US/ICOMOS 2005

8th Annual International Symposium

on HERITAGE INTERPRETATION

OWNERSHIP CONFLICTS AND HERITAGE INTERPRETATION

IN UGANDA AND TANZANIA

Karen Moon

Many poor nations have a rich cultural and architectural heritage. These can be
significant assets for development, yet it is often the case that in the urgency to tackle
the more obvious and pressing needs of the country, government, donor agencies and
private sector alike fail to take these assets into account. Like many other forms of
cultural heritage, architectural heritage is a fragile resource and extremely vulnerable
to short-sighted development initiatives, whether public or commercial in nature.
Older buildings, especially in an urban context, can be quickly swept away. Others, in
remote locations, are victims of slow degeneration and decay.

Both tangible and intangible benefits are derived from protecting heritage. In a town
or city, historical buildings and districts give shape to the urban environment.
Landmark buildings create focal points or give interest to the skyline. Historic
districts (such as those belonging to a particular ethnic minority or immigrant group),
enrich the environment visually by giving character and variety. But also, in any
location, historic buildings tell the story of the country’s growth, remind people of the
past and contribute to giving a sense of identity, not just to the locality and its people
but also to the nation. Where places have been demoralized by conflict or poverty,
heritage can be especially important as it can encourage a sense of national pride. Not
least, a varied architectural heritage is attractive to visitors and can have considerable
tourism value – there is no question that many cities benefit enormously from foreign
earnings as a result of the historic character of their environment. It is vital to
recognize the importance of protecting architectural heritage and to identify the
factors which contribute to its neglect.

Broadly-held misconceptions about heritage resources and their value are among the
factors which cause them to be sidelined. One such threat is an ambiguity about
ownership of the heritage, that is, ownership in a cultural, rather than a legal, sense.
Sometimes it can happen that a building or related set of buildings may be perceived
by the general public as ‘belonging’ solely to a particular community group. This can
have negative as well as positive repercussions. It is possible that the group itself may
not fully accept the idea. For one reason or another, a community will sometimes
reject its own heritage assets. If however, the country’s heritage is embraced as a
whole, at both a local and national level by the general public, it is more likely to be
protected and conserved. Ambivalence about ownership, for whatever reason, can
lead to rejection; and from there to neglect and demolition.

What is needed to overcome this particular threat is for current conceptions about
ownership to be reassessed and (where appropriate) changed. Research into the
origins and history of the heritage can throw new light on sources; and formerly
overlooked contributions, and material can be presented in a different way. It is
necessary that the varied architectural heritage of a country should be regarded as a
national asset and resource, a jointly-owned heritage, in parallel with any more
specific ownership claims, and where specific heritage buildings are concerned, a
balance should be established between individual, group and national ownership.

One vehicle we have which can assist in this task of re-assigning ownership is
heritage interpretation. Alongside other strategies, such as better consultation, sound
planning, review and enforcement of protective legislation, it has a key role to play.
Interpretive material can reach the public through many means, informal as well as
formal. Heritage interpretation need not be limited to the traditional media of
signboards, guidebooks, audio tours and the training of guides. Such material tends to
be visitor-oriented and may only reach outsiders, while it is important here that the
general population is reached. A broad platform is required to have an impact on
public perceptions: television and radio programmes, community meetings,
conferences, free leaflets, public lectures and walking tours, newspaper articles, or the
activities of neighbourhood action groups can all assist.

Of course, to keep the issue of ownership in perspective, it must be said that it is just
one of a large number of potential threats which heritage buildings face, particularly
in East Africa, the focus of this paper, where a whole series of factors overwhelm any
concern for the protection of cultural heritage. However it is a threat that can be subtle
– eroding concern on a subliminal level sometimes for a whole group of sites at a time
rather than just being focused on an individual building – and consequently serious in
its effect. It is also worth noting that this is a global problem, affecting the
architectural heritage of developing and developed nations alike: for most countries
draw in immigrant groups over time and the heritage has a multi-ethnic base. In both
Uganda and Tanzania ownership has been an issue and the heritage is consequently
threatened, but the lessons to be drawn are applicable elsewhere.

In Uganda, Kampala’s historic buildings have recently been a focus for heritage
reassessment. An brief history of the city’s development will help to explain the
reason why ownership is an issue here.

In the middle of the 19th century,

the region immediately to the
north of Lake Victoria was the
location of the powerful tribal
kingdom of Buganda which had a
history going back several
hundred years. When European
visitors first began to arrive in the
Kabaka (king) Mwanga’s capital
to the west of present-day
Kampala from the 1860s on, they
settled close to the Lubiri, the
palace compound on Mengo Hill.
(Prior to that time each successive
Figure 1. Kasubi Tombs, Kampala king had chosen a new location
for his palace, so the settlement was movable rather than permanent). From this
beginning, Kampala grew. Though the Baganda had their own sophisticated
architectural tradition of non-permanent buildings, made from materials like elephant
grass, and fibres of the banana plant, today only rare examples remain.

The different ownership groups

within the city were (and are)
numerous. At the start, there were
the indigenous Africans, the
Arabs (who had a small presence
in connection with the caravan
routes to the coast long before the
arrival of Europeans) and the
Europeans themselves. The
European group was not at all
homogenous. In fact the first
decades of Kampala’s growth
were marred by competition
between three religious factions
constantly at war with one other -
the French Catholic missionaries,
the British Protestant missionaries

Figure 2. 1892 map of Mengo area, Kampala

and the Arab Muslims, each
supported by their own group of
African converts. There was also a non-religious group of Europeans representing
British commercial interest. And before long a significant number of Asian Indians
began to settle too.

Each of these separate groups negotiated with the Kabaka for their own plot of land
on which to camp as they entered his kingdom - if possible on a hill, as this was by far
the healthiest location. This natural separation of the various incoming groups on
arrival was later reinforced by official cultural segregation of the entire urban
structure under British rule. Today the original structure can still be seen in the city
plan. The Mengo area was excluded from the Kampala township during the British
period of administration, to allow it its own municipal control. This has in fact
protected the area, as it experienced, as a result, a much slower rate of change.

By the end of the 1950s Kampala’s city centre was beautifully laid out by the British
colonists with many public buildings, courts, residential and commercial buildings.
Kampala boasted the best hospital and university in East Africa, and was popularly
called the “Pearl”. It was also a jig-saw puzzle from the ownership perspective. A
group of early Asian-built shops in the market area were punctuated by Islamic
mosques and a Hindu temple. The Catholic Cathedral at Rubaga, the Protestant
Cathedral on Namirembe, and the Kibuli Mosque on Kibuli dominated three of the
city’s principal hills. A distinctive Asian-built residential area constructed in the
1930s and 40s, combining Art Deco and modern movement elements, took over Old
Kampala Hill, vacated when the British administration had moved further east much
earlier, and the same style influenced the Asian business district - to mention just
some main components of the cityscape of today
Twenty years of civil war following Independence in 1962 wrought complete
devastation. And now after another nearly twenty years of slow recovery the
condition of the urban fabric is much improved, but the city is changing fast. Now a
hundred years old, the earliest buildings of the city are crumbling. In the city centre,
few of these have remained without serious modification, but several in the Mengo
district survive unscathed. Amongst them are some structures of considerable
significance including the first new buildings in the European style constructed by
Baganda. At that time the Baganda had far greater resources of labour and materials
than the missionaries. Some of these residential building are of impressive size, built
on two stories and constructed of a combination of sun dried brick and fired brick
with the roofs and door lintels made from palm tree poles. These structures document
the early development of modern building technology in Uganda as well being
connected with the Baganda chiefs of the time, who are important historical figures.
They were also, at the time they were built, considerably more ambitious and
successful than any residential buildings constructed by the Europeans. These
buildings form a cohesive group in the largely unspoilt Mengo area close to the
Kabaka’s palace. If protected and conserved, this area would form an important
resource, valuable to local residents and visitors alike.

Many factors have caused people

to overlook these buildings. Since
the 1960s most of the older
building stock has deteriorated
through neglect over a long period.
As a result, older buildings are now
associated in the public mind with
poor conditions and an absence of
modern facilities. There is a lack of
awareness of the intrinsic value of
these buildings as heritage. Along
with the recent economic recovery
and growing political stability have
come a rise in living standards and a Figure 3. Mailo Two, Kampala
scramble for modernization - that is, for new buildings at all costs. Exacerbating this
situation is a weak legal framework - planning regulations are poorly enforced, and
corruption is rife. There is no effective register of cultural properties or of trained
regulatory staff, and there is a limited official perception of heritage which barely
goes beyond the monumental. Indeed few of the
historic buildings that survive would be seen as
heritage at all.

In addition to these difficulties, the question of

Figure 4. Commercial building near
Nakasero Market, Kampala
cultural “ownership” is a key problem. These
heritage assets are further rejected because of the
uncertain relationship the majority population
have with their history. There is a lingering
resentment held by the African Ugandans
towards the later incoming peoples, who, through
most of the 20th century have dominated and
oppressed them. The tensions of the past are
clearly exemplified in Idi Amin’s exile of Ugandan Asians in 1972 which had wide
public support. Despite the substantial historical achievement of the African
Ugandans in the early development of modern architecture in the country, there is no
broad concept of ownership of the surviving structures or associated pride in the
heritage. Colonial attitudes tended to belittle the Ugandan’s achievements: Ugandans
also have learnt to play them down.

Ten years ago, in 1995, a Historic Buildings Conservation Society was formed to
promote the protection and conservation of buildings in Kampala. It aimed to initiate
dialogue and begin the task of raising awareness. The group’s members realised that
reinterpretation was necessary to change perceptions and bring Kampala’s 20th
century architectural heritage back into public ownership; that a better understanding
was needed on the sources and origins of the heritage; and that indigenous African
contributions must be noted and recognized. Research carried out has thrown light on
early Baganda craftsmen and the contribution of the indigenous community in the
early development of the country’s building technology. And it has also highlighted
the high regard in which the Ugandan’s achievements were held at the time by foreign
residents. 1

The means used by Uganda’s

Historic Buildings
Conservation Society to
reinterpret the heritage have
been chiefly informal.
Newspaper articles on
historical buildings have
been written; representations
have been made to owners
and municipal government;
and dialogue has started.
Walking tours of the Mengo
area have been periodically
organized. Small funds have
Figure 5. Recently-restored Art Dec building in the Asian
been raised through local
residential area on Old Kampala Hill. business sponsorship for
repairs and renovation works
on historic buildings and these activities have been publicised in the press. Through
all this there has been some indication of growing awareness in the public realm.

The efforts of the first eight years were marked by minor achievements and slow
progress. They culminated in international recognition for Kampala’s historic
buildings through their successful nomination to the World Monuments Fund’s 2004
‘Watch’ List of 100 Most Endangered Sites. Nevertheless, the impact on the ground
has been small. Awareness of the heritage and its value is still limited. There are
major hurdles ahead and to a large extent the difficulties over ownership remain.

1
A British writer who records the “house warming” reception at Basiima House describes the building
in admiring tones in Uganda Notes, August 1904, 110.
Alongside the Watch nomination, an
attempt was made to secure a Getty
conservation grant for Basiima
House, one of the chief historical
buildings of Kampala’s Mengo area.
The building is owned by the
Buganda Government (the tribal
government of the Buganda
Kingdom). There was spread of
stakeholder support for this, in the
form of the Buganda Government’s
Heritage Ministry, the national
Government’s Department of
Antiquities and the local Figure 6. Basiima House. Kampala, home of Sir Apolo
Conservation Society representing the Kagwa, built 1904.
community, but only a small number
of individuals were involved and the initiative eventually failed due to both internal
and external indifference. The Buganda Kingdom’s Heritage Minister was over-ruled
by other parts of his own administration – a result of lack of consultation combined
with a general lack of appreciation of the building’s worth. The building was leased to
a school and the school carried out inappropriate renovations which invalidated the
application.

This incident reveals the insecure status of heritage buildings of European influence in
a Post-Colonial society, even when the heritage is a unique architectural expression of
the indigenous group. There was no sense of ownership or pride even in this unique
building either at the national level or within the majority of the Baganda community.
Ironically, a new pride in their history has blossomed amongst the Baganda since the
recent reinstatement of the Kingdom which took place alongside that of the other
tribal Kingdoms in the 1990s. However, the history of the Baganda – “their” history –
is only seen in terms of the Pre-Colonial heritage – comprising their traditional tribal
architecture and artefacts, and the early history and customs of their tribe. Everything
else is seen as coming from outside. Their contribution to early modern architecture in
Uganda is suspect too because of the European style of the buildings. Unfortunately a
discontinuity in the architectural history has exacerbated this problem and created an
obstacle to ownership of their own achievements and heritage. The trouble being that
their traditional tribal architecture has no obvious descendent in modern times (as
elucidated in the diagram below), though, in reality, for a brief period some long-
since-forgotten, early 20th century buildings once marked this transition.
 Asian Indian Traditional British colonial
vernacular Buganda architecture
architecture architecture

Asian Indian British

1940s Modern
Art Deco/ ?
Movement
Modern

Modern Kampala

It is clear to a certain extent that neglect of heritage assets in Uganda has resulted
from rejection of cultural ownership by the majority of the population. There is a
similar confusion about ownership in relation to several types of heritage architecture
in Tanzania. (That is, on mainland Tanzania: as Zanzibar is a different case, having a
much greater consistency in its architecture and in the cultural identity of its people).
Here the coastal sites of the Swahili civilization, and sites relating to the slave trade
and to German and British colonization, all have doubtful status in the public regard.

The Swahili civilization developed on the East African coast over the last thousand
years in the context of continual contact through trade with the other regions
bordering the Indian Ocean – southern Arabia, the Persian Gulf and India. A rich
heritage of ancient stone-built towns and settlements survives today, mostly in form
of archaeological sites which now lie now outside the present urban centres. The
Swahili control of the sea routes in the 14th and 15th centuries (including the southern
route to Zimbabwe via Sofala which carried gold) made them extremely powerful in
this period. However, fierce competition from commercial rivals over several
centuries eventually led to decline. Overpowered by the Portuguese in the sixteenth
century, they were again made subject to the Omani rulers of Zanzibar in the 18th and
19th centuries, and finally by the German colonization of the late 19th and early 20th
century. Each of this succession of intruders left their own architectural legacy.

British archaeologists of the 1950s convinced themselves and then the local
population that this thousand years’ heritage of Swahili stone architecture along the
coast was more the product of outsiders (that is the Arab immigrants) than of the
indigenous peoples. 2 Their interpretation portrayed the Swahili coast as the edge of
the Islamic World (and its importance only due to this influence) rather than as the
centre of a significant African civilisation. The colonial architecture (this time mainly

2
Chiefly Neville Chittick, in Kilwa: an Islamic Trading City of the East African Coast (Nairobi,
Kenya: British Institute in Eastern Africa, 1974) and Peter S. Garlake in The Early Islamic Architecture
of the East African Coast (Nairobi, Kenya and London, UK: Oxford University Press, 1966) are held
responsible.
German), even more than in Kampala, has negative associations for the populace.
Residents of the mainly 19th century towns, which have historical associations with
the slave trade and German domination - like Bagamoyo, Mikindani, and Kilwa
Kivinje – often fail to understand why they should want to recall a history of such
painful memories and do not see this architecture as their own.

Yet the coastal towns and cities of

Tanzania have a rich architectural
heritage, which, if a broader
understanding of the concept of national
heritage could be established, would
contribute to a positive sense of
national identity and achievement as
well as becoming an important asset for
the country in financial terms. A short
distance across the water, the historic
stone town of Zanzibar attracts many
visitors and has a lively tourism
industry, which has improved living Figure 7. German Boma, Kilwa Kivinje, Tanzania

standards in the community. Elsewhere on the mainland, wildlife destinations like the
Serengeti and Ngorogoro Crater are highly successful.

Only recently have there been plans to develop the heritage architecture of the coast
and protect it for the future. This is a considerable task. Archaeological sites are
numerous and often lie in remote places, and much of the fabric of the historic 19th
century towns is in an advanced state of decay. However, interpretative panels in
English and Kiswahili are already installed in public view at several locations in the
centre of Bagamoyo town, to explain the history behind the buildings and their
significance. The Antiquities
Division, responsible for this
initiative, has limited resources, but
has been able to complete these
panels and undertake conservation
of some of the buildings with the
assistance of the Swedish
Development agency SIDA.
Antiquities also has future plans for
action in other coastal towns and
also for the production of
publications to inform the public
about its work.
Figure 8. Street view, Kilwa Kivinje, Tanzania.

One of the most demanding initiatives that Tanzania’s Antiquities Division is

currently managing is the conservation and interpretation project at Kilwa, a project
supported by the Government of France. The islands of Kilwa Kisiwani and Songo
Mnara comprise one of the country’s UNESCO World Heritage Sites. Kilwa Kisiwani
was the base of the powerful Sultanate that controlled the East African trade routes in
the 14th and 15th centuries. The last year has seen the development of 18 interpretive
panels which were set up on the island in early April this year. They form part of a
broader interpretive framework which includes a walking tour and associated leaflet, a
Figure 9. Great Mosque, Kilwa Kisiwani, Tanzania Figure 10. Small Domed Mosque, Kisiwani.

64-page visitor guidebook and, in the next phase (still to be developed), a small
interpretive/information centre or site museum. There is a panel at each of the major
groups of ruins, which are spread over the north part of the island, and several
additional panels were developed for visitors interested in cultural or natural aspects
of the site. The island’s unspoilt environment is attractive to birdwatchers and
naturalists. The small village sited close to the historical ruins has a population of
about 800 people and is of cultural interest as the traditional way of life of the
islanders remains largely unchanged.

While the chief purpose of the project is to conserve the ruins and promote the site for
tourism in order to bring more prosperity to this remote and impoverished region, a
central aim of the interpretive programme is to
raise awareness of the site within the country
and celebrate the essentially African character
of the civilisation which created it. The
concept is based on the scholarly reassessment
of cultural ownership which began in the late
1970s. 3 Previous research had focused on the
external influences on the society and its
surviving architecture, and on the imported
materials found on the site (among which
there is a vast quantity of Chinese and Islamic
pottery). 4 New research has focused on the
nature and origins of Swahili society, and
gives greater attention to the non-imported
materials (which show the strong links
between the island’s culture and the cultures
of the African mainland), and to the Pre-
Islamic settlement of indigenous tribes on the
Figure 11. Door of Omani Fort, Kisiwani.

3
For example, J. de V. Allen, “Settlement Patterns on the East African Coast, c.AD 800-1900,”
Proceedings of the 8th Panafrican Congress of Prehistory and Quaternary Studies, Nairobi, 5 to 10
September 1977, ed. R.E. Leakey and B.A. Ogot, 361-3. The International Louis Leakey Memorial
Institute for African Prehistory, Nairobi.
4
Chittick, Kilwa, and Garlake, Early Islamic Architecture.
island which went back hundreds of years. 5 Unfortunately as the research on the Pre-
Islamic period is part of the project, the results of the most recent archaeological
surveys were not available early enough for inclusion in the interpretative material.
However in the panels and guidebook, it has been possible to address the ownership
issue in various ways and present a fresh perspective on the origins of the site.

Figure 12. One of the sign panels recently put up at Kilwa Kisiwani.

Although the number of Tanzanians who visit the site is relatively small compared to
foreign visitors, priority was given to Kiswahili in the signs, which were also
translated into English. This has already had a positive effect in reaching the village
community (very few speak any English), whose comments and reactions have shown
the interest aroused. The material brings out the integration of the immigrant cultures
in Kilwa society through intermarriage, the African nature of many local customs and
beliefs, and the syncretic nature of the Islamic tradition practiced. The revised view of
history embedded in the interpretive material is implicit rather than explicit
throughout. It is conveyed both through the choice of subject matter and of the
quotations, as in the following example, where the African nature of the society is
clear in this 14th century visitor’s account:

“We then set sail for Kilwa, the principal town on the coast, most of whose
inhabitants are Zanj of very black complexion. Their faces are scarred, like
the Limiin at Janada … Kilwa is one of the most beautiful and well-
constructed towns in the world.” 6

5
Mark Horton and John Middleton, The Swahili: The Social Landscape of a Mercantile Society,
(Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishers, 2000). Graham Connah, African Civilisations: An Archaeological
Perspective (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2001).
6
From an account of Kilwa by the Moroccan traveller, Ibn Battuta, 1331. This translation from G.S.P.
Freeman-Grenville, The East African Coast: Select Documents from the First to the Earlier Nineteenth
Century (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 1962), 31.
To further assist in fostering a sense of identification with the site, and encourage
national ownership and pride, the historical connections between traditional ways of
life still extant and those of the past are drawn out, as is the villagers’ indigenous
knowledge of herbal remedies and use of plants built up over generations. Kilwa’s
significance on the world stage is emphasized through the international connections
which can be made. The surprise shown in the accounts of the Portuguese at the
islanders’ luxurious lifestyle, the mention of the city (then known as “Quiloa”) by the
17th century British poet John Milton in his Paradise Lost; and the fact that Kilwa was
instrumental in supplying the demand for gold created by the rival powers of
Renaissance city-states in 14th century Europe all help to carry this theme.

The impact of this interpretive project is likely to be limited for some years because of
the poor transportation links. The roads to Kilwa from both the north and south are
often impassable in the rainy season and construction of the new road is some years
from completion. Flights are expensive. At present visitors to the island average only
400 per year.

In both Uganda and Tanzania, an ambivalence about ownership contributes to eroding

public support for significant parts of the countries’ architectural heritage. The value
of the heritage needs to be stressed and a sense of public ownership encouraged.
Heritage interpretation is ideally suited for this task, for reinterpretation of the
evidence is essential – a review of the heritage’s history and a reassessment of its
place and value for the society as a whole. Through interpretation, a longer-term
perspective can be presented. If the British have come to appreciate the architectural
legacy of their earlier Roman occupation, then in time the legacy of the Germans in
Tanzania, and that of the Asians and the British in Uganda, can be accepted and
recognized for what it is - a positive rather than a negative asset. But the time in this
case is very short: the need for ‘lost’ heritage to be brought back into public
ownership is urgent, if it is to gain acceptance before it is destroyed.

It seems surprising from an external perspective that such unique examples of the
heritage of these two East African countries can be disregarded and disowned.
However a recent study carried out by a German student revealed that some of this
heritage can be rejected by outside ownership groups too. For his Geography of
Tourism degree, this student visited Tanzania to make a survey of the German
architectural legacy and to explore its tourism potential for his compatriots. His
conclusions were not positive. From his interviews and investigations he concluded
that - despite the fact that there are a considerable number of fascinating German
buildings which could be used to form an attractive theme-based tour – the idea was
unlikely to have success, either with expatriate Germans in Africa or with those at
home. Why? Because not only Tanzanians, but Germans also are reluctant to accept
cultural ownership of this heritage. The German occupation of Tanzania was largely
unpopular and fiercely resisted, a fact about which many German nationals are aware.
The student’s countrymen doubted there would be interest and reminded him,
“Germans have a problem with their history anyway”.

By contrast, too great an identification with a specific group of buildings can be

equally problematic – a case that is proven elsewhere. Culture, being an attribute
which distinguishes one group of people from another, can sometimes be targeted by
antagonistic groups. A particular community can often consider its heritage very
precious, a visible representation of its history and essential character, which give it
meaning and establish its identity. (By the same means culture can be a vital
ingredient in the formation of a sense of unity and national pride.) But for this very
reason it can also be the cause of wars and its visible productions may be subject to
attack when the sympathy between differing cultural groups is fractured. This was
evident in the Bosnian war of 1991-6, where the cultural monuments of the Muslim
community were systematically destroyed; similarly, Jewish synagogues were burnt
down by the Nazis in the Second World War because these buildings acted as a
heritage symbol of the community.

There are many challenges, and there are many opportunities for heritage
interpretation to engage with such problems. Thoughtful interpretive programmes can
raise awareness, initiate dialogue and build up a sense of ownership and cultural
pride. They can also contribute to reconciliation and social stability, by balancing the
ownership claims of different groups, showing an even-handed respect for their
heritage, and where necessary softening the concepts of “theirs” and “ours”.
Interpretation is both a vital and a subtle tool. Where there are situations similar to
those found in Uganda and Tanzania, heritage interpretation may be able to help
defuse tensions. Not least, when linked to conservation and rehabilitation
programmes, promotion of the heritage may lead to increased earnings for the local
community through tourism.

Realism is needed, however. Public perceptions are slow to change. In East Africa,
where minds are rightly focused on more immediate poverty-related issues like
nutrition, health, education, and infrastructure, progress is unlikely to be rapid, but the
journey towards heritage preservation is worthwhile.