This article was downloaded by: [Univ De Savoie], [Mélanie Duval] On: 04 July 2012, At: 09:27 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK Journal of Sustainable Tourism Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rsus20 Rock art tourism in the uKhahlamba/ Drakensberg World Heritage Site: obstacles to the development of sustainable tourism Mélanie Duval a b & Benjamin Smith a a Rock Art Research Institute, GAES, University of Witwatersrand, P. Bag 3, P.O. Wits, Johannesburg, 2050, South Africa b Laboratoire Edytem UMR 5204, Université de Savoie, Campus scientifique, pôle montagne, Bourget du Lac, 73376, France Version of record first published: 04 Jul 2012 To cite this article: Mélanie Duval & Benjamin Smith (2012): Rock art tourism in the uKhahlamba/ Drakensberg World Heritage Site: obstacles to the development of sustainable tourism, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, DOI:10.1080/09669582.2012.699060 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2012.699060 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and- conditions This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
Transcript
This article was downloaded by: [Univ De Savoie], [Mélanie Duval]On: 04 July 2012, At: 09:27Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Journal of Sustainable TourismPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rsus20
Rock art tourism in the uKhahlamba/Drakensberg World Heritage Site:obstacles to the development ofsustainable tourismMélanie Duval a b & Benjamin Smith aa Rock Art Research Institute, GAES, University of Witwatersrand,P. Bag 3, P.O. Wits, Johannesburg, 2050, South Africab Laboratoire Edytem UMR 5204, Université de Savoie, Campusscientifique, pôle montagne, Bourget du Lac, 73376, France
Version of record first published: 04 Jul 2012
To cite this article: Mélanie Duval & Benjamin Smith (2012): Rock art tourism in the uKhahlamba/Drakensberg World Heritage Site: obstacles to the development of sustainable tourism, Journal ofSustainable Tourism, DOI:10.1080/09669582.2012.699060
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2012.699060
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representationthat the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of anyinstructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primarysources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
Rock art tourism in the uKhahlamba/Drakensberg World HeritageSite: obstacles to the development of sustainable tourism
Melanie Duvala,b∗ and Benjamin Smitha
aRock Art Research Institute, GAES, University of Witwatersrand, P. Bag 3, P.O. Wits, Johannesburg2050, South Africa; bLaboratoire Edytem UMR 5204, Universite de Savoie, Campus scientifique,pole montagne, Bourget du Lac 73376, France
(Received 5 April 2011; final version received 21 May 2012)
This paper focuses on rock art tourism, a highly vulnerable heritage of broad public in-terest, only sustainable within an effective management framework. The paper explorestourism management in South Africa’s uKhahlamba-Drakensberg World Heritage Site,inscribed in 2000 for its natural landscapes and its exceptional rock art heritage. In prac-tice, nature dominates the area’s tourism and management dynamics. Current tourismpatterns, markets and frequencies, together with rock art’s low place within touristagendas, are described. This situation is shown to be a legacy of European Alpineromanticism, and the political rejection of indigenous cultural heritage prior to 1994,still expressed through visitor patterns and marketing policies. Despite rock art needingtourism to valorise its conservation, and being recognised by commentators and thestate as a viable route to tourism development, heritage conservation, socio-economicregeneration and cultural empowerment, the failure to reform entrenched and ineffectivetourism/conservation governance and management systems is exposed. The problemsaffecting rock art tourism have allowed the retention of unwelcome values from SouthAfrica’s pre-democratic era, risk the loss of World Heritage site status, the destructionof globally outstanding art works and waste an important opportunity to expand anddiversify sustainable tourism in South Africa.
Keywords: rock art; cultural heritage; community custodianship; stakeholder analysis;Drakensberg; South Africa
Introduction
The uKhahlamba/Drakensberg Park (UDP) straddles the border between Lesotho and SouthAfrica. It was granted World Heritage Site (WHS) status by UNESCO in 2000 as a mixedcultural and natural heritage property. Its outstanding universal values are the naturalbeauty of its mountain flora and fauna and its exceptional richness in rock art. The areahas been a major centre for tourism in South Africa since the first half of the twentiethcentury (Pearse, 1973). For 2008/2009, the management authority, Ezemvelo KwaZulu-Natal Wildlife (EKZNW), estimates that the area received over 200,000 paying visitors.Most come to enjoy the natural heritage: the spectacular scenery, hiking, climbing, fishingand other outdoor sports.
In contrast, the rock art heritage remains a marginal attraction, despite having some ofthe world’s finest ancient rock art (Lewis-Williams, 2003). Over 600 rock art sites have been
recorded in the sandstone shelters of the area. Most were made during the last 3000 years:some of the last paintings show the arrival of European settlers in the mid-nineteenthcentury (Prins, 2009; Wright & Mazel, 2007). Over 20 sites have been officially openedfor public visitation, but most are failing to receive adequate visitor numbers to make themsustainable tourism attractions. This paper focuses upon the issues surrounding the failureto develop sustainable rock art tourism in the UDP.
The low profile of UDP rock art is particularly surprising in post-Apartheid South Africa,where developing tourism around cultural riches is championed as a way of furtheringnational development (Hughes, 2007; Mtshali, 1997). Moreover, the development of rockart tourism has been identified as a way of fighting rural poverty (Pastor, 1997). Internationalresearch into rock art tourism has been conducted mainly by archaeologists and has focusedprimarily on balancing public visitation with site conservation (Lee, 1991; Smith, 2006;Sullivan, 1984). Following this trend, in South Africa research by Aron Mazel underlinedthe necessity of producing interpretative displays and information to educate visitors andstakeholders about the value of rock art to ensure its conservation (Mazel, 1981, 1982,1984). Janette Deacon conducted a detailed analysis of rock art conservation, managementand tourism in the Western Cape’s Cederberg area (Deacon, 1994a, 1994b, 2006a, 2006b),emphasising the need for archaeologists to move away from top-down management, towardspartnership-driven site developments in which rock art is managed as a collaborative processwith all stakeholders involved.
This paper moves away from the traditional management/conservation focus and fol-lows a recommendation made by Deacon (2006a) that further research is needed into theeconomic and social factors behind rock art tourism. Fundamental to the development ofrock art tourism anywhere must be the achievement of viable visitor numbers to sustain therock art tourism infrastructure and the dispersal of visitors between sites thus distributingtheir impacts. Here we focus on the UDP and explore the paradox between the cultural valueof the rock art, a major criterion for World Heritage listing, and the current state of tourismand rock art’s neglect. We consider the place of rock art in tourist practices in the UDP;the extent to which the disparity between “nature tourism” and “cultural tourism” is due tothe way tourism is promoted, and the extent to which this disparity relates to South Africa’spast and to the legacies of Apartheid. We also examine the role of management bodies increating and resolving this paradox. We ask whether the failings of the current system havebeen exacerbated by the mechanisms used to involve local people in the heritage tourismdynamic and the consequences for sustainable rock art tourism.
Aims and methods
Our research employs both synchronic and diachronic methods. A literature review iden-tified a particular paucity of information on cultural tourism in the UDP and a generallack of information on archaeo-tourism in South Africa. To address this, a series of fieldsurveys and interviews were made including a study of tourist practices in the area, a studyof the rock art sites open to tourists, a study of tourism promotion practices and a study ofstakeholder values, perceptions and priorities.
The field studies for this project were conducted between October 2009 and September2010. The work involved face-to-face interviews with 23 major stakeholders includingthose managing natural and cultural heritage at national, provincial and municipal levels,those involved in tourism marketing, guides, accommodation providers and researchers.Every public rock art site was visited, including those officially and unofficially open to
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
v D
e Sa
voie
], [
Mél
anie
Duv
al]
at 0
9:27
04
July
201
2
Journal of Sustainable Tourism 3
the public. At each site, Melanie Duval, a French-speaking French national, presentedherself as a tourist. Her research purpose was only revealed to custodians/guides after thevisit, allowing her a typical tourist experience. An interview was conducted with eachcustodian/guide, 19 in all. There is no official recording of rock art tourist frequency; thesevisits allowed checking of site visitor register books, ticket books and interviews with thoseissuing tickets, thus producing individual site visitor numbers.
Tourist offices were also visited in the guise of a tourist to ascertain the availabilityof rock art information brochures: this information was combined with Internet searchesto compile and analyse a detailed database on rock art in tourism literature and onlinepromotion. We also identified every accommodation provider in the vicinity of the UDP(defined as providers west of the N3 motorway) and noted accommodation types, bednumbers and the presence (or absence) of rock art on their websites.
During these visits, 450 semi-structured tourist interviews were conducted in differentcontexts to ascertain their views and experiences. Results were tabulated within a standard-ised database allowing computer enumeration of the results. While we draw on the resultsof the stakeholder and custodian/guide interviews in detail in this paper, and some referenceis made to statements by individual tourists, the detailed analysis of the interviews will bepresented elsewhere.
Nature tourism in uKhahlamba/Drakensberg
The UDP has 12 protected areas, set up between 1903 and 1989, given protected status toconserve their flora and fauna and provide South Africa’s white elite with recreation areasin once tribal lands (Carruthers, 1995; Guyot, 2006). They were managed by the NatalParks Board until 1997, and then by EKZNW, set up by the KZN Nature ConservationManagement Act of 1997 combining the Natal Parks Board and the nature protectionorganization of the former homeland of KwaZulu. These protected areas have graduallybeen integrated into a single system since UNESCO inscription (Porter, 2007).
From the earliest days of tourism, most popular literature has emphasized the spectacularscenery of the mountainous area, evoking the beauty and drama of the escarpment: “Thecharms of the place were evident immediately – the boulder-bedded Tugela issuing from themountains, the gap of the Goodoo Pass leading into the beyond, gushing waterfalls showingwhite amidst luxuriant bush, and, through the clouds at intervals, glimpses of the toweringescarpment which seemed to be the end of all things” (Coates, 1920, p. 12). Numerousphotographs highlighting the precipitous nature of the landscape supported these accounts(Harrison, 1903).
The uKhahlamba/Drakensberg became a place for the physical challenge of climbing thecountry’s highest summits, following the earlier trend to conquering Europe’s highest Alpinesummits (Lejeune, 1988). After 1960, with advances in climbing techniques, improvedaccessibility and the expansion of tourist accommodation, the mountains became a favouriteholiday destination for domestic tourists. Since the coming of democracy in 1994, the areahas become a popular stop for international tourists. Additional outdoor sports, such as golf,tennis, bowls and helicopter flights, have been added to complement traditional mountainsports. Comparisons between surveys carried out in 1980 (Pickles, 1985; Sutcliffe, 1981)and in 2010 confirm the continuing importance of sports and recreational activities in arevivifying mountain setting.
In 1969, there were 231 tourist beds within the protected areas and 2510 in the immedi-ate vicinity (Department of Planning, 1970, p. 54). In 2010, 12 accommodation establish-ments within the UDP provide 2228 beds, all directly managed by the tourism branch of
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
v D
e Sa
voie
], [
Mél
anie
Duv
al]
at 0
9:27
04
July
201
2
4 M. Duval and B. Smith
EKZNW. In the immediate vicinity, there are 266 accommodation establishments with c.13,000 beds. In 2009, 207,900 visitors officially entered the WHS but an estimated 740,000tourists stayed in the uKhahlamba/Drakensberg without entering the UDP. Overall, 70% ofvisitors to the UDP are domestic tourists and 30% are international (South African Tourismestimates; K. Kohler, personal communication, KZN Tourism, August 2010). Most inter-national tourists take a general tour including a few days in the UDP; domestic tourists aremostly outdoor sports enthusiasts and keen hikers or people relaxing in the mountain envi-ronment. In the domestic tourist market, rock art is only a minor attraction (Duval & Smith,submitted).
Rock art tourism in the uKhahlamba/Drakensberg
Rock art tourism is a niche market (Novelli, 2004) accounting for c.10% of tourists visitingthe UDP. Officially, 22 rock art sites can be visited. The criteria used by EKZNW andAmafa aKwaZulu-Natali (the provincial heritage agency, hereafter Amafa) to define these22 sites included their accessibility, the conservation state of the paintings and their carryingcapacity (Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife, 2005). Associated spiritual and community values werealso taken into account; rock art sites that are used for rituals are kept closed as a measureof respect for the communities concerned (Ndlovu, 2009a). In fact, field analysis of theopen sites reveals broader implicit criteria in the decision process, as none fulfils all explicitcriteria. The final list was a shrewd compromise between existing tourism dynamics (i.e.sites that were already visited by tourists), the proximity of the sites to accommodationand restaurants, the potential for creating community employment, accessibility and thedesire to include sites from all areas. In practice, there are 23 rock art sites that tourists visitregularly, 14 of which are not on the official list (cf. Figure 1).
One reason for the discrepancy between the sites officially and unofficially open isbecause the official list was drawn up jointly by EKZNW and Amafa and any modification,addition or deletion of sites has to be approved by both parties, a process taking up to twoyears. Of the 22 sites originally listed, some are no longer visited. An example is Good HopeShelter, now extensively damaged and no longer promoted. Other sites officially open, suchas Cascades, Waterfall Shelter and Boundary Rock, illustrate the difficulty of managingeasily accessible paintings. These shelters are on popular hiking trails but their paintingsare neither well preserved nor impressive and there are deliberately no signs indicating thepresence of the rock art. Neither EKZNW nor Amafa have sufficient personnel to staffthem; they are on the official list but not signposted to tourists.
Another reason for the discrepancy between the sites officially open and those actuallyvisited is because the official list only includes sites within the UDP. Nine unofficial touristsites are outside the UDP: tourists are taken to them by accommodation providers or profes-sional guides. This fragmented approach to rock art tourism creates problems both in termsof the tourist experience and the conservation of the paintings. For example, for the paint-ings on show near Cayley Lodge (a luxury hotel in the central uKhahlamba/Drakensberg),visits are led by a maintenance man who knows nothing about them. His main job is toensure that tourists are not harassed by the local community during their walk to the site:he does not even ensure that tourists do not touch the paintings.
Rock art tourism numbers and income
In 2009, approximately 27,300 tourists visited the 23 rock art sites. This figure includesvisits to the Didima rock art interpretative centre. This is not a rock art site, but, given its
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
v D
e Sa
voie
], [
Mél
anie
Duv
al]
at 0
9:27
04
July
201
2
Journal of Sustainable Tourism 5
Figure 1. Rock art tourism experience in the Drakensberg area.
purpose, it has to be included in any analysis of rock art tourism in the area. The figurealso includes visits to a rock art site that is actually in Lesotho, but which is managed fromSouth Africa. The figure excludes school visits, a significant proportion of the visitors tosome sites. Visitor numbers must be treated with caution. Most privately managed sites,
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
v D
e Sa
voie
], [
Mél
anie
Duv
al]
at 0
9:27
04
July
201
2
6 M. Duval and B. Smith
by associations, semi-public bodies or private accommodation providers, keep reasonablyaccurate records. At other sites, there are no records and we estimated numbers based oninterviews with guides and locals. In addition, a few visitor categories were not capturedby our survey method, notably hikers who visit rock art sites without a guide.
In spite of these problems, it is clear that there are major disparities between sites,with the more popular sites, such as Main Caves, attracting 40 times as many tourists(c. 9000 p.a.) as the least visited sites, such as Battle Cave (c. 230 p.a.), partly reflectingthe development history of the sites. There is a gradient from completely undeveloped sites(the sites in the southern UDP have not been developed at all), to undeveloped sites thatare connected to interpretative centres and to developed sites with barriers and walkways(Game Pass, Main Caves, Battle Cave and Sigubudu sites have permanent facilities forvisitors).
Accessibility in terms of road condition and/or the length of the walk to the site variesgreatly. Although certain sites are less than 30 minutes walk from the road, others require ahalf-day or full day’s walk. Whilst the remote locations could be promoted as an “adventure”attraction, distance/time exerts a brake on tourism development. The variation in visitornumbers also reflects the fact that only some sites are used by tour operators. Several touroperators include Main Caves in their circuits and these tour groups account for around40% of the caves’ visitors (interview with T. Shabalala, hospitality staff, Giant’s Castle,February 2010). Main Caves are attractive to tour groups: the access road is good andsuitable for coaches; the walk reveals the beauty of the landscape; the rock art site has beendeveloped to accommodate large groups of people; a guide is present every day of the year;the paintings are diverse and well preserved and the site has a restaurant. However, otherrock art sites without all these characteristics can also attract tour operators, especiallythose offering made-to-measure circuits for small groups. At Tsodilo Hills in Botswana,travel agencies play on the difficulty of access to reinforce the myth of an adventure into“The Real Africa”.
It is difficult to evaluate the economic impact of visits to the rock art sites: lack ofaccurate data is combined with complex pricing policies. Some sites have a fixed price pertour, regardless of the number of visitors on the tour. So, for the 228 people who visitedBattle Cave in 2009, total takings could vary between two extremes. If all 228 recordedvisitors toured as individuals, total receipts would have been R50,160, but if they touredin 57 groups of four, receipts would only have been R12,540. Other sites have similarcomplexities and carry prices varying from free to as high as R310. Taking all these factorsinto account, the turnover generated by the 23 rock art sites in 2009 was between R1,218,823and R1,425,213 (this figure includes entry fees to the UDP but excludes income from foodand accommodation).
The great diversity in visitor numbers, in pricing and accessibility leads to a fragmenta-tion of the tourist experience. Rather than providing a marketing opportunity, the diversityacts as an obstacle to rock art being viewed as a “must see” international cultural treasure.This under-development of rock art tourism is also a product of current tourism promotionstrategies in which other tourist activities are promoted above rock art.
Rock art and the promotion of tourism: a synchronic approach
An analysis of the place of rock art in the promotion of tourism in the UDP gives a clearerindication of the perceived value of rock art by the tourism sector (MacKay & Fesenmaier,1997; McCabe, 2009). Our analysis focused on brochures and information presented intourist offices, guidebooks and tourist accommodation. No single brochure describes all
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
v D
e Sa
voie
], [
Mél
anie
Duv
al]
at 0
9:27
04
July
201
2
Journal of Sustainable Tourism 7
the accessible sites: there are also no brochures for individual sites. Three rock art siteguides have been published, but were never widely available within the UDP and are nowlong out of print (Lewis-Williams & Blundell, 1998; Lewis-William & Dowson, 1992;Willcox, 1984a).
Information on rock art in general tourism brochures is paltry or non-existent. TheKZN provincial tourism authority currently has two main brochures. The first covers thewhole province, focusing mostly on Zulu culture. It does not mention rock art sites.The second covers the uKhahlamba/Drakensberg and mostly highlights scenery and outdooractivities. Only one of the 35 pages talks about rock art, naming just two sites. This lack ofinformation is strange given that both brochures emphasise the cultural and historical richesof KZN (several pages to military history/battlefield sites, Zulu tourist villages and Britishcolonial monuments). KZN is presented as the “Land of the Zulu” and that contributes toidentity formation, differentiating it from other parts of South Africa. Given the competitionfor visitors between different parts of South Africa, KZN has concentrated on an alreadyevocative image (Zulu, 2007). Information about rock art is given no prominence in theregion’s tourist offices and field interviews demonstrated that tourist office staff memberswere generally incapable of providing accurate information about public rock art sites.
In tourist guidebooks aimed at international tourists, there is rather more but variableinformation on rock art (see Table 1).
Depending on which guidebook is chosen, an international tourist may or may not findall the information needed to visit a rock art site. The ability to plan a visit to a rock artsite in advance is an important factor in determining whether international tourists are ableto visit sites. Survey reports show that international tourist itineraries seldom exceed threedays in the area. The UDP is primarily seen as a stop-off point between Kruger NationalPark or the KZN coast and Cape Town. Even if international tourists are interested in seeingrock art, information sources on how to do that are lacking. Out of 126 international touristsinterviewed, 53% had not planned to visit a rock art site because they had other prioritiesand/or because they did not know they could visit rock art.
Accommodation is a key element in holiday planning, and accommodation choiceinfluences a tourist’s activities (Richards & Wilson, 2007). The promotion of rock artsites by accommodation providers was analysed by examining their websites, a knowninfluence on tourist decisions (O’Connor, Hopken, & Gretzel, 2008). Of the 278 touristaccommodation providers in and around the UDP, only 40% include rock art on theiractivity lists. There are also large disparities between accommodation providers close tothe UDP and those further afield. Thus, the Midlands Meander tourist region, with c.2000tourist beds, promotes discovery tours combining restaurants, outdoor activities, crafts andlocal farm produce along a “Shopping Road”. It attracts 358,000 tourists/excursionists peryear (Coetzee, Oldham, Schroenn, & Tahng, 2008). In 2010, only 14% of the MidlandsMeander accommodation websites sites mentioned rock art, even though Main Caves andGame Pass Shelter, two major rock art sites, lie on the Meander route.
There are also differences in the way that rock art is presented, with 84% of websitesincluding rock art as part of a tour including visits to a potter’s studio, a wildlife reserveor a battlefield, etc. (http://shiriba.co.za/Activities.aspx). Twelve per cent of websites in-clude a paragraph describing the rock art, generally with a picture of a rock painting(http://www.thehomestead.co.za/area.aspx), but only 4% dedicate an entire page to rockart (http://www.witsend.co.za/rock-art/). Furthermore, information on a website does notnecessarily mean that the owner has information about rock art sites. Cathkin Cottage, inthe Champagne Valley, promotes rock art sites but the owner explained: “My daughter didthe website and she thought it was a good idea to promote the rock art sites because it is an
interesting activity that can be done in the area. However, I wouldn’t be able to say how togo about it. Perhaps someone at the hotel next door could tell you more” (Interview, July2010).
To understand these marketing and management problems we need to consider thehistorical factors that brought about these conditions and the relationships between themajor stakeholders.
The evolution of values accorded to rock art: a diachronic approach
Analysis of early tourist guidebooks and reports on excursions by the Mountain Club ofSouth Africa shows a historical evolution in perceptions of rock art sites. The first guide-books repeatedly mention rock art sites, even including reproductions of some paintings(Forsyth Ingram, 1895, p. 237; Harrison, 1903, pp. 215–216; Howard, 1906, pp. 206–211).But their perception of rock art varied considerably. For some, they were just crude pic-tures: “In this portion of the Colony are to be found traces of that almost extinct race, theMasarwas or Bushmen. In the caves in the mountains can be seen their crude attempts atpictorial decoration, and traces of their habitation” (Howard, 1906, p. 571). For others theywere interesting and worth preserving. At a relatively early date, politicians such as SirHenry Bulwer, the lieutenant governor of Natal, called for rock art to be copied. In 1875,Mark and Graham Hutchinson were commissioned to make copies of paintings in Giant’sCastle (Willcox, 1984b).
The descriptions repeatedly display the racial prejudices of the time: “Their [i.e. Bush-men] history forms a strange study, for while they were undoubtedly possessed of a highdegree of primitive artistic and imitative powers in a pictorial sense, they were and arein almost every other respect beyond the pale of the lowest class of humanity” (ForsythIngram, 1895, p. 236). But some tourists and hikers showed real curiosity, even admira-tion: “Saturday we spent at the Bushman’s Cave. There are splendid examples of theirart, and some of the paintings are in a perfect state of preservation (. . .) One could nothelp contrasting the refinement of an early art with the vulgar taste of those vandals whoeven here could not refrain from printing their names upon the rocks” (Allderman, 1921,pp. 41–42).
However, after this initial period, rock art disappears from traveller accounts. Reportsdwell on the richness of the flora and fauna, describe the weather and the food, but donot mention rock art (e.g. Godbold, 1935). The reasons behind this neglect are complex.Before 1994, the heritage of indigenous people was carefully consigned to the backgroundof national consciousness (Lewis-Williams, Dowson, & Deacon, 1993; Wilmsen, 1995)and, from c. 1900, the concept of “wilderness” became the ideology for those managingand writing about the UDP. The UDP was promoted as a place untainted by humanity anduncomfortable memories of an older indigenous population, and its extermination, faded.
At a national level, rock art conservation measures were put in place, beginning withthe Bushman Relics Protection Act of 1911, controlling the collection and export of rockpaintings and engravings (Deacon, 1993; Pearce & Hobart, 2010). The Historical Monu-ments Act of 1923 provided further general heritage protection; it formed a Commissionfor the Protection of Natural and Historical Monuments of the Union of South Africa. TheCommission’s tasks included compiling a register of monuments to be preserved (Deacon,1991, 1993; Rudner, 1989).
The Natural and Historical Monuments Relics and Antiquities Act of 1934 introducedprovision for active protection measures, allowing rock art and other sites to become nationalmonuments. However, the act, and later amendments, led to a mere 10 rock art sites being
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
v D
e Sa
voie
], [
Mél
anie
Duv
al]
at 0
9:27
04
July
201
2
10 M. Duval and B. Smith
declared national monuments, with only one, Mpongweni Cave, in the UDP area (Deacon,1993). Given the open and accessible nature of rock art sites and the lack of state-backedconservation measures, vandalism was common.
For many concerned individuals, tourism seemed the best way of ensuring the conser-vation of the paintings, requiring that effective protection measures such as site guides andfences be put in place. This is illustrated in a letter from the director of the Natal ParksBoard to the Giant’s Castle Game Conservator in 1957 (“Archaeology” archives, EKZNW,Pietermaritzburg):
Giants Castle Game Reserve: Care of Bushman Paintings. The Meeting was read a memo-randum from the Game Conservator, referring to the regrettable defacement, and sometimesdestruction of valuable paintings by uncontrolled visitors. There was some discussion aboutthis regrettable type of behaviour, which seems almost inescapable even among otherwisedependable people.
It was thereafter decided that his recommendations be adopted, as follows:
(a) that those few better known caves commonly visited, should be fenced in;
(b) that persons be prohibited from visiting Bushman paintings, unless accompanied by aNative guide;
(c) that two Native guides, for such visits, be employed within the camp; such personnel tobe occupied with Game Guard or general labour work when not required by visitors;
(d) that a charge be made for the use of a Native guide to visit Bushman paintings, along thelines suggested by the Game Conservator. (emphasis original)
Following this, a fence was put up at Main Caves and people were accompanied to thesite by rangers. In 1969, Main Caves was formally developed for tourism by the Natal ParksBoard through the installation of displays, a Bushman diorama and paved paths (Blundell,1996). Other rock art sites were opened for visitation, albeit with little real protection andfew guides. Due to poor visitor supervision, this opening up of rock art sites led to a newwave of damage (Correspondence in the “Rock Art” archives, EKZNW, Pietermaritzburg).In the late 1970s, the Forest Department, responsible for forest reserves within the UDP,financed the preparation of protection plans for rock art sites (Mazel 1981, 1982, 1984,2012). But this did not lead to the proper development of rock art tourism. In 1981 and1985, three regional studies analysed the tourist dynamics in the uKhahlamba/Drakensberg.None mentioned rock art sites as a tourism resource (Ferrario, 1981; Pickles, 1985; Sutcliffe,1981).
The 1990s and the recognition of rock art as being of international value
In the 1990s a combination of factors combined to push the rock art ofuKhahlamba/Drakensberg to centre stage. At a local level, following the work for theForest Department, Aron Mazel persuaded what is now EKZNW to work with the NatalMuseum on a joint Rock Art Liaison Committee (Mazel, 2012), bringing together stafffrom both institutions to consider rock art issues (interview with A. Mazel, October 2010;interview with L. van Schalkwyk, February 2011). Work began on a cultural resources man-agement plan (CURE) for the uKhahlamba/Drakensberg (Wahl, Mazel, & Roberts, 1998).The draft plan was implemented by the newly formed KZN Heritage Agency, Amafa inpartnership with EKZNW, in 1998 (Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife, 1998). Bimonthly meetingswere held between Amafa and EKZNW and rock art management started to be carefullyplanned and budgeted (Mazel, 2012).
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
v D
e Sa
voie
], [
Mél
anie
Duv
al]
at 0
9:27
04
July
201
2
Journal of Sustainable Tourism 11
Internationally, UNESCO reports on WHS inscriptions in the late 1980s stressedthe under-representation of African heritage and archaeological sites, and an over-representation of European historic buildings (UNESCO, 1994, p. 4). Archaeologists lob-bied to include more rock art on the list (Anati, Wainwright, & Lundy, 1984), a causefurther advanced by the new International Committee for Rock Art (Clottes, 1997). TheSouthern African Rock Art Project (SARAP) was initiated in 1995, to identify sub-Saharanrock art sites for inclusion on the WHS list (Deacon, 1997, 2006b). However, because theUNESCO listing process had already been launched for the UDP area, this area was notincluded in the SARAP process. Nevertheless, increased awareness of the internationalvalue of rock art influenced the nomination of the UDP, notably when it came to definingthe listing criteria.
This combination of local and international factors caused a progressive shift of theWHS bid towards a truly joint nature–culture nomination (interview with R. Porter, Novem-ber 2009; J. Deacon, personal correspondence, March 2010). And, rock art played a decisiverole in the UDP obtaining WHS status, as the rock art, more than the natural heritage, wasconsidered to be of outstanding universal value. Although UDP’s scenery is magnificent,the WHS list already included similar landscapes, such as Durmitor National Park (Mon-tenegro), Pirin National Park (Bulgaria) and the Great Smokey Mountains National Park(USA). Without rock art it is unlikely WHS status would have been granted.
WHS status combined with the late 1990s political changes in South Africa to trans-form popular perceptions about the value of UDP rock art. The political discourse placedstrong new emphasis on cultural heritage: Thabo Mbeki began to popularise the concept of“African Renaissance” (Speeches made on May 8, 1996, April 9, 1998, August 13, 1998).The term encouraged stakeholders to examine African cultural roots (Okumu, 2002) and toembrace ancestral heritage in tourism and nation building. In a South Africa seeking newand unifying national symbols, rock art came to be seen as a heritage that was truly nationaland able to unite the country’s previously divided peoples (Dowson & Lewis-Williams,1993; Lewis-Williams, 1995). Rock art could act as “a bridge between the past and thefuture” (Jeursen, 1995; Tomaselli, 1995) and began to appear in political emblems. TheSouth African Olympic flag of 1993, incorporated motifs from rock paintings (Blundell,1998). In 2000, the national coat-of-arms was redesigned, including characters from arock painting, and a national motto in a Khoe-San language meaning “Unity in Diversity”(Smith, Lewis-Williams, Blundell, & Chippindale, 2000). With this symbolic and politicalgesture, rock art became heritage to preserve, part of the identity reconstruction process:historic, artistic and reflecting a shared identity and a common humanity.
This new political dynamic gained social force within national programmes for socialreconstruction. Under the Reconstruction and Development Program (RDP) (1994–1996),and with the adoption of the Growth, Employment and Redistribution Program (GEAR),tourism was identified as a key economic sector able to correct the imbalances of the pastand promote the emancipation of previously disadvantaged segments of the population(Allen & Brennan, 2004; DEAT, 1996, 1997; Rogerson & Visser, 2004). Historically, thetourist sector had been developed dominantly for whites by whites (Soni, 1997; Visser,2003). An objective of RDP and GEAR was to transfer capital and skills to previouslydisadvantaged segments of the population to help rebalance socio-economic dynamics.
Of the tourism resources available, cultural heritage was seen as contributing to theconstruction of the rainbow nation and encouraging the African Renaissance (DEAT,1996, 2004; Marschall, 2005, 2012; Mtshali, 1997). The aim was to develop a range oftourism resources beyond the former honey-pot scenery and wildlife attractions, attractingnew markets (Ivanovic, 2008) and generating new revenue streams involving previously
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
v D
e Sa
voie
], [
Mél
anie
Duv
al]
at 0
9:27
04
July
201
2
12 M. Duval and B. Smith
disadvantaged segments of the population (Pastor, 1997). The country’s provinces in-troduced several tourism action plans, with dedicated sources of funding (DEAT, 2004;Rogerson, 2003).
Three main UDP rock art tourism developments were enacted during this period(Ndlovu, 2009b). In 1998, the Main Caves tourist site was completely refurbished byAmafa and EKZNW, and guides were employed and trained to explain the paintings. In2000, the National Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism, via the PovertyRelief Fund, employed the Rock Art Research Institute of Wits University to redevelopGame Pass Shelter (DEAT, 2004; Smith, 2006). This involved infrastructural improve-ments, building an interpretation centre and training guides. In 2003, EKZNW opened anew Rock Art Interpretation Centre at Didima, near Cathedral Peak, with museum-styledisplays and an auditorium for audiovisual presentations (Mazel, 2008, 2009).
In spite of these important developments, tourism marketing of the UDP persistedin focusing almost exclusively on the area’s natural beauty. Consequently, the new rockart developments did not receive significant numbers of tourists and rock art has not yetdeveloped into a major attraction and source of social empowerment. Ongoing failings inmarketing have been exacerbated by poor relationships between the key stakeholders.
The importance of the relationships between stakeholders
When the UDP was nominated for WHS status, UNESCO noted a mismatch between themanagement requirements and the expertise of EKZNW, which seemed focused entirelyon plants and animal conservation. “ICOMOS is concerned that the different managementplans have not yet been harmonized by means of a master plan. It is very importantthat the objectives and policies of the Cultural Resource Management Plan are properlyintegrated with those relating to the natural heritage, so as to avoid any possible conflicts.The staff of the Nature Conservation Service is exclusively related to the natural heritage.ICOMOS strongly recommends that a cultural heritage unit be established within theService” (UNESCO, 2000, p. 3). This issue had been regularly raised at the Rock ArtLiaison Committee and stated formally in a series of letters (Mazel, 2012). To prepare forWHS status, a memorandum of understanding has been signed in 1999 whereby Amafatook temporary control over cultural resources within the UDP (Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife,1998, 2005) until EKZNW had recruited suitably qualified cultural resource managementstaff.
Ten years later, and it seems that this “temporary” solution has become permanent.Amafa is still responsible for the cultural resources of the WHS; EKZNW has not recruitedan archaeologist. Why? Historically, EKZNW’s role has been to protect the natural envi-ronment and its culture is deeply anchored in preserving biodiversity. EKZNW’s nationaland provincial subsidies have been reduced. To protect its existing strengths, it has beenfinancially expedient for EKZNW to leave responsibility for cultural heritage with Amafa.Faced with the size and political strength of EKZNW, together with the expansion of theSouth African Heritage Resources Agency, managing UDP archaeology serves to increaseAmafa’s visibility and gives it enhanced status. It also provides Amafa with additionalmuscle to push for increased provincial government funding. It, therefore, seems to be inthe interests of both major stakeholders to sustain the “temporary” status quo.
This situation has created a fundamentally unsound management system. EKZNWfocuses on the conservation and tourism development of natural resources and biodiversityin the UDP, whereas Amafa is charged only with the conservation of cultural heritageresources. No one is legally responsible for the tourism development of cultural resources.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
v D
e Sa
voie
], [
Mél
anie
Duv
al]
at 0
9:27
04
July
201
2
Journal of Sustainable Tourism 13
Neither of the two organizations takes an active responsibility for this role. Several liaisonbodies, such as the Amafa–EKZNW Liaison Committee and The Quarterly Rock ArtManagement Meeting promote cooperation, but cannot resolve the underlying dysfunction.
Shortcomings in promotion and information
Analysing tourist visits to the rock art sites highlights the shortcomings of a managementsystem that is dual-headed and unsound. The 1997 and 2008 KZN Heritage Act and Amafa’sown regulations stipulate that anyone wishing to visit a rock art site must be accompanied.Therefore, receptionists at EKZNW offices and lodges are required to direct tourists wantingto see rock art to designated guides. In practice, whilst this generally happens, some staffdirect visitors to paintings unguided and thereby risking serious damage to rock art sites.This is a product of a dysfunction in communication; some EKZNW personnel are simplynot aware of Amafa regulations.
Beyond the poor communication, there are bigger issues. EKZNW’s personnel arebroadly unaware of issues facing UDP rock art sites. This may be a sign of the limitedheritage and tourism value accorded to the rock art by EKZNW as an organisation. The valueaccorded to any heritage depends on the knowledge, understanding and appreciation of thatperson. EKZNW does not run any formal rock art information/sensitisation programmesfor its staff, and it is left up to the officer in charge of each reserve to train staff. Yet, theofficers in charge lack the necessary understanding of rock art and Amafa regulations.
A similar lack of understanding can be seen within EKZNW’s tourism department.For example, EKZNW’s head of tourism promotion for the UDP, stated in an interviewthat she did not believe that rock art could serve as a major attraction for UDP tourists.Paradoxically, in the same interview, she recognized that the reduction in governmentsubsidies makes it necessary for EKZNW to be increasingly competitive and to diversifytourist attractions (interview with A. van Eyssen, February 2010). EKZNW’s failure torecognize the tourism value of rock art is clear from their marketing documents and theirtourism promotion activities. For example, at a two-day marketing event in 2010, thecountry’s largest tour operators were shown the tourism potential of the Midlands Meander.More than 80 tourism-related businesses presented their tourist products including EKZNW.The EKZNW presentation described the wildlife, the flora and the scenery, but without amention of rock art, even though two major UDP rock art sites are part of the MidlandsMeander route. Moreover, due to a lack of communication between EKZNW and Amafa,rock art guides had not been told about the meeting.
The custodian system
The dysfunctions caused by the dual-headed management system particularly affect day-to-day rock art site management. The regulations to balance preservation with tourismdevelopment rely on a custodian system to protect the paintings and to involve local peoplein the preservation and presentation of the rock art sites (Amafa, 2008, 2009). This systemsatisfied the government requirement that public bodies act to promote poverty relief andthe socio-economic regeneration of rural areas (Rogerson & Visser, 2004). The systemwas officially introduced in 2004.1 Custodians are neither Amafa nor EKZNW employees.Official accreditation gives them the right to take tourists to the sites and be paid for thisservice. The fees paid by tourists are the only income custodians receive and they are notpermitted to have another job: they must be available at all times to accompany tourists(Amafa, 2009). In exchange for their accreditation, custodians must present Amafa with
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
v D
e Sa
voie
], [
Mél
anie
Duv
al]
at 0
9:27
04
July
201
2
14 M. Duval and B. Smith
an annual report on the conservation state of the sites for which they are responsible, thusproviding Amafa with an inexpensive site monitoring system, avoiding the need to sendAmafa staff into the field.
Self-evidently, this custodian system can only be sustainable if tourist flows are highenough for custodians to make a living. This is far from the case, particularly for some sites,where custodians sometimes see three tourists per month, generating about R100 (approx.€10). Furthermore, because this province-level accreditation requires no training in tourism,custodians remain on the margins of the tourism system. They are in a paradoxical situationin which their income depends on tourist numbers, but they do not have the means or theskills to promote their business. They rely on official bodies or private organisations which,as described above, have consistently failed to promote rock art tourism.
Officially, custodians are only responsible for taking tourists to the rock art sites andmonitoring their behaviour. Providing information about the paintings is explicitly not oneof the custodians’ roles, and this can discourage tourists from visiting rock art sites. Atourist at Injasuthi in April 2010, for example, stated: “I had planned to visit the rock art.I had seen in the guidebook that you could do so and it seemed quite interesting, as it issomething I don’t really know anything about. But, it said on the sign at the entrance thatthe person who would accompany us was not there to provide explanations. So, honestly, Iwasn’t going to pay someone just to watch over me! I know very well that I mustn’t touchthe paintings or throw water on them. I’m not stupid! So, honestly, no, I don’t really want topay for that type of activity. What would interest me would be someone who could explainthe paintings, not just watch me”.
In practice, there are major differences between the explicit status of custodians and theservices they actually provide; most custodians provide good explanations of the naturalphenomena seen, the lifestyle of the San people and the paintings.2 However, these servicescannot be advertised because, at a national level, no one may guide tourists without firstobtaining formal accreditation from the Cultural Arts, Tourism, Hospitality & Sport SectorEducation Training Authority (CATHSSETA). It is almost impossible for custodians to gainformal CATHSSETA accreditation because custodians cannot afford the training required;the status of custodian conflicts with the status of tourist guide because under Amafaregulations only unemployed people can become custodians; Amafa and EKZNW regularlyclaim that it is the other’s responsibility to train guides. Amafa argues that they are in chargeof protecting the rock art, not developing rock art tourism. The director went as far as saying“the fewer tourists there are at the rock art sites, the better it is” (interview with B. Marshall,February 2010). EKZNW hides behind its status as the agency in charge of natural resourcesand not rock art.
Conclusions
Despite being listed as a WHS for its natural and cultural heritage, the UDP suffers froman ongoing divergence between heritage management practices and tourism dynamics inrelation to rock art. Considered amongst the world’s finest (Lewis-Williams, 2003), UDProck art remains in the background of the local tourism landscape. This is partly a prod-uct of tourism’s history in the area and the sociopolitical evolution of South Africa. Bycombining diachronic and synchronic approaches, the present study has sought to identifythe problems holding back sustainable rock art tourism in the UDP. A key problem factoris the relationship between the two key management authorities involved. The division ofresponsibilities between these stakeholders and the local regulations concerning the devel-opment of rock art sites for tourism currently prevents the creation of a sustainable balance
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
v D
e Sa
voie
], [
Mél
anie
Duv
al]
at 0
9:27
04
July
201
2
Journal of Sustainable Tourism 15
between the preservation of the rock art sites and their use as a tourism resource. Gover-nance and management issues prevent the emergence of sustainable tourism, a paradigmdesigned to use tourism as a tool for cultural conservation and socio-economic regeneration(Bramwell & Lane, 1993).
To address this deficiency, EKZNW and Amafa must address the key issues holdingback rock art tourism development. Joint committees and external pressures over manydecades have failed to create meaningful change (Blundell, 1996; Mazel, 1981, 1982, 1984,2012). Internal processes to bring about change may be more successful in bringing a newwin–win situation for all stakeholders. An obvious strategy would be for EKZNW to set upan archaeological unit as recommended in the mid-1990s (Mazel, 2012) and charge it withdeveloping a coordinated strategy for developing archaeo-tourism. This could gain centralgovernment funding as it would fulfil a key tourism recommendation in the 2011 draft ofSouth African Strategy for the Palaeosciences. The unit should carry out a detailed analysisof tourism dynamics around rock art sites located in similar socio-economic environments,such as at Twyfelfontein in Namibia. This site received WHS status in 2007 for its rockengravings and paintings and attracts approximately 60,000 tourists per year (J. Deacon,personal correspondence, October 2010). Despite being a single site in a remote locality, itattracted more than twice as many tourists as all the rock art sites in the UDP together.
More than institutional changes are needed. A dynamic campaign must raise aware-ness amongst other stakeholders and tourists about the heritage and tourism values of therock art of the UDP. This requires the creation of a network of stakeholders that shouldinclude national and provincial Arts and Culture as well as Tourism departments, educa-tional organizations, commercial tourism bodies, tourism service providers and so on. Onlycollaboration and cooperation by this broader group of stakeholders will bring about a trulysustainable kind of rock art tourism (Chirikure & Pwiti, 2008; Deacon, 2006a). The newtourism promotion directions being followed in the province of KZN may facilitate thecreation of such a stakeholder network (DACT, 2008).
There is an urgent need to reform the custodian system. The current management modelhas been shown in this paper to demotivate the custodians, and not deliver good tourism,conservation or socio-economic outcomes. At one of the finest sites in the UDP, GamePass Shelter, there were 159 days in 2009 when no tourist visited the site. The turnoverin custodians is increasing and it is becoming difficult to find people willing to apply forthe task. The Mushroom Rock site was recently closed to the public because of vandalism(The Citizen, December 15, 2010). Such damage is a direct product of the failure by thestakeholders to manage properly the rock art tourism of the UDP. Ongoing neglect of rockart could cause the UDP to be placed on the UNESCO World Heritage Endangered SiteList.
This UDP case study is not unique; it evokes a broader problem of South Africa’spre-1994 failings in the presentation and promotion of archaeological heritage which havestill not been adequately addressed (Meskell, 2012). There is a wide gulf between theexpenditure on the management and promotion of natural heritage and that on culturalheritage, even though cultural heritage tourism represents an ever-increasing part of theAfrican and global tourism market (Ivanovic, 2008; Richards, 2007). Paradoxically, rockart tourism could provide a means of bridging nature and culture tourism. Rock art isfound in abundance in most of the major South African nature tourism destinations. It isrelatively accessible and exceptional in its aesthetic value and its technical and symbolicsophistication. Researchers have provided an unparalleled understanding of the meaningand motivation behind South African rock art and this allows the weaving of a uniquelydetailed story about the African past and ancient African spirituality (Lewis-Williams,
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
v D
e Sa
voie
], [
Mél
anie
Duv
al]
at 0
9:27
04
July
201
2
16 M. Duval and B. Smith
2003; Lewis-Williams & Blundell, 1998). This added cultural value in major nature tourismcentres such as the UDP could be used to lure tourists away from competitor African naturetourism centres such as Tanzania, Kenya and Botswana. The failure to develop rock arttourism is a missed opportunity, not only to link the past, present and future, as suggested byJeursen (1995) and Tomaselli (1995), but also to overcome long-standing failings in SouthAfrican cultural and archaeo-tourism. The 2011 draft of South African Strategy for thePalaeosciences recognises that rock art tourism can be a source of South African nationalpride, redress past inequities, empower rural communities and diversify and build tourismin South Africa.
Research on rock art tourism in other regions is needed to give different perspectiveson the potential dynamic relationships between tourist numbers, management strategies,marketing priorities, stakeholder partnerships and local community involvement. A detailedunderstanding of these dynamics in different social contexts will help develop more effectiveways of developing sustainable rock art tourism.
AcknowledgementsWe thank the Research Office of the University of Witwatersrand, the National Research Foundation ofSouth Africa, the CNRS, the GDRI “STAR”, EKZNW and Amafa for supporting this research project,either financially or by providing permits and research facilities. Also we thank the custodians, touristsand other stakeholders who took much time and effort informing us about the key issues affectingrock art tourism in the UDP. Finally, we express our gratitude to the three reviewers for their valuableadvice and comments. All errors and omissions are entirely our own.
Notes1. All the data concerning the custodian system were collected during a series of interviews with
Celeste Rossouw, Amafa’s Senior Heritage Officer, carried out in November 2009 and July 2010.These interviews were combined with a detailed analysis of the regulatory documents producedby Amafa and EKZNW.
2. Field studies carried out between November 2009 and October 2010 included anonymous, unan-nounced systematic visits to the rock art sites.
Notes on contributorsMelanie Duval is a researcher working at the Edytem UMR 5204 CNRS Laboratory (University ofSavoie, France) and at the Rock Art Research Institute (Wits University, Johannesburg, South Africa).Her research concerns heritage, sustainable tourism and rock art, particularly in mountain areas. Heraim is to develop global approaches to sustainable rock art tourism.
Benjamin W. Smith is director of the Rock Art Research Institute (Wits University, Johannesburg,South Africa). His research interests include rock art management, theory and method in rock artstudies, and the past and present meanings of the rock arts of Africa.
ReferencesAllderman. (1921). A trip to the Mont aux Sources. The Annual of the Mountain Club of South Africa,
24, 36–43.Allen, G., & Brennan, F. (2004). Tourism in the new South Africa: Social responsibility and the tourist
experience. London: Tauris.Amafa. (2008). Draft cure document. By Ms. Celeste Rossouw: Prepared December 2007 and revised
October 2008. Unpublished manuscript.Amafa. (2009). Draft policy on the accreditation of rock art custodians. Unpublished document.Anati, E., Wainwright, I., & Lundy, D. (1984). Rock art recording and conservation: A call for
international effort. Current Anthropology, 25(2), 216–217.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
v D
e Sa
voie
], [
Mél
anie
Duv
al]
at 0
9:27
04
July
201
2
Journal of Sustainable Tourism 17
Blundell, G. (1996). The politics of public rock art: A comparative critique of rock art sites open tothe public in South Africa and the United States of America (Unpublished master’s dissertation).University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg.
Blundell, G. (1998). Some aspects concerning rock art and national identity in South Africa. InA. Bank (Ed.), The proceedings of the Khoisan identities and cultural heritage conference(pp. 153–156). Cape Town: The Institute for Historical Research (UWC).
Bramwell, B., & Lane, B. (1993). Sustainable tourism: An evolving global approach. Journal ofSustainable Tourism, 1(1), 1–5.
Carruthers, J. (1995). The Kruger National Park. A social and political history. Pietermaritzburg:University of Natal Press.
Chirikure, S., & Pwiti, G. (2008). Community involvement in archaeology and cultural heritagemanagement: An assessment from case studies in Southern Africa and elsewhere. Current An-thropology, 49(3), 467–485.
Clottes, J. (1997). L’art rupestre, un message culturel universel/Rock Art, a universal message. Paris:Icomos.
Coates, H.A. (1920). The Mont-aux-Sources. Annual of the Mountain Club of Natal, 1, 12–14.Coetzee, C., Oldham, G., Schroenn, J., & Tahng, V. (2008). Midlands meander economic and mar-
keting research project. Pietermaritzburg: University of KwaZulu-Natal, School of Economicsand Finance (Unpublished report).
DACT. (2008). White paper on the development and promotion of tourism in KwaZulu-Natal, gov-ernent of KwaZulu-Natal. Pietermariztburg: Department of Arts, Culture and Tourism.
Deacon, J. (1991). South African rock art and the National Monuments Council. Occasional SARARAPublication, 1, 229–234.
Deacon, J. (1993). Archaeological sites as national monuments in South Africa: A review of sitesdeclared since 1936. South African Historical Journal, 29, 118–131.
Deacon, J. (1994a). Bushman rock art as a tourist attraction—the National Monuments Councilviewpoint. In W. Loots (Ed.), Cultural resources and regional tourism: Conference proceedings(pp. 63–75). Pretoria: National Cultural History Museum.
Deacon, J. (1994b). Management guidelines for rock art sites in two wilderness areas in the WesternCape. Pretoria: Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism.
Deacon, J. (1997). A regional management strategy for rock art in Southern Africa. Conservationand Management of Archaeological Sites, 2, 29–32.
Deacon, J. (2006a). Rock art conservation and tourism. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory,13(4), 379–399.
Deacon, J. (2006b). Sharing resources: Issues in regional archaeological conservation strategies inSouthern Africa. In N. Agnew, & J. Bridgland (Eds.), Of the past, for the future: Integratingarchaeology and conservation: proceedings of the conservation theme at the 5th World Archae-ological Congress, Washington, D.C., 22–26 June, 2003 (pp. 306–311). Los Angeles: GettyConservation Institute.
DEAT. (1996). The white paper on tourism department of environmental affairs and tourism, Republicof South Africa. Pretoria: Government Printer.
DEAT. (1997). Tourism in GEAR: Tourism development strategy 1998–2000. Pretoria: GovernmentPrinter.
DEAT. (2004). Tourism 10 year review 1994–2004. Pretoria: Government Printer.Department of Planning. (1970). A guide plan for the optimum utilization of the natural resources of
the Drakensberg catchment reserve. Pretoria: Government Printer.Dowson, T.A., & Lewis-Williams, J.D. (1993). Myths, museums and Southern African rock art. South
African Historical Journal, 29, 44–60.Duval, M., & Smith, B.W. (submitted). Learning from tourists’ motivations and practices in order
to develop sustainable rock art tourism—The example of the rock art sites in the uKhahlamba-Drakensberg Park (UDP), South Africa. Conservation and Management of Archaeological Sites.
Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife. (1998). Cultural resource management plan for the Drakensberg Park(CURE). Pietermaritzburg: Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife.
Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife. (2005). Integrated management plan: uKhahlamba Drakensberg park worldheritage site, South Africa. Pietermaritzburg: Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife.
Ferrario, F. (1981). An evaluation of the tourist potential of Kwazulu and Natal. Durban: KwaZuluDevelopment Corporation.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
v D
e Sa
voie
], [
Mél
anie
Duv
al]
at 0
9:27
04
July
201
2
18 M. Duval and B. Smith
Forsyth Ingram, J. (1895). The colony of Natal: An official illustrated handbook and railway guide.London: Causten & Sons.
Godbold, O.B. (1935). In the Umhlwasine and Ndidima Valley. Annual of the Mountain Club of SouthAfrica, 38, 72–79.
Guyot, S. (2006). Rivages zoulous. L’environnement au service du politique en Afrique du Sud. Paris:IRD.
Harrison, C.W.F. (1903). Natal: An illustrated official railway guide and handbook of general infor-mation. London: Payne Jennings.
Howard, J.W. (1906). Twentieth century impressions of Natal. London: Lloyd’s.Hughes, H. (2007). Rainbow, renaissance, tribes and townships: Tourism and heritage in South Africa
since 1994. In S. Buhlungu, J. Daniel, R. Southall, & J. Lutchman (Eds.), State of the nation,South Africa 2007 (pp. 266–288). Cape Town: HSRC Press.
Ivanovic, M. (2008). Cultural tourism. Cape Town: Juta.Jeursen, B. (1995). Rock art as a bridge between past and future: A common cultural heritage for the
New South Africa? Critical Arts, 9(2), 119–129.Lee, G. (1991). Rock art and cultural resource management. Calabasas, CA: Wormwood Press.Lejeune, D. (1988). Les “alpinistes” en France (1975–1919). Paris: CTHS.Lewis-Williams, J.D. (1995). Some aspects of rock art research in the politics of present-day South
Africa. In K. Helskog & B. Olsen (Eds.), Perceiving rock art: Social and political perspectives(pp. 317–337). Oslo: Novus Forlag.
Lewis-Williams, J.D. (2003). L’art rupestre en Afrique du Sud: Mysterieuses images du Drakensberg.Paris: Seuil.
Lewis-Williams, J.D., & Blundell, G. (1998). Fragile heritage: A rock art fieldguide. Johannesburg:Witwatersrand University Press.
Lewis-Williams, J.D., & Dowson, T.A. (1992). Rock paintings of the Natal Drakensberg. Pietermar-itzburg: University of Natal Press.
Lewis-Williams, J.D., Dowson, T.A., & Deacon, J. (1993). Rock art and changing perceptions ofsouthern Africa’s past: Ezeljagdspoort reviewed. Antiquity, 67, 273–291.
MacKay, K.J., & Fesenmaier, D.R. (1997). Pictorial element of destination in image formation. Annalsof Tourism Research, 24(3), 537–565.
Marschall, S. (2005). Making money with memories: The fusion of heritage, tourism and identityformation in South Africa. Historia, 50(1), 103–122.
Marschall, S. (2012). Sustainable heritage tourism: The Inanda Heritage Route and the 2010 FIFAWorld Cup. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 20(5), 721–736.
Mazel, A.D. (1981). Up and down the little Berg: Archaeological resource management in theNatal Drakensberg. Report to the Department of Water affairs, Forestry and EnvironmentalConservation. Sub-project code 23/1/2-1/3/10/03/02. Unpublished report.
Mazel, A.D. (1982). Principles for conserving the archaeological resource of the Natal Drakensberg.South African Archaeological Bulletin, 37, 7–15.
Mazel, A.D. (1984). Archaeological survey in the Natal Drakensberg, Natal. Journal of Field Archae-ology, 11, 345–356.
Mazel, A.D. (2008). Presenting the San Hunter-Gatherer past to the public: A view from theuKhahlamba-Drakensberg Park, South Africa. Conservation and Management of Archaeolog-ical Sites, 10(1), 41–51.
Mazel, A.D. (2009). Visitor attractions in the uKhahlamba-Drakensberg: Main Caves, Kamberg andDidima. In P. Mitchell & B.W. Smith (Eds.), The Eland’s people, new perspectives in the rock artof the Maloti-Drakensberg Bushmen (pp. 66–67). Johannesburg: Wits University Press.
Mazel, A.D. (2012). Safeguarding a fragile legacy: Managing uKhahlamba-Drakensberg. In J. Mc-Donald & P. Veth (Eds.), A companion to rock art (in press). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Blackwell.
McCabe, S. (2009). Marketing communications in tourism and hospitality: Concepts, strategies andcases. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann, Elsevier.
Meskell, L. (2012). The nature of heritage: The new South Africa. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.Mtshali, L. (1997). Opening address. In DAC (Ed.), Cultural tourism in South Africa: Papers pre-
sented at a conference of the Dept. of Arts, Culture, Science and Technology (pp. 3–8). Pretoria:Government Printer.
Ndlovu, N. (2009a). Access to rock art sites: A right or a qualification? The South African Archaeo-logical Bulletin, 64(189), 61–68.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
v D
e Sa
voie
], [
Mél
anie
Duv
al]
at 0
9:27
04
July
201
2
Journal of Sustainable Tourism 19
Ndlovu, N. (2009b). The presentation of Bushman rock art in the uKhahlamba-Drakensberg. InP. Mitchell & B.W. Smith (Eds.), The Eland’s people, new perspectives in the rock art of theMaloti-Drakensberg Bushmen (pp. 62–63). Johannesburg: Wits University Press.
Novelli, M. (2004). Niche tourism: Contemporary issues, trends and cases. Oxford: Elsevier.O’Connor, P., Hopken, W., & Gretzel, U. (2008). Information and communication technologies in
tourism 2008: Proceedings of the international conference in Innsbruck, Austria 2008. New York:Springer.
Okumu, W.A.J. (2002). The African renaissance: History, significance and strategy. Trenton, NJ:Africa World Press.
Pastor, P. (1997). Cultural and heritage tourism and the environment: Challenges and responses. InDAC (Ed.), Cultural tourism in South Africa: Papers presented at a conference of the Dept. ofArts, Culture, Science and Technology (pp. 111–121). Pretoria: Government Printer.
Pearce, D., & Hobart, J. (2010). Further analysis of six painted rock fragments collected by LouisTaylor. Southern African Humanities, 22, 171–179.
Pearse, R.O. (1973). Barrier of spears, drama of the Drakensberg. Cape Town: Howard Timmins.Pickles, J. (1985). Landscape appreciation and preferences in the Natal Drakensberg. Pietermar-
itzburg: Natal Town and Regional Planning Commission.Porter, R. (2007). Protecting biodiversity in the uKhahlamba-Drakensberg Park World Heritage Site.
In E. Couzens and T. Kolari (Eds.), International environmental law-making and diplomacyreview 2006 (pp. 217–230). Joensuu: University of Joensuu.
Prins, F. (2009). Secret San of the Drakensberg and their rock art legacy. Critical Arts, 23(2), 190–208.Richards, G. (Ed.). (2007). Cultural tourism: Global and local perspectives. New York: Haworth
Hospitality Press.Richards, G., & Wilson, J. (2007). Tourism, creativity and development. London: Routledge.Rogerson, C.M. (2003). Tourism and transformation: Small enterprise development in South Africa.
Africa Insight “Tourism: Africa’s key to prosperity”, 33(1–2), 108–115.Rogerson, C.M., & Visser, G. (2004). Tourism and development issues in contemporary South Africa.
Pretoria: Africa Institute of South Africa.Rudner, I. (1989). The conservation of rock art in South Africa. Cape Town: National Monuments
Council.Smith, B.W. (2006). Rock art tourism in Southern Africa: Problems, possibilities and poverty relief.
In N. Agnew & J. Bridgland (Eds.), Of the past, for the future: Integrating archaeology andconservation: proceedings of the conservation theme at the 5th World Archaeological Congress,Washington, D.C., 22–26 June, 2003 (pp. 322–330). Los Angeles: Getty Conservation Institute.
Smith, B.W., Lewis-Williams, J.D., Blundell, G., & Chippindale, C. (2000). Archaeology and sym-bolism in the new South African coat of arms. Antiquity, 74, 467–468.
Soni, A. (1997). An overview of tourism in South Africa: Past, present and future. In DAC (Ed.),Cultural tourism in South Africa: Papers presented at a conference of the Dept. of Arts, Culture,Science and Technology (pp. 29–35). Pretoria: Government Printer.
Sullivan, H. (Ed.). (1984). Visitors to aboriginal sites: Access, control and management, proceedingsof the 1983 Kakadu workshop. Canberra: Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service.
Sutcliffe, M.O. (1981). A behavioural study of recreation in the Natal Drakensberg. Pietermaritzburg:Natal Town and Regional Planning Commission.
The Citizen (2010, December 15). Bushman rock paintings site closed. Article paru dans The Citizendu 15-XII-2010.
Tomaselli, K.G. (1995). Introduction to recuperating the San. Critical Arts, 9(2), i–xxi.UNESCO. (1994). Convention concerning the protection of the world cultural and natural her-
itage, World Heritage Committee, Eighteenth session, Phuket, Thailand, 12–17 December,1994—Expert meeting on the “Global Strategy” and thematic studies for a representative WorldHeritage List. Retrieved February 10, 2011, from http://whc.unesco.org/archive/global94.htm
UNESCO. (2000). Evaluation des organisations consultatives, Drakensberg N◦ 985. Retrieved Febru-ary 10, 2011, from http://whc.UNESCO.org/archive/advisory_body_evaluation/985.pdf
Visser, G. (2003). South African tourism and its role in the perpetuation of an uneven tourism spaceeconomy. Africa Insight “Tourism: Africa’s key to prosperity”, 33(1–2), 116–123.
Wahl, E.J., Mazel, A.D., & Roberts, S.E. (1998). Participation and education: Developing a culturalresource plan for the Natal Drakensberg Park, KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. Natal MuseumJournal of Humanities, 10, 151–170.
Willcox, A.R. (1984a). The Drakensberg Bushmen and their art: With a guide to the rock paintingsites. Winterton: Drakensberg Publications.
Willcox, A.R. (1984b). The rock art of Africa. Johannesburg: MacMillan South Africa.Wilmsen, E.N. (1995). First people? Images and imaginations in South African iconography. Critical
Arts, 9(2), 1–27.Wright, J., & Mazel, A. (2007). Tracks in the mountain range: Exploring the history of the uKhalamba-
Drakensberg. Johannesburg: Wits University Press.Zulu, T. (2007). The role of the Zulu monarchy in tourism development (Unpublished thesis). Johan-
nesburg: University of the Witwatersrand.
Speeches by T. Mbeki- May 8, 1996: Statement of Deputy President TM Mbeki, on the occasion of the adop-
tion by the Constitutional Assembly of “The Republic of South Africa Constitu-tion Bill 1996”, Cape Town, online http://www.anc.org.za/ancdocs/history/mbeki/1996/sp960508.html
- April 9, 1998: The African Renaissance, South Africa and the World, United NationsUniversity, online http://www.unu.edu/unupress/mbeki.html
- August 13, 1998: The African Renaissance Statement, SABC, Gallagher Estate, onlinehttp://www.anc.org.za/ancdocs/history/mbeki/1998/tm0813.htm
Legislative documentsThe KwaZulu-Natal Nature Conservation Management (Act 9 of 1997)The KwaZulu-Natal Heritage Act (no. 10 of 1997 and Act 4 of 2008)Science & Technology Department, 23 August 2011, The South African Strategy for the
Palaeosciences, Draft for Discussion
Archive Files“Rock Art”, file n◦ 13/ 2, Pietermaritzburg: EKZNW Head Office.“Archaeology”, file n◦ YA/19/1, Pietermaritzburg: EKZNW Head Office.
