Heritage Management

ISSN: 1940-8439 (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/yhso19

Why Njelele, a Rainmaking Shrine in the Matobo

World Heritage Area, Zimbabwe, Has Not Been
Proclaimed a National Monument

Simon Makuvaza

To cite this article: Simon Makuvaza (2008) Why Njelele, a Rainmaking Shrine in the Matobo
World Heritage Area, Zimbabwe, Has Not Been Proclaimed a National Monument, Heritage
Management, 1:2, 163-180, DOI: 10.1179/hma.2008.1.2.163

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1179/hma.2008.1.2.163

Published online: 17 Jun 2014.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 6761

View related articles

Citing articles: 1 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=yhso20
Why Njelele, a Rainmaking Shrine
in the Matobo World Heritage Area,
Zimbabwe, Has Not Been
Proclaimed a National Monument

Simon Makuvaza

Heritage Manager, Natural History Museum, Corner Leopold Takawira

and Park Street, Centenary Park, Bulawayo, Zimbabwe (Makuvazas@
Yahoo.com)
Abstract  Njelele, a rainmaking shrine on the southwestern fringes of Zimba-
bwe’s Matobo National Park, has not been proclaimed a national monument
in spite of being one of the most important cultural heritage places in southern
Africa. The initial motivation for proclaiming Njelele a national monument ema-
nated, in part, from contests for recognition of spiritual status and thus control of
Njelele by members of local indigenous communities. Control over Njelele also
has been a source of conflict between the local people and government depart-
ments since at least the 1960s. I contend that neither colonial administrators nor
post-liberation politicians, who consulted the oracle at Njelele at the height of
the country’s liberation struggle, could bring about national monument status for
Njelele because it embodied the diverse values of several interest groups.

Resumen  Njelele, un altar dedicado a la lluvia en el extremo suroeste del par-

que nacional Matobo en Zimbabwe, no ha sido proclamado como monumento
nacional a pesar de ser uno de los patrimonios culturales mas importantes del
sur de Africa. La motivación inicial de proclamar a Njelele como un monumento
nacional se origina en una lucha por reconocer el estatus espiritual y el derecho
que tienen las comunidades indígenas locales en controlar a Njelele. El asunto
de quién debe tener el control sobre Njelele ha sido un motivo de conflicto entre
la gente local y el gobierno desde al menos los años 1960s. Arguyo que ninguna
administración colonial o político de la época posterior a la liberación que haya
consultado el oráculo de Njelele durante el punto mas crítico de la lucha por la
liberación de Zimbawe puede lograr el nombramiento de Njelele como monu-
mento nacional ya que el lugar ejemplifica los diversos valores de los distintos
grupos interesados y asociados al lugar.

Heritage Management, Volume 1, Issue 2, Fall 2008, pp. 163–180. 163
Copyright © 2008 Left Coast Press, Inc. All rights reserved.
164 simon makuvaza

Contested heritage places have been and are still a challenge for Heritage
Managers throughout the world. Questions such as “who owns the past?” or
“whose heritage is it?” are frequently asked, but no clear cut answers have
been provided to date (see for example Ranger 1989; Chambers 2005). Con-
tests over the management and control of heritage places have led to conflicts
among individuals, groups of people, and governments over their manage-
ment and control. In some cases these conflicts have culminated in serious
heritage destruction such as at Domboshava, a rock art site situated north of
Harare (Pwiti and Mvenge 1996). Njelele, also known as Matonjeni or Mabwe-
adziva, itself has been attacked on several occasions during conflicts over the
recognition of priesthood and control of this place (see for example Chronicle
9 October 1998; Chronicle 15 May 2001). Usually conflicts over stewardship
and control appear at cultural heritage places whose values are diverse and are
of interest to different groups of people and organizations.
Njelele is a prominent rainmaking shrine located outside the southwest-
ern fringes of Matobo National Park (now inscribed on the World Heritage
List by UNESCO) in the Khumalo communal area approximately 100 kilo-
meters south of Zimbabwe’s second largest city of Bulawayo. The shrine is
part of the Matobo hills, which is found in a granite kopje that looks solid
and is similar to several others in the same area. The outcrop is located on a
mountain range that runs from east to west. There are three naturally hidden
entrances that wind up and down among overhang granite boulders into the
shrine. However, the main attribute of Njelele is not the cave but the gallery in
the rocks. There are also several small tunnels, which lead to the shrine’s vari-
ous chambers from the narrow entrance between two tall rocks. An assort-
ment of skulls and horns of big game, iron hoes, clay pots containing water,
cloth and beads, piles of tobacco, hatchets, and spears are kept in one of the
caves at Njelele. Nobbs (1924) believed that these objects were offerings to the
presiding deity.
Mwari (God) as he is known among the Shona-speaking people, and Mli-
mo among the Ndebele, is believed to have lived at Njelele. The personal pres-
ence of Mwari/Mlimo at Njelele was shown by his voice. The Shona people
believed that Mwari was the highest and final authority behind their ancestors
(Vadzimu) (Daneel 1970). Despite the diverse and powerful cultural heritage
values embodied by Njelele for the people of Zimbabwe, and the values as-
sociated with the site during and after the colonial era, it has not been pro-
claimed a national monument, a status that would make it possible to develop

164
a rainmaking shrine in zimbabwe 165

and protect it. In Zimbabwe heritage places are ranked as first and second
class. First class heritage places are proclaimed national monuments because
their values are considered to be of national importance and as such should
be prioritized in terms of protection and development. The values of second
class heritage places are not national but they are managed through regular
inspection visits usually three times a year. For Njelele the core reason for the
non-declaration lies with politics of priesthood and control of this shrine that
continued after the country obtained independence from the British colonial
rule in 1980. This seems to have ended with the death of two prominent con-
testants, Ngcathu Ncube and Switwanyana Ncube in recent years.

Historical Background: An Overview

It is not clear when Njelele was first established in the Matobo hills. Oral
traditions are conflictual. According to Rozvi tradition, the origins of Njelele
dates back to about 14th century when the Mbire ethnic group migrated from
around Lake Tanganyika southwards and eventually settled at Great Zimba-
bwe, a proto-Shona settlement occupied between 1250–1450AD. It is possi-
ble that the Mwari cult was first established at Great Zimbabwe (Daneel 1970;
Garlake 1973). Daneel (1970) thought that the establishment of the Mwari
shrine in the Matobo hills could have been associated or coincided with a
shift of the Rozvi administrative power from Great Zimbabwe to the Matobo
hills. Another version of the oral tradition says that the Mlimo shrine was es-
tablished in the hills after Great Zimbabwe was involved in a religious dispute,
during which a splinter group of traditional priests moved away from Great
Zimbabwe and eventually established the Mwari cult in the Matobo hills. On
the other hand some argue that Njelele was established as a Mwari shrine in
the Matobo hills earlier than 1560 AD (Nobbs 1924).
After establishment in Matobo, several other cult centers such as Dula
and Zhilo were also established in the same locality spreading their influence
far and wide. It is said that similar traditional institutions existed in the south
west of Zimbabwe amongst the Kalanga and Venda people (Cockcroft 1972;
Nobbs 1924). In the 19th century traditional priests were therefore drawn
from Venda and Kalanga families, which were said to have been deeply en-
trenched in the Mwari cult tradition (Nobbs 1924; Ranger 1999). The Nde-
bele, who settled near the Matobo hills in the early 19th century, also adopted
the Mwari cult, giving it a new name, Mlimo (Bhebe 1979).

165
166 simon makuvaza

Consulting the Oracle at Njelele

It is important to note here that Njelele should not be approached without
the presence of a traditional priest. The intermediaries between the people
and the shrine were said to be people who understood the Mwari cult tra-
ditions and culture and were responsible for taking people to the shrine.
Nobbs (1924) described the intermediaries as of good family, well versed in
native traditions, and of exceptionally high intelligence. The intermediaries
were only drawn from particular families related to the traditions of the
shrine.
For believers, Mwari/Mlimo is the “creator” of the world, who through
his supernatural powers is able to ensure agricultural prosperity by providing
adequate rainfall to his people and animals. Mwari/Mlimo could be consulted
at Njelele through his voice, which was heard when invoked. It is recorded
for example, that during rainmaking ceremonies traditionally brewed beer
was brought in clay pots by pre-pubescent and post-menopausal women and
placed outside the shrine. The priest and messengers would step back a few
meters from the shrine and the spokesperson would clap hands, praising and
asking Mwari/Mlimo for rain. After a considerable time of clapping hands,
praises, and requests Mwari/Mlimo’s voice would be heard advising the
priest and messengers on procedures and requirements for their requests to
be granted (Nobbs 1924). The voice of Mwari/Mlimo is believed to be heard
from the rocks. However, there were also regular visits by priests and mes-
sengers from various chiefs throughout the country to appease Mwari/Mlimo
by sacrificing and presenting him with cattle and beer. The cult could also be
consulted and Mwari/Mlimo invoked in times of illness and death, domes-
ticated animal diseases, during agricultural seasons of sowing and reaping,
succession disputes, personal and ethnic groups, natural phenomena such as
rainfall failure, and even in times of politics and war.
The cult had essentially remained a Shona institution from 1830 to 1890
before the arrival and founding of the Ndebele in western Zimbabwe (Daneel
1970). Once the Ndebele adopted the cult they invoked and consulted the
oracle when rains failed or when personal advice was needed (Daneel 1970;
Nobbs 1924; Ranger 1999). Oral tradition recalls that Lobengula housed some
of the Mwari cult priests at his 19th century settlement of Bulawayo, so that
he could consult Mlimo in times of national crisis. The cult’s influence spread
as far afield as the country’s southern districts of Chivi in Masvingo (Nobbs

166
a rainmaking shrine in zimbabwe 167

1924) and people came as far as Gutu to consult the oracle at Njelele during
periods of drought and other problems (Ranger 1999).
Consultation of the oracle at Njelele in political matters is documented
from at least the late 19th century. Daneel (1970) argued that the interest of
the Mwari cult in ethnic group politics dates back to the time when the Rozvi
begun to use the cult as a “centralized service” and as a means of consolidat-
ing their own dynamic rule over the surrounding ethnic groups. These po-
litical uses of the oracle continued after the arrival of early Europeans in the
southwestern part of the country in the early 19th century, and Njelele was
consulted during the 1896/7 uprisings, which responded to colonial land ap-
propriation (Nobbs 1924; Ranger 1967).
The consultation of the Mwari cult during the 1896/7 uprisings played a
significant role and was the forerunner to its use in modern politics and war
some decades later. Njelele appears to have assumed new values at the height
of the protracted liberation struggle of the country when prominent political
leaders and liberation war soldiers in the land consulted the oracle for guid-
ance and security. For example, in 1954, Matonjeni was consulted in connec-
tion with a proposed strike by a group of Trade Unionists from the city of
Bulawayo. In 1965, the late Vice President’s wife consulted Njelele to have her
husband released from Gonakudzingwa, a war time restriction camp situated
in the south of the country where he was incarcerated (Daneel 1970). Njelele
continued to be invoked and consulted in matters of politics and war as the
protracted liberation struggle continued until the country’s independence in
1980.

Government Attempts to Proclaim Njelele

a National Monument (1960-1980)
The contests for custodianship and control of Njelele have been covered by
Ranger (1999). Ranger focused on individual and family contests for power,
custodianship, and priesthood at Njelele, but not on the contest between the
local people and government heritage departments. The contest for Njelele
started sometime before the 1960s and involved Sitwanyana Ncube and
the Ndlovu brothers, Sili, and in particular, Mayabu. Sitwanyana claimed
and assumed priesthood and custodianship of Njelele. He led pilgrim-
ages to the shrine from the southern side while Mayabu also led pilgrim-
ages to the shrine from Khumalo village on the northern side. This contest

167
168 simon makuvaza

continued during and after the country’s war of liberation until a third con-
testant called Ngcathu Mayazane Ncube was recommended by local elders
and was brought back to the shrine in 1995 by chiefs as the rightful person to
be the priestess and custodian of the shrine (Ranger 1999). Ngcathu had left
Njelele during the early 1960s after she divorced with Sitwanyana Ncube and
is said to have been the priestess and custodian of the shrine. The bringing
back of Ngcathu were attempts to resolve the long standing dispute between
Sitwanyana and Mayabu over the priesthood and custodianship of Njelele.
From the mid 1990s, all three contestants claimed to have been legally in-
stalled as custodians and each also claimed strong traditional spiritual con-
nections to the shrine.
Before and after the country’s independence, government heritage de-
partments made numerous attempts to take over and control this important
rainmaking shrine. Contrary to statements by the former Home Affairs min-
ister, Dumiso Dabengwa, which implied that Njelele was once declared a na-
tional monument and then later deproclaimed (Chronicle, 16 February 1998;
Ranger 1999), the shrine was never proclaimed. The local communities have
since the colonial period, and even after independence, opposed the idea of
protecting Njelele under modern heritage rules and regulations. Here I ex-
plore the contest for Njelele between the local people and government heri-
tage administrative arms, from the colonial period up to modern times after
the country’s independence. It is this dispute that resulted in Njelele not being
proclaimed a national monument.
The early contest for Njelele between the local communities and the gov-
ernment heritage departments started when they thought that they could look
after Njelele by means of ordinances and legislative acts. The 1902 Ancient
Monuments Protection Ordinance formalized central government protection
of heritage places in Zimbabwe. This was expanded into the 1912 Bushmen
Relics Ordinances and later the Monuments and Relics Act of 1936 (Ndoro
2001). The 1936 Act was replaced by the National Museums and Monu-
ments of Rhodesia Act of 1972 when National Museums of Rhodesia and the
Monuments Commission of Rhodesia amalgamated to become the National
Museums and Monuments of Rhodesia. In 1976, the 1972 Act was replaced
with the National Museums and Monuments Act, Chapter 313 (now Chapter
25/11). Colonial and post- colonial government heritage departments used
these ordinances and acts in their attempts to protect heritage places in the
country including Njelele. The local people, however, regarded the shrine as

168
a rainmaking shrine in zimbabwe 169

theirs to control and look after by traditional means, as was the case before
the coming of the Europeans.
The first attempt to proclaim Njelele a national monument began some-
time before the 1960s. It was linked to early manifestations of priesthood
disputes and control that were to ensue a few decades later. The reasons for
proclaiming Njelele a national monument were not made explicit, but it ap-
peared they emanated from rivalry and contests among the local people over
the control of the shrine. For this reason government heritage departments
contended that the local people were not capable of managing their shrine,
and hence tried to declare it a national monument under the Monuments and
Relics Act of 1936. Under this regime it could be managed by the government-
controlled Natural and Historical Monuments Commission.
The then Honorary Secretary of the Natural and Historical Monuments
Commission, Cran Cooke, wrote to the Matobo Native Commissioner (colo-
nial rural administrator) on the 12th of July 1960 suggesting that the site could
be protected on the basis of archaeology. Pieces of old potsherds, which were
regarded as unique relics, were observed at Njelele; this led to the conclusion
that the shrine was an important archaeological site and should therefore be
protected. In the same letter Cooke wrote that the commission felt that the area
should be fenced and all Europeans except officials should be prohibited from
visiting the site. The idea of protecting the site under the Monuments and Relics
Act appeared to have failed well before Cooke sought advice from the Matobo
native commissioner. Cooke had to acknowledge in the same letter to the com-
missioner that some years ago, they endeavored to get the hill proclaimed a Na-
tional Monument, but they encountered very high resistance and were forced
on religious grounds to drop the whole matter (Cooke 1960).
In 1961, a year after the attempt to proclaim Njelele as a national monu-
ment failed, it was suggested that the site could be protected under the Na-
tional Parks Act. It seems that the idea to protect the shrine under the Na-
tional Parks Act was thought workable because at that time Njelele hill was in
the National Parks estate. Tibbett, a National Park employee, was instructed
by the Director of National Parks to look into the Njelele issue. In a letter to
Cooke in which he was reporting Tibbett’s recommendations, The Curator of
the National Museum of Bulawayo, Roger Summers, reported that if Njelele
was to be a protected national monument under any act, the surroundings
should be declared a special native area. He recommended that this could be
achieved by putting up notices on all paths leading to the cave to the effect

169
170 simon makuvaza

that the section of the park is closed to the public. Tibbett further recom-
mended that anyone entering the area could be fined ₤25 under the National
Parks Act. Summers argued that the notice was aimed at preventing the non-
African trespassers, and the cave could still be used by the servants of Mlimo
in the traditional fashion (Summers 1961). The prevention of non-Africans
from visiting the shrine emanated from the fact that the integrity of Njelele
was negatively affected by the arrival into the country by groups of people who
did not empathize with the religion. According to Ranger (1999) these were
missionaries who were establishing mission stations and spreading Christian-
ity throughout the Matobo hills and urging people to stop believing in their
traditional religion.
This attempt to protect Njelele under the National Parks Act sparked con-
troversy as the local people resisted as best as they could the spread of Chris-
tian entrepreneurship and its display of contempt for the shrines (Ranger 1999).
They also felt that these two attempts by Europeans to protect and administer
the shrine denied them rights to manage their own heritage and practice their
traditional rainmaking ceremonies. The idea was dropped, and in a letter to
Cooke dated 12th August 1961, the Matobo Native Commissioner wrote that
he advised the National Parks Board that they could not administer the people
and manage Njelele in the park at the same time. In the same letter, the Na-
tive Commissioner suggested that the only solution to the problem was separa-
tion of native occupied lands from park lands, and the proposed division puts
Njelele hill well within the native area (Native Commissioner 1961). However, it
appears that between the mid-1960s and 1980, the push to protect Njelele un-
der either the Monuments and Relics Act or the National Parks Act was com-
pletely abandoned. To resolve the matter the National Parks Board decided to
completely separate the local people and Njelele from Matobo National Parks
by moving the park boundary further north to where it is today, as was sug-
gested by the Native Commissioner in 1961.

Further Attempts to Proclaim Njelele a

National Monument from 1980 to 2000
Soon after the liberation struggle in 1980, proclamation of Njelele as a nation-
al monument resurfaced. Such a proclamation must have been instigated by
fresh political contests over priesthood and control of the rainmaking shrine.
The arrival of Ngcathu Ncube at Njelele ushered in a new era of fresh contests

170
a rainmaking shrine in zimbabwe 171

for custodianship and priesthood. Ngcathu had demanded that before she
would accept installation as the custodian and priestess of the shrine, her two
rivals, Sitwanyana and David Ndlovu, should be removed from Njelele. On ar-
rival at Njelele, Ngcathu began to take pilgrims to the shrine while at the same
time castigating her two rivals and political leaders for supporting people who
do not deserve to be custodians and priests of the shrine (Ranger 1999).
Joshua Nkomo suggested and sought support from the District Administra-
tor to construct a hotel and other facilities at Njelele (Ranger 1999). In 1982 the
District Administrator for Kezi Nephas Ndlovu tabled plans to develop Njelele.
He claimed that he was given permission to develop and protect Njelele by the
spirit mediums. The development of the shrine was to include the construction
of a permanent residence for the high priest of the shrine and accommoda-
tion for the spirit mediums and other people who visit the shrine to consult the
cult. Sanitary facilities were also suggested as part of this development (Chron-
icle, 29 September 1982). Cooke’s response to the proposed developments at
Njelele drew from his experience during the 1960s. Consequently, he advised
that Njelele should not be proclaimed a national monument because this would
mean opening up the shrine to the public and turning it into a tourist attraction.
Cooke further counselled that if Njelele was to be proclaimed a national monu-
ment the proposal should come from Khumalo Communal community and
supported by the local council (Chronicle, 1 October 1982). Plans to develop
Njelele were also condemned by Njelele elders, local chiefs and the general pub-
lic. It was said that people were opposed to the idea of developing Njelele and
bringing Western culture to a shrine that would normally have been used and
managed along on traditional lines (Ranger 1999).
One year later in 1983, the Ministry of Education and Culture asked the
Board of National Museums and Monuments of Zimbabwe (NMMZ) to con-
sider proclaiming certain sacred sites as national monuments (Anonymous
1983). The sacred sites to be considered for proclamation were Chitung-
wiza (Chaminuka’s residence situated in the Imbgwa Farm), Njelele (situ-
ated in the Khumalo Communal Land), and Shavarunzi (Mbuya Nehanda’s
1897 Chimurenga [liberation war] stronghold) situated in the Mazoe area.
Chaminuka and Mbuya Nehanda were the country’s spirit mediums who led
an early resistance to colonialism and pioneered the modern war of liberation
from the British colonial yoke.
For Njelele this request was turned down because the shrine was believed
to possess mystical powers. However, the former Executive Director of the

171
172 simon makuvaza

NMMZ, Matipano instructed the Inspector of Monuments in Bulawayo to con-

sult the Zimbabwe National Traditional Healer’s Association (ZINATHA) to
clear the mysticism associated with Njelele so that it could be proclaimed a na-
tional monument (Matipano 1983). It is not clear how ZINATHA was to clear
the mysticism associated with Njelele, but the announcement was followed by
a series of protests from both the public and some government ministries. A
Bulawayo complainant said that ZINATHA had planned to remove a sacred
stone from Njelele and take it back to Great Zimbabwe under the guise of pray-
ing for rain (Chronicle, 27 September 1983). The local community believed that
a sacred stone had been taken to Njelele when the cult was transferred from
Great Zimbabwe to Matobo in around 1560. Allegedly, once the sacred stone
was taken to Great Zimbabwe, ZINATHA would pray for rain. Two weeks later,
the Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism in consultation with Masvingo’s
Zimbabwe African National Union Patriotic Front (ZANU PF) leadership de-
cided to cancel the ZINATHA plans. This was announced by the Ministry of
Information and Telecommunications (Chronicle, 12 October 1983). Following
the cancellations of ZINATHA plans, and after the government and public out-
cry, Njelele was not proclaimed a national monument.
Thirteen years later in 1998 the issue of proclaiming Njelele a national
monument resurfaced again. It seemed that this was prompted by fresh con-
tests for priesthood and control of Njelele by three different family members,
namely Sitwanyana Ncube, David Ndlovu (Mayabu’s young brother) and
Ncathu Mayezane Ncube. In 1988, Sitwanyana returned to Njelele and his
return to the shrine was strongly opposed by his opponents. In the past Sit-
wanyana had on several occasions been evicted and his homestead set on fire
by groups of people contesting for custodianship and control of the shrine.
His opponents cited among other things that he takes married women to the
shrine and that he also practices traditional healing which is contrary to the
traditions and requirements of Njelele. In addition to that his opponents were
seriously opposed to Sitwanyana’s settlement near perennial pools and to the
sacred approach to the shrine (Ranger 1999). However, the contest for stew-
ardship and priesthood had intensified to the extent that it seemed the only
logical way to resolve the issue was to proclaim Matonjeni a national monu-
ment and have it administered by a neutral and appropriate government heri-
tage department, in this case the NMMZ.
In the same year I was part of the organizing team for a meeting at which
the issue of Njelele priesthood and custodianship was to be resolved once and

172
a rainmaking shrine in zimbabwe 173

for all. Senior government officials, the former Vice President of the country,
Joshua Nkomo; the former Minister of Home Affairs (under which NMMZ
falls), Dumiso Dabengwa; the former Matabeleland South Governor, Stephen
Nkomo; and provincial chiefs, among them Nyangazonke and Nzula Malacki
Masuku, were invited to the meeting.
At the meeting Dumiso Dabengwa, a government spokesperson, told the
gathering that pressure was mounting in his Home Affairs Ministry to resolve
the Njelele priesthood and custodian dispute because the landscape was soon
to be proclaimed a World Heritage Area. Dabengwa explained that the success
of Matobo as a World Heritage area hinged on the proclamation of Njelele as
a national monument (Chronicle, 16 February 1998). With this explanation
Dabengwa meant to convince the gathering that if Njelele was not going to be
proclaimed a national monument, the Matobo hills might not be proclaimed
a World Heritage Area. Taking turns through their representatives to respond
to the idea of proclaiming Njelele a national monument, the invited public
flatly refused to have Njelele proclaimed a national monument. They argued
that once the shrine was proclaimed a national monument, Njelele would be
opened up to tourists from which only NMMZ would benefit.
After Zimbabwe obtained independence and its economy stabilized,
Matobo hills became a playground for tourists (Ranger 1999). The National
Parks and Wildlife Management Department (now an Authority) and the
NMMZ began to commercialize heritage through charging entry fees. To
the local people the proclamation of Njelele as a national monument meant
opening it up to tourism the same way other sites in the park have been
opened up for tourism. The local people had realized that tourism ruins
the sacredness of shrines, and they would not want Njelele to be ruined the
same way other sites located in the park have been ruined. For this reason
the local people did not see how they would benefit from the proclamation
of Njelele as a national monument and the listing of Matobo hills as a world
heritage landscape.
This rejection might also have been based on a realization that this was
a stratagem to proclaim the shrine a national monument to resolve the long
standing custodian and priesthood dispute. Rather, the local people wanted
the dispute resolved by government officials by nominating and appointing a
custodian and priest from the three contesting families. This must have been
a difficult task for the home affairs minister who probably had realized that
the former vice president present at the ceremony had previously backed

173
174 simon makuvaza

Sitwanyana (see Ranger 1999). The crowd’s candidate was Ngcathu Ncube,
whom it regarded as legitimate.
At the end of the meeting, the Matabeleland South Governor referred
the matter to the provincial chiefs and asked them to choose a keeper of the
shrine (Chronicle, 26 April 1998). The local chiefs eventually met in Gwanda
on the 23rd of December 1999 to solve the Njelele issue. I was asked to repre-
sent the NMMZ at the meeting. The issue could not be resolved at the meet-
ing as the chiefs failed to agree on which of the three contestants should be
appointed traditional custodian. In fact, the meeting was prematurely aban-
doned as tempers ran high. As a result, no appropriate decision was reached
at about which family should control Njelele.
It seems that from then on no attempts were made to either resolve the
custodian or priesthood issue or to proclaim Njelele a national monument. The
three contestants were left to fight for their own custodianship and priesthood.
The fight resulted in the flight of Ngcathu to Silawa, located about 50 kilometers
away from Njelele after her homestead was struck by a bolt of lightning (Chron-
icle, 9 December 1999). Meanwhile, Sitwanyana, who had relocated to another
area, returned to Njelele after the flight of his former wife. A year later, in 2000,
Ngcathu passed away in circumstances that villagers described as mysterious
(Chronicle, 12 April 2000). She was buried at Silawa.
After Ngcathu passed away, Sitwanyana took over the Njelele priesthood
and custodianship. However, the Zimbabwe’s Liberation War Veterans As-
sociation (ZLWVA), who accused him of causing pandemonium over the
Njelele priesthood and custodianship, soon evicted him. The public could not
press charges against Sitwanyana and have him arrested by the police because
he had not breached any regulation by coming back to claim custodianship
and live at Njelele. The public sought the help of the ZLWVA, whom they
know enjoyed audience in high political offices, to evict Sitwanyana from the
shrine. The war veterans had long been attached to the shrine during the lib-
eration struggle from which they consulted for advice and ask for protection.
They also accused Sitwanyana of being responsible for the death of Ngcathu
(Sibindi, 2006 personal communication). It is alleged that the war veterans set
his homestead on fire in revenge for Ngcathu’s death.
Once evicted, Sitwanyana spent several months camping with all his be-
longings by the roadside a few kilometers down the highway to Maphisa, the
country’s southwestern most Growth Point. It is not known if Sitwanyana had
nowhere to go after the eviction from Njelele, but camping by the road side

174
a rainmaking shrine in zimbabwe 175

seemed to have been a plan to draw public and government attention and win
compassion so that he could be reinstated as the shrine’s priest and custodian.
Six years later, in 2006, Sitwanyana also passed away, leaving David Ndlovu in
charge of Njelele. The departure from the historical scene of the two powerful
contestants of Matonjeni, Ngcathu, and Sitwanyana seemed to have put to an
end the contest for custodianship and priesthood of Njelele. But the shrine
still failed to acquire national monument status.

Discussion and Conclusion

The contest to control heritage places is not a modern phenomenon. From
time immemorial people have clashed over the control of resources such as
land and water, and in this case over control of a primeval cultural heritage
place (Matondi 2000; Ranger 1999). The contests among Sitwanyana Ncube,
the Ndlovu family, and Ngcathu Ncube on the one hand, and the politicians
on the other, over the control of Njelele demonstrate the conflicts that occur
over heritage places that have several values. It also shows that each contestant
interfered with the others and pursued irreconcilable efforts to become an ac-
cepted custodian and priest for Njelele. Matondi (2000) argued that conflicts
of this nature could be seen as an expressed struggle between interdependent
parties who perceive incompatible goals, scarce resources, and interference
from each other in their efforts to achieve targeted goals. Conflicts of this
nature also occur when the officials tasked with the management of heritage
places suppress local participation in decision making, which in turn would
affect their own livelihood. The refusal to have the shrine proclaimed a na-
tional monument and controlled by government heritage departments such
as the National Parks, the Natural and Historical Commission, and later by
the NMMZ, was motivated by fears that their decisions over Njelele would
be suppressed. This would not be unfounded, as early missionaries in the Ma-
tobo hills had discredited the use of traditional sites by the local people. The
local people at Njelele also feared that these government departments would
fail to satisfy their traditional spiritual aspirations, as exemplified by early mis-
sionaries who tried to stifle the use of traditional sites in the Matobo hills.
The contest and attempts to proclaim Njelele a national monument show
failure by government heritage departments to understand that they could
not and cannot administer and control heritage places whose values are still
living, and that are still used by contemporary indigenous people. Previous

175
176 simon makuvaza

successful proclamations of some of the country’s heritage places as national

monuments, for example the dry stone monuments of Khami, Danan’ombe
and Nalatale, must have led them to think that it was possible to proclaim
Njelele a national monument. Heritage places such as the dry stone monu-
ments are perceived to have been abandoned by their previous owners. These
heritage places also have been regarded as no longer sacred. In some cases it
also has been very difficult to establish direct ancestors associated with these
heritage places and to link them to contemporary group(s) of people who can
claim ownership and control. For example, archaeologists and historians have
now agreed that Khami was established by a Shona-speaking group called
Torwa between 16th and 17th century (Beach 1980; Huffman 1996; Pikirayi
2001; Robinson 1959). However, archaeologists and historians have failed to
identify and link a contemporary ethnic group that can be argued with cer-
tainty to be directly descended from the Torwa. It always has been fairly easy
for such heritage places to be proclaimed national monuments, and for re-
sponsible government departments to control them without resistance from
contemporary local communities living near these heritage places because
they could not claim ownership. Generally, contests for these heritage places
have been very minimal and in some instance completely nonexistent.
Njelele presents a different case altogether because traditions and val-
ues associated with it are still living and valued by modern-day peoples of
Zimbabwe. This explains why local indigenous people have fervently argued
against the proclamation of Njelele as a national monument. They still invoke
and consult the shrine in times of crisis such as drought, illness and death,
domestic and animal disease, and during agricultural seasons of sowing and
reaping, among other things. For the same reasons, neighboring sister shrines
also have not been proclaimed national monuments. Similarly, heritage places
such as Shavarunzi, Chitungwiza, and the Chinhoyi caves, to mention just a
few outside the Matobo hills, were not proclaimed as national monuments.
These heritage places are still sacred and revered by the modern peoples of
Zimbabwe.
The failure of politicians to bring about national monument status for
Njelele and their subsequent withdrawal from the issue was due to their real-
ization that the wartime guidance and protection they required from Njelele
was no longer necessary. The politicians may also have realized that the
nomination of the shrine priest and keeper from the three contestant families
would politicize a cultural issue, which should otherwise be solved by people

176
a rainmaking shrine in zimbabwe 177

who know the shrine’s traditions and culture, such as traditional chiefs and
their subjects. According to Ranger (1999), after the Chiefs noticed that there
was continued interference by politicians in resolving the custodian issue at
Njelele, they washed their hands of the whole matter. However, their choice
may not have been accepted by a section of the local people, thereby dividing
them. In addition to that, the politicians’ reluctance to nominate a candidate
was impeded by each contestant’s claim that their legitimate priesthood and
custodianship dated back into time immemorial, making it difficult for them
to choose a legitimate priest and custodian.
Although the 1902 and the 1912 ordinances, and later the 1936 Monu-
ments and Relics Act, laid the foundation for heritage protective legislation
in Zimbabwe, these laws did not serve the interests of the local people at
Njelele. The local people saw no reason to protect the shrine through heri-
tage legislation although they had protected the shrine from time immemo-
rial through traditional regulations and taboos. At Njelele, for example, as has
been demonstrated above, the intermediaries regulated pilgrims, messengers,
and individual visitors to the shrine. The carrying of beer pots to Njelele dur-
ing rain-making ceremonies by pre-pubescent and post-menopausal women
ensure that the shrine’s purity is maintained and will not be defiled by mar-
ried women who still experience their menstrual periods. This is one of the
reasons why Sitwanyana Ncube was chased away from the shrine because he
was accused of taking his women to Njelele thereby defiling the shrine.
The physical environment of the shrine was also maintained by ensuring
that no modern buildings were developed, as had been suggested by Joshua
Nkomo and as planned by Nephas Ndlovu in 1982. No vegetation was al-
lowed to be cut at Njelele. Describing the approach to Njelele, Nobbs (1924)
noted that the approach to Njelele was through the west by a steep rocky defile
which was so overgrown with vegetation as to be almost impassable. Mwari/
mlimo would punish those who did not observe these traditional regulations
through diseases and illness, death or drought. The traditional methods of
looking after the physical environment of the shrine explains why the local
people at Njelele refused to have the shrine fenced, as was suggested by the
former Honorary Secretary of the Natural and Historical Monuments Com-
mission, Cran Cooke, in 1960. The local people at Njelele realized that the
proposal to fence Njelele by the board of Natural and Historical Commission
would mean that they no longer could have legal access to the shrine. At-
tempts to fence the shrine and proclaim it a national monument also showed

177
178 simon makuvaza

a failure by successive government heritage departments to appreciate that

ancient heritage places in Zimbabwe, and perhaps elsewhere in Africa, have
always been protected by traditional methods well before the dawn of colo-
nialism.
Attempts and failures to proclaim Njelele a national monument by gov-
ernment heritage departments and contests for priesthood and custodianship
among the local people has shown that competition for controlling heritage
places will continue into the foreseeable future as each generation tries to as-
set its power over these places. However, Eldroma (2000) summed it all when
he commented that the traditional Africans have resented the control of their
indigenous cultural properties by agents of the state. They feel strongly that
they should be an integral part of the team that protects, preserves, repairs,
maintains, manages, and benefits from the utilization of their cultural proper-
ties. He further remarked that the tribes resent being deprived of their eco-
nomic, social, and cultural rights. But for now, the contest for Njelele’s priest-
hood and control appears to have ended with the passing away in recent years
of two powerful contestants, which also ends hopes of successfully proclaim-
ing this southern African premier rainmaking shrine a national monument.

Acknowledgments
I would like to sincerely thank the following people for making it possible
for this article to be published. Paul Hubbard, a Zimbabwean freelance ar-
chaeologist, and Professor Gary Haynes of the Anthropology Department at
Nevada State University, United States of America, edited the initial drafts of
this paper. Paul suggested that I should approach this journal to have the pa-
per published so that readers interested in the management of heritage places
could access it. Professor Haynes ensured that the paper reads well. Lastly, I
would also like to thank Kelley Hays-Gilpin for encouragement and making it
possible to have the paper reviewed by seasoned journal editors. Their invalu-
able comments have been taken aboard and I want to thank them from the
bottom of my heart.

178
a rainmaking shrine in zimbabwe 179

References
Anonymous.
1963 Monuments. Unpublished letter 223/P. Letter on file. Natural History Mu-
seum, Bulwayo.
Beach, D.N.
1980 The Shona and Zimbabwe 900–1850. An Outline of Shona History. Mambo,
Gweru.
Bhebe, N.M.B.
1979 The Ndebele and Mwari before 1893: A Religious Conquest of the Con-
querors by the Vanquished. In Guardians of the Land, Essays on Central
African Territorial Cults, edited by J.M. Schoffeleers, pp 287–295. Mambo,
Gweru.
Chambers, E.
2005 Whose Heritage Is It? History, Culture and Inheritance. Anthropology News
46 (4): 7-8.
Cockcroft, I.G.
1972 The Mlimo (Mwari) Cult. Native Affairs Department Annual: 10 (4).
Cooke, C.K.
1960 Njelele Cave and Hill. Unpublished letter to the Matobo Native Commis-
sioner, File 223/P. Natural History Museum, Bulawayo.
Daneel, M.L.
1970 The God of Matopo Hills. Hague, Mouton.
Eldroma, E. L.
2000 The Notion of Integrity for Natural Properties and Cultural Landscapes.
In Authenticity and Integrity in an African Context: Expert Meeting-Great
Zimbabwe, edited by G. Saouma-Forero, pp. 50–58. UNESCO.
Garlake, P.S.
1973 Great Zimbabwe. Thames and Hudson, London.
Huffman, T.N.
1996 Snakes and Crocodiles: Power and Symbolism in Ancient Zimbabwe. Uni-
versity Press, Witwatersrand, Johannesburg.
Matipano, F.P.
1983 Proposed National Monument: Njelele. Unpublished letter to the Bulawayo
Inspector of Monuments, File 223/P. Natural History Museum, Bulawayo.
Matondi, P.
2000 Access to Land and Water Resources in Zimbabwe’s Rural Environment.
In Environmental Security in Southern Africa, edited by D. Tevera and S.
Moyo, pp 101–116. Kuku, Harare.
Native Commissioner
1961 Njelele Hill. Unpublished letter to the Honorary Secretary, Natural and His-
torical Monuments Commission of Southern Rhodesia, File 223/P. Natural
History Museum, Bulawayo.

179
180 simon makuvaza

Ndoro, W.
2001 Your Monument Our Shrine: The Preservation of Great Zimbabwe. Uppsala
University, Uppsala.
Nobbs, E.A.
1924 Guide to the Matobo. T. Maskew Miller, Cape Town.
Pikirayi, I.
2001 The Zimbabwe Culture: Origins and Decline in Southern Zambezian States.
AltaMira, England.
Pwiti, G., and G. Mvenge
1996 Archaeologists, Tourists and Rain Makers: Problems in the Management of
Rock Art Sites in Zimbabwe, a Case Study of Domboshava National Monu-
ment, In Aspects of African Archaeology: Papers from the 10th PanAfrican
Association for Prehistory and Related Studies, edited by G. Pwiti and R.
Soper, pp. 817–823. University of Zimbabwe, Harare.
Ranger, T.O .
1967 Revolt in Southern Rhodesia, 1896-7. Heinemann, London.
1989 Whose Heritage? The Case of Matobo National Park. Journal of Southern
African Studies 15: 217–249.
1999 Voices from the Rocks, Nature, Culture and History in the Matobo Hills of
Zimbabwe. Baobab, Harare.
Robinson, K.R.
1959 Khami Ruins. Cambridge University, London .
Summers, R.
1961 Njelele Hill and Cave. Unpublished letter to the Honorary Secretary, Natu-
ral and Historical Monuments Commission of Southern Rhodesia, File
223/P. Natural History Museum, Bulawayo.
Chronicle Newspaper [Bulawayo, Zimbabwe]
1983 Don’t move it. 27 September. Bulawayo, Zimbabwe.
2000 Njelele shrine custodian dies. 12 April. Bulawayo, Zimbabwe.
2001 Thieves invade Njelele. 15 May. Bulawayo, Zimbabwe.
1982 Njelele Hill “best kept quiet’,1 October . Bulawayo, Zimbabwe.
1982 Plans for Njelele complete. 29 September. Bulawayo, Zimbabwe.
1983 Zinatha festival cancelled. 12 October. Bulawayo, Zimbabwe.
1998 Njelele shrine reinstated as national monument. 16 February. Bulawayo,
Zimbabwe.
1998 Njelele to close to public. 9 October. Bulawayo, Zimbabwe.
1999 Njelele custodian flees from shrine. 9 December. Bulawayo, Zimbabwe.

180