpoint of view? That question cannot be satisfactorily answered with a yes or no. Theremovals were premised on an ideal that is central to all scientific research and to thevery existence of museums: artefacts from the past, including ancient ‘art’ should bepreserved for as long as possible. Any action that causes the rock art to deteriorate orcauses changes in its appearance must be avoided. This includes throwing dung at rockart or writing on the shelter walls, acts that are seen as vandalism. If the causes of thedeterioration cannot be countered then the authorities feel justified in removing theartefacts from their original location. It is not an absolute requirement that such removedart be displayed by the institution that looks after it; indeed, this would be impossible orat least prohibitively expensive. The point is to preserve the art for as long as possible.This is the tradition in which we heritage workers are steeped and it is one that makes itpossible for people to study and appreciate their past.

Seen in this light, the removal of the rock art was at least partially successful. Despitethe damage inflicted on the painted rocks while in the care of the Parks Board and theNatal Museum, they are undoubtedly in a better condition than if the art had been leftinside the overhang. Apart from the danger of continued vandalism, the roof and wallsare collapsing and will take any remaining rock art with it. The rock art on the west wallof the overhang is exfoliating. One day the painted rocks at the Natal Museum will beall that survives from uMhwabane. We therefore have the British royal family, Smutsand Van Riet Lowe to thank for the respective roles they played in rescuing the art.

Other cultures see things differently, however. The importance of place is oftenparamount, as in Australia where the images are painted and engraved at places thatpeople believe are linked to the presence of ancestral beings (e.g. Morphy 1991). Peoplemade rock art for particular places. In the case of southern Africa, David Lewis-Williamsand Thomas Dowson (1990) have argued persuasively that certain rock art shelterswere entrances to the spirit world. The location of the rock art may therefore have beenas important as the art itself. Perhaps in such cases the damage caused by dung, scratchingand scribbling pales in comparison to the violence of rock art removal.

One may ask a simpler, more direct question about the treatment of the painted rocksthat were removed: were they taken care of correctly? The answer is no. It is relativelyeasy to remove rock art but quite another matter to look after it in perpetuity. In this the


Fig. 23b. The new Elephant Man display provides information about the removals and includes photographsof some of the other painted rocks that were removed.

Fig. 23a. The Elephant Man from uMhwabane Shelter has been on display at the Natal Museum since 1991.The old display was sparse and made no reference to the history of the removals.

(then) Natal Provincial Administration and the Natal Museum failed Van Riet Lowe. Inthe case of the Natal Parks Board, unqualified and disinterested people were put incharge of the art, with disastrous results. For some 18 years the painted rocks were keptin a ‘museum’ that was also a pavilion for a bowling green. Dust was a constant problem.Presentation of information was shoddy. The ‘professionals’ fared no better; the paintedrocks languished in the basement of the Natal Museum for over 30 years before theywere given better conditions in the Archaeology storeroom, where they have been forthe past ten years. In this way the painted rocks that had been ‘on display’ for centuries


in a Bushman ‘gallery’ were removed, viewed for a short time and then all but one putinto storage for fifty years! There is a responsibility attached to removals.In future, the powers that order such drastic measures must ensure that plans arealready in place for the expert conservation and display of the art under the correctconditions. The institutions charged with displaying and looking after rock art need tohonour their responsibilities. Otherwise there is no justification for removing the art inthe first place.

THE FUTURE OF UMHWABANE

The problem of vandalism at uMhwabane was not resolved by the 1946 removals,merely deferred to subsequent generations. Heritage workers and the people ofeBusingatha Valley must now plan for the future of the two centres: a rock art site thatis constantly being vandalised, and a collection of painted rocks in the Natal Museum’sArchaeology storeroom. The best examples of the removed rock art, in terms ofinteresting subject matter and preservation, should be displayed, as Van Riet Loweintended. The museum is now making plans for this development although the questionof where to display the rock art still needs to be debated as we briefly mention below. Inthe interim the two authors intend to raise funds and make a film about the saga ofuMhwabane.

In order to protect the remaining rock art at uMhwabane Shelter, the community,spearheaded perhaps by the MCG and with the support of the iNkosi and the heritageauthorities, needs to assert control over the place. In October 2008 the amaZizi TribalCouncil asked the Natal Museum to present a seminar to the iNkosi and councillors onthe hunter-gatherer rock art in the amaZizi Traditional Authority Area with particularemphasis on uMhwabane Shelter. At the meeting, a Council representative promised toraise the matter at a forthcoming Council meeting. It is hoped that the Council will lendits support to efforts made to protect the site against further vandalism by at leastundertaking to address the community about the problem.

There is another aspect to the removals from uMhwabane Shelter and the currentlocation of these painted rocks at the Natal Museum. This concerns the perceptions ofthe amaZizi, who have occupied the area around uMhwabane for over 300 years. Wehave already mentioned the disquiet expressed by the rock art monitors at the removalof the art, an act that they regard as theft. There may therefore be calls in the future forthe art to be ‘returned’ to the amaZizi and exhibited locally. These sentiments are inharmony with those expressed by Van Riet Lowe when he explained that the art had“local interest and value”.24 We see the merit in this suggestion and are sympathetic tothe idea of moving the painted rocks closer to their original location. Such a move mayalso boost tourism in the area and this is also an important consideration.

Of course any motivations for transferring the painted rocks from the Natal Museumto a eBusingatha would have to be approved by the Council of the Natal Museum, nodoubt in consultation with Heritage KwaZulu-Natal, the Province’s legislative body forcultural heritage. Adequate preparation for housing the painted rocks must be made orthere is a danger of history repeating itself and the rock art will once again be at risk.The painted rocks should only be transferred to a facility that provides the correct

24 Letter from Van Riet Lowe to the Provincial Secretary of Natal, 23 May 1951. On file at Ezemvelo KZNWildlife, Queen Elizabeth Park, Pietermaritzburg (Folder A/1).


environmental conditions, including protection from dust, heat and damage by people.To maintain these conditions, properly trained personnel would have to be employedand guarantees provided for the long-term future of the exhibition space. We shouldalways remember that our first loyalty must be to the painted rocks themselves.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Janette Deacon, David Dunn, Azizo da Fonseca, Vanessa de Vos, Reg Gush, GeorgeHughes, Meridy Pfotenhauer, Ron Physick, Benedict Rogers, Andrew Salomon,Nkululeko Sibetha, Nellie Somers, Valerie Ward and Gavin Whitelaw provided helpand information. We thank Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife, the Killie Campbell Library at theUniversity of KwaZulu-Natal and the South African Heritage Resources Agency foraccess to books and documents. We gratefully acknowledge the Rock Art ResearchInstitute at Witwatersrand University for permission to use the photographs.

REFERENCES

Anderson, G. 2008. The removal of rock art from Bedford Shelter Main Cave and Bedford Shelter 1, IngulaPumped Storage Scheme, Bedford Dam site. Report submitted to Eskom Holdings (Pty) Ltd.Umlando Archaeological Tourism & Resource Management.

Battiss, W. 1948. The artists of the rocks. Pretoria: The Red Fawn Press.Bryant, A.T. 1929. Olden times in Zululand and Natal. London: Longmans.Deacon, J. & Hollmann, J.C. 2008. Report on graffiti removal from Hedlane 1 (2829CC 118) Mohwabane

(2829CA 009), Mgqurhu (2828DB 079). Report submitted to Heritage KwaZulu-Natal (Amafa).Natal Museum.

Frobenius, L. 1962 (1931). Madsimu Dsangara: Südafrikanische Felsbilderchronik. Edition with a summaryand introduction by Pager, H.L. Graz: Akademische Druck

Hamilton, I.R. 1952. No stone unturned: the story of the Stone of Destiny. London: Gollancz.Henry, L. 2007. A history of removing rock art in South Africa. South African Archaeological Bulletin

62: 44–8.Hollmann, J.C. 2007. Report on the removal of graffiti from 3 rock art sites in the amaNgwane Traditional

Authority Area, Bergville, KwaZulu-Natal: Esibayeni (2829CC 114); Mkhovo Cliffs (2829CC094); Hedlane (2829CC 118). Submitted to Heritage KwaZulu-Natal (Amafa) to fulfil theconditions of Permit # 0006/16. Natal Museum.

Hollmann, J.C. & Sibetha, N. 2008. Cleaning the painted rocks removed from Mohwabane Shelter (2829CA009) Ebusingatha Valley. Report submitted to the South African Heritage Resources Agency(SAHRA). Natal Museum.

Lewis-Williams, J.D & Dowson, T. A. 1990. Through the veil: San rock paintings and the rock face. SouthAfrican Archaeological Bulletin 45: 5–16.

Malan, B.D. 1962. Biographical sketch. In: Malan, B.D. & Cooke, H.B.S., eds, The contribution of C. vanRiet Lowe to prehistory in southern Africa. Supplement to the South African ArchaeologicalBulletin 17: 38–42.

Mazel, A.D. 1997. Mzinyashana Shelters 1 and 2: excavation of mid and late Holocene deposits in theeastern Bigarsberg, Thukela Basin, South Africa. Natal Museum Journal of Humanities9: 1–35.

Mazel, A.D. 1999. iNkolimahashi Shelter: the excavation of Later Stone Age rock shelter deposits in thecentral Thukela Basin, KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. Natal Museum Journal of Humanities11: 1–21.

Morphy, H. 1991. Ancestral connections: art and an aboriginal system of knowledge. Chicago, London:University of Chicago Press.

Pager, H.L. 1962. Summary. In: L Frobenius, L. Madsimu Dsangara: Südafrikanische Felsbilderchronik.Graz: Akademische Druck, pp. 39–45.

Prins, F.E. 1998. Khoisan heritage or Zulu identity markers: symbolising rock art and place in assertingsocial and physical boundaries among the Sithole. In: A. Bank, ed., The proceedings of theKhoisan identities and cultural heritage conference, South African Museum, July 12–16, 1997.Cape Town: University of the Western Cape and Infosource, pp: 112–17.

Schlanger, N. 2002. Making the past for South Africa’s future: the prehistory of Field-Marshal Smuts (1920s–1940s). Antiquity 76: 200–9.

Willcox, A.R. 1956. Rock paintings of the Drakensberg, Natal and Griqualand East. London: Parrish.


‘An extreme case’: the removal of rock art from uMhwabane (eBusingatha) rock art shelter, Bergville, KwaZulu-Natal

Documents