In the late 1990s, the battle of Ncome had assumed significance within constructions of Zulu ethnic nationalism. This construction was led not by M.G. Buthelezi but by a young Zulu nationalist elite made up of state bureaucrats and some academic historians. Linking the battle of Ncome project to the conceptual framework that I developed in chapter one, I argue that the project was motivated by both political and economic necessities. On the former, the project emerged out of a need to construct a 'South African nation'. Nation-building and reconciliation were, therefore, its guiding principles. The reason the Ncome project passed as a Legacy Project was mainly because it was perceived as important in the building of the nation. The project also had potential as a tourist attraction. The most targeted visitors, were overseas visitors. These drawn from the West, where there is an increase of nostalgia and service-class culture. Cultural heritage projects in South Africa, are also targeting this growing market. I have argued that these largely positive motivations were coupled with contradictory tendencies which were largely political. I pointed out that the Ncome project could also be seen as a validation of Zulu historical claims to the KwaMathambo area under Chief Molefe.
This aspect points to continuity with the period beginning in 1977 on the use of cultural heritage preservation for political validation and legitimation.
I have argued that the marriage between cultural heritage preservation and politics in the KwaZulu 'homeland' was largely linked to the prominent role that certain political leaders assumed in the promotion of cultural heritage. Analysing the period between the late 1970s and mid-1980s, I identified Buthelezi as an important leader who shaped the direction that cultural heritage preservation took in KwaZulu. The cultural heritage preservation structures
in KwaZulu, I have argued, prioritised aspects of KwaZulu cultural heritage that, among other things, promoted Buthelezi as a leader of the Zulu nation and sought to contribute to the 'rebirth' of KwaZulu. Certain carefully selected aspects of Zulu cultural heritage were a focus of preservation and development. These aspects were mainly about King Cetshwayo's reign and aspects of the Anglo-Zulu War. I have pointed out that, as part of the rebirth of KwaZulu, the KwaZulu government motivated for the 'popular' publication of certain carefully selected aspects of Zulu history. These aspects were synonymous with cultural heritage projects that were prioritised for creation and preservation. I have identified tensions during the production of the publication titled Fight Us In The Open. These, I argue, were a clear indication of a link between these publications and the construction of the Zulu nation, constructed around Buthelezi's leadership.
From the period beginning in 1986, cultural heritage preservation began to gain economic significance for official heritage practitioners in KwaZulu. This was largely the case in the Isandlwana project. The development of the Mangwebuthanani community was given priority in the project. This development was both financial and infrastructural. However, I have argued that the association between cultural heritage preservation and political ideas was a continuous phenomenon. I pointed to the importance of the battle in Zulu history and linked it with the priorities of the KwaZulu Monuments Council (KMC). Also in this period there were shifts to the management of cultural heritage at a regional level. Through the KwaZulu/Natal Heritage Liaison Committee, the KMC, Natal Provincial Museum Services (NPMS) and the NMC were supposed to co-operate at a regional level in the preservation of cultural heritage.
I have argued that this co-operation was limited as these bodies focused their cultural heritage preservation energies on the development of sites which seemed to celebrate specific histories.
The KMC, for example, devoted its resources to the development of Isandlwana, whilst the NPMS exclusively developed Rorke's Drift, which was a site symbolising British triumph over the Zulu armies. It was during this provincialisation of cultural heritage preservation that dynamic patterns in emerged. For example, knowledge about certain cultural heritage sites, and their authenticity, were questioned. I have used the 'Mavivane cliff' and the 'King Shaka tree' site to explore this phenomenon.
In the period after 1994 the KwaZulu-Natal province was established. This was coupled with structural and policy shifts in cultural heritage, both nationally and in KwaZulu-Natal. I have pointed out that these shifts gave space for the emergence of tensions within the cultural heritage sector in KwaZulu-Natal. These tensions were over 'site museums' in the province.
Structures which were associated with the legacy of KwaZulu emerged victorious in these tensions. The Monuments Task Group which was dominated by the KMC retained the KwaZulu Cultural Museum and obtained the Rorke's Drift site museum which had been under the KZNPMS. Furthermore, the AKN (largely dominated by the former KMC) emerged as the only statutory cultural heritage preservation body in KwaZulu-Natal. Its staff were also numerically dominated by those of the former KMC. I have argued this was partly due to a continued association between the AKN and the political leadership of IFP-Ied KwaZulu- Natal. This association between the IFP and cultural heritage preservation continued to the national level.
I have used the Ncome project to partly point to this pattern. The DACST which managed the promotion and preservation of cultural heritage was brought under the IFP ministry. I have pointed out in this study that Buthelezi, who was the founder of the contemporary IFP was active in specific matters relating to cultural heritage preservation. This partly explains why the IFP seems comfortable leading the above ministry. Italso explains the importance of Zulu cultural heritage that is emerging in the national cultural heritage agenda. However, the legacy identified above does not explain why the ANC 'gave' the DACST ministry to the IFP.
Throughout this study I have attempted to position academic historians within the discourse of cultural heritage preservation. Academic historians have been constantly invited to produce texts to support aspects of the cultural heritage that was promoted. I have pointed to the problems that are associated with this practice. In the mid-1980s, I pointed out that certain academics were limited in their production of history in that they had to produce that which promoted specific political discourses. They could only produce what the KwaZulu leadership wanted. In the case of the battle of Ncome project in the late 1990s the practice of requesting academic historians to produce a guiding text was a complex one. Despite this, it is rather pleasing to see that professional knowledge(s) is given space within the presentations of history in the sphere of cultural heritage.