CHAPTER 4. MULTIPLE EXPLANATIONS OF TRANSFORMATION
4.1 A European structure in Africa
Museums are products of European culture implemented in an African context. Settlers to South Africa introduced the concept of museums, but the museologisation of African objects started before that. Crane (2000) holds that objects were collected for European curio-cabinets by sailors. There was therefore an exchange of information and material culture between the
continents and this was intertwined with the institutionalisation of museums and museological epistemology. The early knowledge production created expectations of material culture from Africa. From this early exchange a discourse arose that was furthered by settler culture. The migration of people, objects and ideas is vital for the understanding of museums. The dominant museum discourse is shaped by relations between collectors, museums and groups from whom material was collected. Museums were vernacularised depending on the socio- political structures applied in an African space and appropriated to the circumstances. Gore (2004: 24-46) suggests that museums in South Africa are a heritage of the British colonial era.
This was supported by my informant Gert (2006-04-28). The idea that colonialism spread museums gives their structure a political implication both in the past and in the present. It proposes a difference between English-speakers and Afrikaners and between colonialism and settler heritage. It also proposes that museum were more eurocentric and more closely connected to Europe than if they were the result of Afrikaner heritage. I suggest that a British museum structure exists in an ‘in-between space’ of Europe and Africa. Afrikaner museums tried to ground themselves in an African experience.
The majority of museologists writing since the 1980s such as Wilmot (1987), Stuckenberg (1987), Hofmeyer (1987), Wright and Mazel (1987), Hofmyer (1987), Owen and Holleman (1989), Odendaal (1995b), Dominy (1992), Hall (1999), Wakashe (2001), Keene and Wanless (2002), Dlamuka and Ndlovu (2002), Dlamuka (2003) and Abungu (2004) argue forcefully that because of their European affiliation museums were biased and eurocentric. It was impossible for them to provide black people with a history that could give them self- confidence and pride. Since colonisation shaped the museum, museologists have insisted that museums are not African enough. No one has, however, been able to identify what an African museum is. ‘African’ has not been properly contextualised but has come to mean polarised eurocentric or European museums. ‘African’ is now articulated as the opposite to eurocentrism in the political heritage discussion.
The concepts of ‘African’ and ‘eurocentric’ are ambiguous in the context of museums and I hold that museums express these concepts differently, depending on where they are located in South Africa. I call for deeper investigation of the ethnographic material to find ‘in-between spaces’ of the polarised concepts ‘eurocentric’ and ‘African’. Stuckenberg (1987: 294), Simpson (1996: 2), Hall (1999: 178), Wanless (2001: 21) and Gore (2004: 24), suggested that White colonialism played a significant role in shaping collections, staff, displays and
audience. This was reshaped during apartheid and appropriated into a White South African museum structure. Museums were African, White African institutions, and had to be regarded as different from European museums. The museums were eurocentric because they were shaped in that context; but they were South African eurocentric which cannot be equated with European eurocentric.
When museums developed in South Africa there was a close connection between Europe and Africa. Objects were collected and displayed for Whites to understand Africa and they were shipped to Europe. Gore (2004: 26-27) exemplifies this in the South African Museum18 that collapsed in 1837 because the curator took away part of the collection when he left the country. Gore (2004: 26-27) describes that as the activities were restored in the South African Museum an act was promulgated in 1857 to protect it. I hold that this indicates that museums with this kind of relationship were not part of South Africa but were captive in an ‘in-between space’, reflecting the agent’s experience of living in-between two cultures and continents.
This ‘in-between space’ constituted the difference between Afrikaner and anglophile museums. Museums were spatialised in territories used by Whites, e.g. in Natal,19 and became further entrenched during apartheid. Webb (1994: 20), Dominy (2004: 135), and Gore (2004:
29) argue that this was the colonial intellectual conquest of Africa. I partly agree, but suggest that the conquest provided an exploration and understanding of plants, animals and culture. It was a question of power, since the conquered place was institutionalised through objects in the museum.
A year before the Natal Museum opened to the public (1904), it was incorporated into the province (The Natal Museum Act 11 of 1903). The museum was subject to colonial legislation and decisions were made by the trustees of the museum constituted at the same time (Pauw 1994: Annexure A, NMAR 1904). The museum opened after the Anglo-Boer war (1899- 1902) and it is possible therefore to read it as a monument to British victory. Since its inception the museum has retained an anglophile atmosphere with a predominantly English- speaking staff.
During the Union of South Africa (1910-1962) segregation between groups based on culture and skin colour started (Snail 1993: 297). Frankental and Sichone (2005: 89-114) and du Pré
18 Established in 1825 in Cape Town.
19 Now KwaZulu-Natal.
(1995) describe how laws such as the Native Land Act 1913 and Native Urban Area Act 1923 restricted Africans whereas Indians and Coloureds enjoyed more rights in an increasingly segregated environment. Segregation laws affected the museum structure, classification of objects and people, factors such as who could work in the museum and visitors. All these issues were established at this time and became entrenched in society during apartheid.
The government cared for the Natal Museum and funded it under colonial statutes. Following the Act of Union in 1910 the Natal Museum was transferred from the Natal government to the Union government in 1911 and functioned under the Minister of the Interior (NMAR 1992/1993, Museum Association 1932: 30, Küsel 1987: vii, Pauw 1994: Annexure A, Du Toit 1949: 52, Webb 1994: 20, Tietz 1994: 56-59, Dominy 2004: 136). The act made the Natal Museum a public service instrument, but under the control of the Board of Trustees it remained semi-autonomous. The Msunduzi Museum (VM)20 was established and handed over to the government in 1912 (Pauw 1994: Annexure A). The Dutch Reformed Church (DRC) managed the museum which was established as part of an expression of Afrikanerdom.
According to Snail (1993: 300) and Giliomee (1994: 5), Afrikaners could not reconcile with the defeat of the Anglo-Boer war and Afrikaner nationalism developed within the DRC. The English-speakers declared themselves similarly and four out of the twelve new museums were established in Natal. This can be regarded as institutionalisation of anglophile heritage and nationalism.
Pauw (1994: Annexure A) and Du Toit (1949: 52) remark that the government could not assume financial responsibility for museums. In 1913 with the second reading of the Financial Relations Bill in Parliament, the government declared itself in favour of keeping the museums in Cape Town and Pretoria as national museums. The Natal Museum became a national museum while the Msunduzi Museum (VM) became a municipal museum. The museums were located on the outskirts of these centres and similar negotiations on location occurred during Transformation. During this time, I argue, one can see a clear tendency of anglophile-orientated agendas in the museum sector. The Afrikaner heritage was not regarded as vital enough by the government for incorporation into the National Museum. These changes ultimately represent the political and cultural aspects of the state apparatus at the time.
20 The museum was named the Voortrekker Museum. Pietermaritzburg. See Appendix: Genealogy of the Msunduzi Museum Incorporating the Voortrekker Complex.
In the 1930s South Africa gained increasing political independence from Britain (Lester, Nell
& Binns 2000: 148). During this time the Minister of the Interior established the State-aided Institution Act 23 of 1931, because the Natal Museum and the Msunduzi Museum (VM) had established illegal pension funds for their employees in 1925. The act incorporated and retained the South African Museum Act 17 of 1857 (Pauw 1994: Annexure A). By Governmental Notice 825 of 23 April 1948 the governor-general charged the Minister of Education with the execution of the State-aided Institution Act 23 of 1931 (Pauw 1994:
Annexure A). Under this act the minister regulated that the museums should be managed and directed by a Board of Trustees of seven members for a period of three years. They were in charge of the property, finances and collections of the museum. This act has great relevance to the museum sector because it formulated the framework on which the museum has continued to rest until the present.
The position of the Msunduzi Museum (VM) was not stated clearly. Until 1936 it was regarded officially as a state-aided institution and not as a state institution. In 1936 the position was clarified and the property was transferred to the government. When the museum was transferred a written document was signed between the DRC and the government, stating that an advisory committee called the Voortrekker Museum Committee should advise the government on matters regarding collections, administration and erection of additional buildings (Du Toit 1949: 52). The museum was transferred in 1946 from the Department of the Interior to the Department of Education (MIVM 1946-08-08).
Lester et al (2000: 152-153) describe that during the 1930s there was a policy of retribalisation in South Africa based, e.g., on a distinct idea of African cultures. Inkatha was cheered on by the government. Zulu history and the Zulu monarchy during this time became a crucial part of social control by the government. I hold that part of the retribalisation arose from the need to claim what was considered part of the own heritage and to institutionalise it and show a triumphant heritage. Hence the change in the status of the Msunduzi Museums (VM). Since this occurred during the depression in South Africa, I suggest that there was a need to care for a cultural expression that revealed a spirit of triumph.
Retribalisation has a strong influence on the museum classification process because it stipulates what was African and therefore what was collected. This idea became
institutionalised and continued to exist until the late 1980s, after which it was contested and gained new life in the African Renaissance. A general traditionalism unfolded at this time and Lester et al (2000: 165-167) and Maylam (2001: 210) observe a growing Afrikaner nationalism that rejected the state´s White nationalist movement. A Report on the Museums and Art Galleries of British Africa describes how the NP came into existence as an embodiment of the memory and sentiment of Afrikaners who had created a great division among the political parties of the time. This affected museums because there was a rejection of anglophile thought patterns, language and institutions (Miers & Markham 1932: 42-43).
Afrikaners during the 1930s and Africans during Transformation both reject a dominant group´s thought patterns, language and institutions and create a cultural space of their own.