Whose Museum? Collobaration and Contestation over Heritage Management at the Cultural and Museum Center Karonga in Malawi

Abstract

This article explores how the disciplines of paleontology and archaeology enabled the establishment of the Cultural and Museum Center Karonga, popularly known as Karonga Museum, in Karonga district, in northern Malawi. Important in the article is how the international paleontologists and archaelogists together with researchers in the Department of Museums and Monuments of Malawi mooted strategies to collaborate with the local community in order to source funds for the establishment of the Cultural and Museum Center Karonga. Later what was intended to be a mutual partnership and collaboration turned out be a troubled and contentious relationship surrounding the question of control, regulation and management of the heritage at the Cultural and Museum Center Karonga. Drawn on a combination of historical modes of inquiry that include qualitative interviews and documentary sources the article argues that the longtime research interests and activities of paleontologists and archaeologists in Karonga constituted the motivational factors for the establishment of the Cultural and Museum Center Karonga. However, the requirements of the European Union to only fund projects that are community driven made one of the local communities in Karonga to be a conduit to access grants for the museum project. Consequently, this made the project and the subsequent established museum to appear as community-inspired initiatives. This context became a major contributing factor to the protracted tension and conflict in management and administration of the Cultural and Museum Center Karonga between the community and the government and to some extent the international community of researchers all of whom made claims to the ownership of the museum. The article therefore provokes questions of how to manage heritage which draws interests not only from the local and the national but also forms the international sphere. Overall, the article makes a contribution to knowledge of the complexities in collaboration between museum and its community in management of heritage.

Keywords:

• Karonga
• Cultural and Museum Center Karonga
• community
• Uraha foundation
• department of Museums and Monuments
• Memorandum of understanding
• archaeology
• paleontology
• fossils
• heritage management

1. Introduction

This article provokes questions of how to manage heritage which draws interests not only from the local and the national but also forms the international sphere. It does so by discussing how the disciplines of palaeontology and archaeology enabled the establishment of The Cultural and Museum Center Karonga in the northern district of Karonga in Malawi. Karonga is the only district where both dinosaurs and hominids have been excavated. Important in the article is how the palaeontologists, archaeologists and government authorities thought ways to collaborate with community representatives to source funds for establishing The Cultural and Museum Center Karonga which is popularly known as Karonga Museum. Later, what was intended to be a mutual partnership turned out to be a troubled and strained relationship surrounding the question of control and regulation of the conserved and curated heritage at The Cultural and Museum Centre Karonga. The article exposes the fragility of the concept of Public-Private Partnership in heritage management. Ultimately the article argues that tensions over heritage management at The Cultural and Museum Center Karonga are the result of the initial approach that was taken by the Department of Museums and Monuments to ostensibly present the community as the owner of the museum project so that the Department could easily access funds for the project from the European Union. Consequently, this made the project and the subsequent museum to appear as community inspired initiatives. This ambivalence became the major contributing factor to the protracted tension and conflict in management and administration of Cultural and Museum Center Karonga whereby the two stakeholders involved advance strong claims of ownership and control of the museum.

An exploration of scholarly work on The Cultural and Museum Center Karonga reveals that there is a dearth of literature on the management of the museum and its relation with the community. The existing body of literature focuses on such areas as archaeological and paleontological projects on fossils in Karonga, the history behind the establishment of The Cultural and Museum Center Karonga, the exhibition inside the museum gallery with the Malawisaurus as the main center of visitor attraction (Muller, 2014; Simfukwe, 2013; Thompson et al., 2012; Winder et al., 2013). Little scholarly attention has been paid to issues of management at the Cultural and Museum Center Karonga and its relationship with the community. This article extends this literature on Cultural and Museum Karonga by highlighting the contestations around management and ownership of the museum between the Department of Museums and Monuments and the community. The article analyses the contestations and contradictions that have characterized museum—community relations at the Cultural and Museum Center Karonga. By unpacking complex, dynamic and sometimes tense relationships, it seeks to highlight issues that are often overlooked or taken for granted in museum management and in debates about community involvement in management of heritage in Malawi.

A combination of historical modes of inquiry was applied during the research for this article. Qualitative interviews were conducted in the form of key informant interviews. Five key staff members from the Department of Museum and Monuments were interviewed while two representatives from Uraha Foundation Malawi representing the community in the management of the museum were also interviewed. The key informants provided insights into the history of the museum, the management approaches of the museum, challenges in the management of the museum and the sources of tension and contestations in management of the museum. Oral interviews with the visitors and other stakeholders for example people doing various businesses at the museum were conducted. These Oral interviews provided the perceptions that ordinary people have on the museum. The documentary sources from the Department of Museums and Monuments and Cultural and Museum Center Karonga, in the form of reports and minutes on various projects and activities, the Memorandum of Understanding between the community and the Department of Museums and Monuments, were analysed.These revealed the nuances and dynamics in the management of the museum. Thematic analysis on the data collected was employed. The article therefore critically discusses the contestations and tensions over the heritage management at the museum. Before we get to these management issues it is important to sketch briefly the historical situation with regard to fossil heritage in Karonga that enabled the establishment of The Cultural and Museum Center Karonga.

1.1. Great African rift valley and fossil heritage in Karonga

The fossil heritage in Karonga is understood through the geological landscape which led to the paleontological and archaeological research in the district. Karonga lies in the Great Eastern African Rift Valley. The Rift Valley is the result of an ancient series of faults, rifts, and volcanoes deriving from the shifting of tectonic plates in the East African region. It has been argued by Jean Chorowicz that many parts of the Great Rift Valley are in different phases of evolution. For example, the phases range from pre-rift in the Limpopo valley to initial-rift stage at the Malawi rift, to typical-rift stage in the northern Tanganyika rift region, advanced-rift stage in the Ethiopian rift region, and finally to oceanic-rift stage in the Afar range. Thus the region is tectonically active (Chorowicz, 2005). It is claimed by geologists that when glaciers dominated most of Europe and Asia during the Pleistocene, the Rift Lake Basins were havens for animals and plant life, including early hominids (Winder et al., 2013). Today the valley is a great source of hominid fossils, most especially in Tanzania’s Olduvai Gorge. These fossils have been the centre of attraction to archaeologists for research on the evolution of humankind and life on earth. Examples of such archaeological and paleontological expeditions include those by Richard Leakey in the 1970s which claimed that East African Rift Valley region is the cradle of humankind (Winder et al., 2013, p. 351).

Karonga, branded as the “Fossil District of Malawi” by its district council, has been the focal point of paleontological research since the colonial times. The first archaeological and paleontological research expeditions began in 1882 when reports about the existence of fossilized dinosaur bone fragments came to light (Simfukwe, 2013). In 1927 Frank Dixey led a team of palaeontologists to study the deposits of northern Malawi including Karonga. He discovered and identified Chiwondo Beds and Chitimwe Beds which he attributed to the Pliocene and Pleistocene. These beds contained fossils of animals as well as material culture. Other expeditions were led by Desmond Clark and his team in 1963, 1966 and 1990. The team’s goal was to investigate Lower Pleistocene deposits in Karonga and its vicinities (Clark et al., 1970, p. 393). It was these expeditions that revealed the remains of the earliest human, Uraha man, at Malema and Uraha sites and also at Mwanganda Village where a site for butchering elephants was discovered together with elephant fossils.

It was fossil field expeditions of 1987, 1989, 1990, and 1992 under the Malawi Dinosaur Project that led to the discovery of a dinosaur that was called Malawisaurus by the expedition team of Methodist palaeontologists. This discovery prompted the ideas of the establishment of The Cultural and Museum Centre Karonga. As pointed out at the outset of this article, the palaeontologists and government authorities partnered with local communities to establish the museum for the display of the fossils and other aspects of the cultural heritage of Karonga. However, presently, there is intractable tension and conflict over ownership and control of the heritage at The Cultural and Museum Center Karonga between the government, the community and the international researchers. Because of the perceived global importance of the fossils in relation to human evolution, the international researchers feel obliged to make a claim to control the heritage at the museum and the sites. For the people of Karonga because the fossils were excavated from their soils they deem themselves as the rightful owners of the fossil heritage and the museum. The Department of Museums and Monuments, representing Malawi government, invokes its mandate to preserve Malawi’s heritage. This current situation has made archaeology and palaeontology to be “nationless” and fossil heritage to be understood as a global rather than local patrimony in the area. This triangulation and intersection of interests and relationships make the heritage work at the museum much more complex. The competing interests are observed in the contestations around the management of the museum. The first set of these contestations are evident in the narratives that inform the history of the establishment of The Cultural and Museum Center Karonga with claims and counter claims of ownership of the museum. Figure 1 shows The Cultural and Museum Center Karonga.

Figure 1. The Cultural and Museum Center Karonga in a shape of dinosaur and a sculpted dinosaur in front. Source- Cultural and Museum Center Karonga.

1.2. Community and collecting objects for the cultural and Museum Centre Karonga

As indicated the European Union funded the project for the Cultural and Museum Center Karonga. The funds were channeled to the Karonga Development Trust (KADET) which was presented as the community and work commenced for the construction of the museum. The first task that was carried out after completing the construction was to organize artefacts. The fossils that were collected during various paleontological and archaeological expeditions formed the basis of artefacts for the exhibition. Uraha Foundation Germany, led by the German Professor, was at the vanguard of organizing the museum collections with the helping hand of researchers from the Department of Museums and Monuments and volunteers from KADET which later became Uraha Foundation Malawi. The German Professor sourced other professionals to help in setting up the museum. One of them was Steffi Muller who took charge of administration up to the opening ceremony of the museum in 2004. The exhibition team recognized the need to connect the evolution story with the cultural and historical development of the area as the main narrative in the museum. To this effect they began to collect ethnographic, historical objects and oral histories from the local communities. Using second-hand clothes donated by Uraha Foundation Germany they exchanged with objects from the communities (Chief Historian, 2018). The surrounding communities also showed much interest in the museum and would donate their objects freely. A local Catholic secondary school in the area, Chaminade, donated some collections from its mini-museum (Uraha Foundation Secretary, 2018). Uraha Germany met the costs of the exhibition. The community through the KADET translated the texts into Ngonde and Chitumbuka which are the local and regional languages respectively.

The museum was officially opened in 2004 by the then head of state Bingu Wa Mutharika. Steffi Muller, a journalist who was studying for a doctorate in paleoanthropology, and was part of the team of German researchers wrote about the opening.

The State President of Malawi, His Excellency, Dr Bingu Wa Mutharika, graced the opening ceremony with his presence on 10 December 2004 with a fitting ceremony. CMCK. These four letters have a long story to tell. The plans to build a Cultural & Museum Centre in Karonga Boma are as old as the joint research activities between the Antiquities Department, Lilongwe, and Professor Dr Friedeman Schrenk; a German palaeontologist in Malawi. When, in 1991, the Malawi-German research team discovered remains of a 2.5 million-year-old ancestor of ours, the lower jaw of a specimen of Homo Rudolfensis close to Uraha village, Karonga district, it was obviously important to make the importance of the find accessible to the people both of Karonga and throughout Malawi (Muller,2005, p.1).

She went on to write that

A team of Malawian public servants, volunteers from Karonga community, German volunteers and the Karonga-based artist Tbwawike Mang’onda have just completed the exhibition area and exhibits, featuring 240 million years of Karonga history - from Dinosaurs to Democracy. The biggest and most prominent artefact is the cast of the skeleton of Malawisaurus, discovered by the Antiquities Department in the late 1980s. (Muller,2005, p.2)

The theme of evolution of the earth and its life forms is the dominant narrative in the exhibitions although it is complemented by other subthemes in order to connect between evolution and history of the area and Malawi in general. The model of the dinosaur named Malawisaurus is the masterpiece exhibition. The real fossilized bones of Malawisaurus are kept at Nguludi Archaeological Repository in Chiradzulo district in southern Malawi. Figure 2 shows the model of Malawisaurus.

Figure 2. Malawisaurus. Source- Cultural and Museum Center Karonga.

After its inaugural opening to the public the Cultural and Museum Center Karonga was handed over to the community in the name of Uraha Foundation Malawi and government in the name of Department of Antiquities (now Department of Museums and Monuments). How would the two partners steer the Cultural and Museum Center Karonga forward in terms of its management? The following sections explore and discuss the tensions and contestations surrounding the management of the museum after its opening.

1.3. Contestations over the history and ownership of Cultural and Museum Center Karonga

In the course of my fieldwork at Cultural and Museum Center Karonga, I sensed tension during interviews with two senior officials. One representing the Department of Museums and Monuments and the other the community through Uraha Foundation Malawi. This tension was palpable in the narratives they provided regarding the circumstances that led to the formation of the Cultural and Museum Center Karonga. The first narrative offered by the administrator representing Uraha Foundation Malawi emphasized the agency of the local community for the establishment of the Cultural and Museum Center Karonga. In this narrative, the contribution of the Department of Museums and Monuments was obscured if not marginalised. Again in this narrative the community makes claims of ownership of The Cultural and Museum Center Karonga. The counter-narrative propagated by the staff from the Department of Museums and Monuments highlighted the efforts by government and the team of international researchers to establish The Cultural and Museum Center Karonga. Although the contribution of the community through Uraha Foundation Malawi (formerly KADET) was mentioned it was always glossed over and cast as peripheral contributors. It stated that the Department of Museums and Monuments and the collaborating international researchers wanted the museum to facilitate research and disseminate knowledge about the fossils to the people in the area. In this narrative, the Department of Museums and Monuments and the international researchers were presented as the owners of Cultural and Museum Center Karonga. Implied and embedded in these competing narratives is the conflict of ownership and control of the heritage at The Cultural and Museum Centre Karonga. I now elaborate the two competing versions of the origin narratives in detail.

The first version was explained through the activities of Karonga Development Trust (KADET). According to community representative who was co-managing the museum, the Trust was formed in 1994 by the Karonga residents who had retired from working both in Malawi and abroad and returned home. They were largely men who were identified as belonging to Karonga’s dominant ethnic category of Ngonde. These pensioners organized themselves to address the pertinent social and economic issues in their homeland. Their concern was about projects that would initiate development and bring about change for the benefit of the community. They wanted to empower the people economically “through their productive activities especially focusing on agricultural products” (Uraha Foundation Secretary,2018). These agricultural products were mainly cotton, rice and fishing, commonly produced in the area because of Lake Malawi environment. According to him the formation of KADET had some historical concordance in the area. During the colonial period, there was a Cooperative Society in Karonga that was facilitating the production and marketing of rice and cotton of the smallholder farmers in the area. The Cooperative Society could also train the local farmers on the best farming methods as well as management of their funds after the sale. He claimed that it was a popular initiative by the colonial government in those days. However, after independence, the Cooperative Society in Karonga and other districts became moribund as there was no support from the government (Uraha Foundation Secretary, 2018). He argued that the dictatorship of Kamuzu Banda contributed to the demise of the Cooperative Society as Banda perceived them to be political in their agenda and therefore a threat to his rule. He explained that;

When Malawi was entering into politics for independence and when Dr Banda became prime minister and then Life President the Cooperative Society which was very strong before independence was being phased out. The Malawi Government did not have the interest to pursue where the locals stopped. So the Cooperative Society died a natural death in Kaporo. (Uraha Foundation Secretary, 2018)

Indeed Banda’s politics was sensitive to any mobilization of the local communities into groups for whatever cause as he was afraid of people conspiring against his autocratic regime. The community representative went on to claim that in 1999 a palaeontologist and professor from Frankfurt University in Germany found the KADET committee members discussing various development projects in a lodge where he was staying as a guest. The palaeontologist was anxious to know what they were discussing. After the KADET members explained to the paleontologist, he advised the KADET that they might have some challenges in identifying donors because some of the projects under discussion might not be as attractive in terms of donor attitude. At that time they were discussing opening a vocational training college. So the Paleontology Professor suggested that they should consider the fossil heritage in Karonga and a possible Cultural and Museum Center. He promised to assist in securing funds for the project from the Germany Embassy and the European Union. At some instances, during the interview the community representative could explain and emphasise as if the whole idea of the museum had already been planned by the KADET before meeting the Professor. Not long after that encounter with the palaeontologist, KADET received an invitation to have an audience with the country representatives from the European Union group in the capital city Lilongwe. The German Paleontologist made a presentation to the European Union delegates and put forward a case for the establishment of a museum that would house the fossils excavated in Karonga in order to preserve and promote this heritage in the district. The European Union delegates were said to be pleased with the presentation and announced to fund the project for the construction of the museum in Karonga. This narrative was crafted to make the community in close collaboration with the German professor as the sole initiators of the project that culminated in the establishment of the museum. It was crafted to present the community as the rightful trustees of the fossil heritage in Karonga. In simple words this origin narrative sought to project the community through KADET as the ones behind the idea of the museum and therefore justified claimants to it. The absence of any allusion to the Department of Museums and Monuments in this narrative was quite telling.

A quite different narrative was offered by the Director of Museums and Monuments at headquarters in Lilongwe and the Chief Historian at The Cultural and Museum Center Karonga representing the government. Even though I had interviewed these two at different times and places their narratives were the same. According to the Chief Historian the formation of the Cultural and Museum Center Karonga was the result of the scientific discoveries that had been made in Karonga by international researchers in collaboration with the research Division of Antiquities which later became the Department of Museums and Monuments. There had been several different kinds of fossils that were discovered in Karonga. He explained that the first fossils were discovered by a British team in early 1883. When the fossilized bones were taken to South Africa and Britain for analysis it was confirmed that they were dinosaur bones. Subsequently, this attracted researchers to come to Karonga for expeditions on fossils. However, the main field expedition leading to the establishment of the museum was from two mega projects. These were the Southern Methodist University Project (led by palaeontologists from Southern Methodist University in the United States of America) which was working on the dinosaur sediments and the Hominid Corridor Research Project, led by archeologists from Frankfurt University in Germany, which was specifically looking at the evolution of the mankind in Karonga. Previously there had been such similar research in South Africa, Kenya and Tanzania. Malawi was like a gap in that corridor so the objective was to investigate the possibility of hominid evidence in the gap between South Africa and East Africa (Chief Historian, 2018). The two projects had all started in the early 1980s and became successful. The Dinosaur Project discovered the dinosaur,Malawisaurus,which become the centrepiece in the museum gallery. The Hominid Project discovered the fossils of the early human which was named homo rudolfthesis, after the first specimen of its kind that was discovered in Kenya around Lake Rudolf,now Lake Albert (Chief Historian, 2018)., Besides, there were also several fossil materials that were recovered. The Chief Historian claimed that with the collection of the fossils the Department of Museums and Museums and Monuments made a decision to establish a museum in Karonga as a site museum to showcase the paleontological and archaeological heritage of the district. The Director of Museums and Monuments concurred with this narrative and explained that there was debate of whether the museum should be located in one of the major cities of Lilongwe or Blantyre. However, the consideration of Karonga district was favorable because the fossils were from this district and the people of Karonga would have an opportunity to see and learn what they have as heritage in order to enhance their sense of pride and identity and promote tourism in the district. The Director maintained that it was a joint proposal by the Malawi Government through its Department of Museums and Monuments together with the paleontologists and archaelogists from Germany which was submitted to the European Union for funding of the museum project. According to the Director, KADET which was later renamed Uraha Foundation Malawi and representing the community “was just a conduit” for the financing of the project (Director of Museums and Monuments, 2018).

These narratives appear confusing and contradictory as both the KADET/Uraha Foundation Malawi and Department of Museums and Monuments asserted to be the initiator of the project. This contradiction points to the nature of relationship and the problems of heritage management as well as claims of ownership at the Cultural and Museum Center Karonga. Further inquiry showed that the international researchers together with the Department of Museums and Monuments hatched the idea but in order to get funding from the donors they had to access via the community as was the demand of most international donor agencies. For example a businessman and community member in Karonga, explained that KADET members had to be convinced of the historical richness of Karonga and the need for the town to have the museum. This made KADET abandon their initial vocational projects (Businessman and Community Member, 2018). The Chief Historian at Karonga Museum confirmed this when he explained that,

on the initial set up of the museum, we thought we would be working together as a unit. We hatched the idea. Having discovered all these things we said it would make no sense if we keep them in drawers so we decided that we make the museum. Then we said how should we move on. The idea came that most of the funders would like to see input from the communities and I think it’s one of the governing rules in many of these funders like EU. Then we said let us incorporate the local communities for support to say that indeed we really need this museum in Karonga. So the government approved the project and the local communities also approved the project as well. And we were fortunate that at that time people from Karonga were already organized. They had an NGO known as KADET. So we approached them they did not approach us. So we approached them that we have this idea but local ownership is very important. (Chief Historian, 2018)

The Chief Historian was totally against the version by Uraha Foundation Malawi in the initiation and ownership of the museum when he retorted, “It’s not true, where could they have gotten the idea of the museum if they did not have the collections?” He further explained that “when our colleagues, our foreign researchers came they made friends with the communities around and so it was like discussing together on the way forward because we needed support on the local communities. Now because of that support from the local communities as well as from government then a decision was made to establish the museum here” (Chief Historian, 2018). In the KADET/Uraha Foundation Malawi’s account the role of the Department of Museums and Monuments only came during the meeting in Lilongwe with the European Union and only as passive observers. In the accounts by the Chief Historian and the Director, the Department of Museums and Monuments together with the international researchers are designated as the active players and responsible for the establishment of the Cultural and Museum Center Karonga.

Luckily during my fieldwork in Karonga, I was told that the German Paleontologist and Professor was around and the office would arrange my meeting with him. Unfortunately, we never met as he was busy at one of the excavation sites. But the document that I found at the headquarters of the Department of Museums and Monuments in Lilongwe that recorded all the minutes of the meetings for the project were more revealing and helped me to reconstruct the account for the formation of The Cultural and Museum Center Karonga. Interestingly, it was the KADET/Uraha Foundation representative at the museum who was the secretary taking all the minutes.

The minutes indicated that the German Professor together with the Department of Museums and Monuments conceived the idea and made the groundwork for the establishment of the museum. The minutes further showed that it was during the community interface meetings between the Department of Museums and Monuments and KADET/Uraha Foundation Malawi that the idea was sold about the establishment of the museum. The KADET/Uraha Foundation Malawi was convinced to embrace it and most significantly “to be used as conduit” or vehicle to access the grants from a prospective donor for the project (Karonga Museum Meeting, 1999). For the community organisation like KADET/Uraha Foundation Malawi which was already in dire need of finances to have an opportunity of the project to be facilitated by the Department of Museums and Monuments together with Professor of Paleontology from Germany was a welcome and timeous gesture. Exploring the objectives of KADET/Uraha Foundation Malawi in their constitution they had nothing to do with culture, museums and heritage. The constitution of KADET had 19 objectives.These objectives were concerned with issues of agriculture, fishing, entrepreneurship, environment, health and housing. None of their objectives spoke about ideas of museums, culture, heritage and tourism to make one think that they had already in mind the thought of promoting and conserving heritage in Karonga (The Constitution of the Registered Trustees of Uraha Foundation, 1999).

I have taken pains to discuss using various sources in order to show that the account that was provided by KADET/Uraha Foundation Malawi, about the circumstances that led to the formation of Cultural and Museum Center Karonga were distorted in significant ways with obvious vested interests. What seems clear is that Cultural and Museum Center Karonga was from the start the concept of the international researchers together with Department of Museums and Monuments who had sought to convince the community, via the already existing community organization of KADET/Uraha Foundation Malawi, to appropriate the idea of the museum in order to get the funding needed for the project. The discovery of the dinosaur bones, Malawisaurus proved to be the impetus for the museum project because of the appealing stories of dinosaurs (Chief Historian, 2018). Hence I argue that the longtime research interests and activities of palaeontologists and archaeologists together with Department of Museums and Monuments working in Karonga were the main motivational factors for the establishment of The Cultural and Museum Center Karonga. However, because of the demands of prospective donors to only fund projects that are community driven, the local community of Karonga became the conduit to access grants for the museum project. Consequently, this made the project and the subsequent museum to appear as a community-inspired initiative. As I shall further show this situation became the major contributing factor to the protracted tension and conflict in management and administration of the Cultural and Museum Center Karonga.

1.4. Contestations over terms of memorandum of understanding

Since the opening of the museum in 2004, the two parties involved in its management have been in a constant and intractable conflict that revolves around ownership and control of activities and management at the museum. The nature of the conflict prompts one to ask the question, whose heritage is the Cultural and Museum Centre Karonga and whose heritage are the fossils in Karonga? To understand the dynamics, dialectics and the politics of this conflict I first briefly describe how the partnership was formed and how it is supposed to work.

The stakeholders involved in the management of the museum are The Uraha Foundation Germany, KADET/Uraha Foundation Malawi, and the Department of Museums and Monuments especially its research division which is responsible for history and archaeological research in Malawi (Ministry of Sports and Culture, 2015). The three agreed to manage Cultural and Museum Center Karonga under the framework of a Public Private Partnership (PPP). This is whereby the government and private sector jointly manage a cultural and heritage resource (Ibid, p.2). Uraha Foundation Germany was formed earlier by the Germany Paleontologists following the discoveries at Uraha near Chilumba in Karonga. It is based in Germany where it coordinates trips for those interested to come to Karonga for research and tourism purposes. On 4 November 1999 at the meeting with KADET it was agreed that they should form a foundation, still under KADET, that would specifically deal with the activities of the Cultural and Museum Centre Karonga (Minutes of the first meeting of Uraha Foundation Malawi, 1999). The newly formed Foundation was to be a sister foundation to the one in Germany and as such, it would be called Uraha Foundation Malawi. Among its objectives are: setting up of a Cultural and Museum Center; disseminating knowledge of cultural and natural heritage; facilitating access to the remains of pre-history to all levels of education; preserving prehistoric treasures of Malawi for future generations; facilitating national and international research and co-operation (The Constitution of the Registered Trustees of Uraha Foundation, 1999). Uraha Foundation Malawi exists to champion the heritage interests of local people in Karonga while its counterpart in Germany advances the interests of the German people in Karonga. Interests of the Malawi government are managed by the Department of Museums and Monuments. On 9 December 2004, the three parties entered into a Memorandum of Understanding. The main sections of the Memorandum were as follows: historical and heritage situation of Karonga; objectives of Uraha Foundation Malawi; activities of the Culture and Museum Centre; undertakings by the Foundation; undertakings by the Government; joint undertakings by Government and Foundation; amendments; settlement of disputes; signatures of representatives; model of structure and operations. According to the Memorandum, the main activities and responsibilities of Uraha Foundation Malawi include the following: to support the income-generating sector of the Centre; ensure the sustainability of the Centre and expansion of the project into the educational and tourism sector. This must be achieved by “community sensitization, public relations and cultural programs, the promotion and preservation of games” that are labelled as traditional, crafts and dances, cooperation with schools, the establishment of live arts and crafts village to promote and preserve local arts and crafts as traditional Centre for school groups and collaborate with Uraha Foundation Germany in sourcing expertise and funding. “The responsibilities of Government would be: to support the research and collection sector, the arts and crafts sector and the museum and education sector at the Centre; transfer at least three Government officers to Karonga and provide staff salaries, housing and basic working equipment and running expenses at the Centre; create and fill further critical positions as agreed with the foundation for the proper functioning of the Centre.” The agreed joint activities by both parties are: to set up the initial board of Directors for the Centre comprising of 10 members as agreed between the parties and set standards for the qualification of staff’ (Memorandum of Understanding Between Government of Malawi and Uraha Foundation Malawi, 2004).

A conceptualized model or structure of operations was drawn to indicate the relationship of activities. In this model, the central controlling body is the Board of Directors comprising of members of Uraha and Government of Malawi (Department of Museums and Monuments and Department of Arts and Crafts). In this model, The Department of Museums and Monuments would be responsible for research and collections, exhibition and education. Department of Arts and Crafts would take care of the arts and crafts. Uraha Foundation has two responsibilities of income-generating activities and cooperation. Each party has its own staff that executes these activities at the museum but they all share the same administrative building. The government officials are responsible for technical and professional matters for example conservation while Uraha Foundation takes charge of the administration issues that include collection of revenues.

However, I was told of other agreements that I did not find in the memorandum. I suspect these agreements were made in the later years of operating the museum. For example from the government side, I was told that they had to share the revenues realized at the museum. They claimed it was agreed that 60% should go to Uraha Foundation Malawi for administration and 40% to the government (Karonga Museum Archaeologist, 2018). Another agreement is between Uraha Foundation Germany and Uraha Foundation Malawi. Since the entry fee is not adequate to sustain the museum it was agreed that the Germans would be raising money to assist the Uraha Foundation Malawi. Through the German Professor Uraha Foundation Germany pays the salaries of the staff of Uraha Foundation Malawi (Uraha Foundation Secretary, 2018).

Whereas in other parts of the world the struggle for control and ownership of heritage resources between the official authorities of the museum and the community dwells much on interpretation, representation and presentation of histories, memories and cultures, in Karonga it is different (Chipangura, 2018; Murray & Witz, 2014; Smith, 2006). Here the struggle for control of the museum and by extension the heritage is waged on the field of material resources especially the revenues and government subventions. The maxim seems to be whoever controls finances controls the museum. It was claimed by some junior staff members at the museum that the main source of the conflict is the Department of Museums and Monuments’ failure to honour its obligations enshrined in the Memorandum of Understanding (Former Uraha Foundation Assistant Curator, 2018). For example, the Department of Museums and Monuments does not fulfil its responsibility to pay utility bills, employ security guards and other ground workers. The Department of Museums and Monuments has been behaving in this manner for fourteen years. I was told that it was only in 2018 that the Department of Museums and Monuments started contributing a little towards the utility bills. This was only after Uraha Foundation Malawi had threatened to stop the Department officials from entering the offices, toilets and even start charging them rent for the offices. During the time of my fieldwork in Karonga, the administrative offices and their abrasions had their water supply cut. It was only the amphitheatre and the restaurants that had water running because they have a separate meter. The administrator from Uraha Foundation had this to say on the situation:

We entered into an MOU with Government just before the museum was officially opened by the late state President Dr Bingu Wa Mutharika. The arrangement was that the Government would be seconding to us some officers who will be interested in conserving some artefacts and other fieldwork related to the museum. And the Government would be helping on small things like bills. But we have a very difficult time with the boss that side. Now they have cut the water supply. So from the little resources we get, we have been managing water, electricity and wages apart from cleaning and maintaining it at an acceptable standard. It’s very difficult we don’t have the money. But we have tried. So our colleagues I can’t say much about them. Whatever it is it’s their own business. When Government funding comes they just share among themselves. It is only recently that they started paying at intervals the bills. (Uraha Foundation Malawi Secretary, 2018)

The Uraha Foundation Malawi representative faulted Department of Museums and Monuments for lack of transparency and accountability. He was of the idea that just like in any department or institution the government should have known that they must use one bank account. Thus the government must deposit the funds to the Uraha Foundation Malawi account, which is the account for the Cultural and Museum Center Karonga and everyone must use this joint account. Then he as the administrator/accountant would be able to withdraw so that whoever wants to use must have a proper reason. But instead the government uses another account. He further lamented the use of office fuel in personal vehicles for matters that were not related to the museum work. Referring to the Chief Historian who was in charge from the government side he argued, “we must understand that this money is for public service, you can only travel if you have fieldwork” (Uraha Foundation Malawi Secretary, 2018). Another source of tension is revenue allotments. It was claimed by some junior staff members that the Department of Museums and Monuments insists on getting some collections from the revenues. According to one junior staff member, the Memorandum of understanding stipulates that the revenue is only meant for running the institution and not other activities and that Uraha Foundation Malawi is responsible for generating and collecting the revenues. This junior staff member explained that the entry charges are still low, for example, Mk 100 ($ 0.125) for locals and Mk 500 ($0.625) for international tourists. He further went on to add that there was a time when Uraha Foundation Malawi was going through hard times financially and the Department of Museums and Monuments was getting consistent funding but it never came out to help. It was only when Uraha Foundation Germany intervened with the assistance that things improved (Former Uraha Foundation Assistant Curator, 2018). The tension also takes the form of character assassination and defamation of each other’s personality especially between the two senior officials from both sides. At institutional level Uraha Foundation Malawi felt that they were the right owners of the museum as it was a community project and the staff from Department of Museums and Monuments were only seconded to the project (Chief Historian, 2018). This situation raises the question of who is in charge, who has the authority of running the museum and regulating matters of heritage at the museum, and most importantly why did matters come to this head? According to one officer from the government side who is the archaeologist at the museum, “ownership of museums is also a big issue as the locals feel that they own it” (Karonga Museum Archaeologist, 2018). However, according to him, the The Cultural and Museum Center Karonga belongs to government as it is on public land given by the District Commissioner, “so anything on public land belongs to government” (Ibid). He claimed that the Uraha Foundation Malawi is not honouring the agreement by not giving 40 per cent of the revenues to Department of Museums and Monuments. He also pointed out that the Uraha Foundation Malawi members decline to attend the board meetings of the museums as they have their own board. However, during this fieldwork I also got the same explanation that the Department of Museums and Monuments declines invitations to Uraha Foundation Malawi board meetings (Former Uraha Foundation Assistant Curator, 2018).The government archaeologist explained that the setup is a Public Private Partnership. He claimed that Uraha Foundation Malawi does not want them to be partners. He acknowledged the lack of transparency that exists on both sides of management. He observed and claimed that it has been a long tradition where each party does its business without formally and properly informing the other. For instance, the Uraha Foundation Malawi in 2017 did not inform its partner on the project of renovating the roof, it sold a vehicle donated by the Germans without informing the Department of Museum and Monuments, and Uraha Foundation Malawi went and met the Norwegian Ambassador for funding in Lilongwe without the knowledge or representatives from the Department of Museums and Monuments. How much Uraha Foundation Malawi collects from the tourist fees the Department of Museums and Monuments has no idea. And all documents from Uraha Foundation Malawi are kept in secret. He however acknowledged that the Department of Museums and Monuments does not update Uraha Foundation Malawi on important issues for instance projects and other field trips. He succinctly described the partnership when he said “so it is like a cat and rat relationship” (Karonga Museum Archaeologist, 2018). During the one week fieldwork at the museum, I could closely observe that the staff members of both sides did not get along very well. I was even told that the messengers from the Uraha Foundation Malawi do not readily accept to be sent on errands by the officers on the government side. The antagonism is further accentuated when at times the administrator from Uraha Foundation Malawi is alleged to have written anonymous letters to the Director of Museums and Monuments in Lilongwe complaining about the situation at the museum.

On the other hand, the Department of Museums and Monuments felt that Uraha Foundation Malawi hijacked the project from them. For example the Chief Historian at the museum claimed that after the construction of the museum, KADET/Uraha Foundation Malawi was supposed to handover the museum to the Department of Museum and Monuments. However, after completion the community refused to hand over the facility to government. They insisted that they have to co-manage the institution. In the process the community got the upper hand in controlling everything including the revenues generated at the museum. And they further demanded financial support from government. For the Chief Historian the Uraha Foundation Malawi is the source of the problems. He retorted that:

If we talk of the relationship I need to be honest as head of government section, I am not happy because how can they control the museum because all the expertise is from here; setting up the exhibitions, planning and what have you. All the research that we have been doing how can somebody come from nowhere and say we are the owners of the Museum? It’s a very big problem, I think it’s a very big problem. (Chief Historian, 2018)

According to officials from Department of Museums and Monuments the bone of contention is the controlling of finances.They claimed that this is because the KADET/Uraha Foundation Malawi members are retired citizens with no steady income. The government is unwilling to contribute towards the utilities due to lack of accountability on revenues collected by Uraha Foundation Malawi. Some officials from Department of Museums and Monuments further drew ethnic politics to explain the conflict. They argued that the cultural background of members of Uraha Foundation Malawi as as Ngonde people could also be a factor.This is because the Ngonde are stereotyped as being a self-conceited and aggressive ethnic group in Malawi (Kayuni, 2001). For both sides therefore the Public-Private Partnership is a false one at the museum.

This case of Cultural and Museum Centre Karonga reveals the failure to iron out issues of heritage management in a joint Public-Private Partnership. And also a failure of government to recognize the need for direct community benefit of the heritage resources. Corrine Perkin has noted that in many countries, community engagement has become a popular sentiment for a range of local councils, governments, arts and heritage organizations, promoting the development of strategies and mission statements that emphasize the importance of community consultation and involvement. She further observed that in response, organizations often develop and direct community-based projects to fulfil their own prescribed ideas for engagement. She argued that such models of engagement can be highly successful but without caution can also result in “tokenistic and unsustainable projects which erode the trust of communities and result in a lack of support for future initiatives” (Perkin, 2010, p. 107). She also drew the distinction between what she called “community engagement projects” and “community-driven engagement projects.” The former being a heritage project imposed by the heritage organization or experts and the former being projects that result from an identified need or request from community groups (Ibid, p.116). She argued that the “community engagement projects” are mostly rhetorical strategies to satisfy the needs of the organization or professionals and not the community per se. I find her assessment crucial to this study. Thus the Cultural and Museum Center Karonga was not a “community-driven engagement project” and it was merely a “rhetorical strategy” for the palaeontologists and the government to use the community to get funding as already explained earlier in the article. The Director of Museums and Monuments admitted the problems facing the partnership in heritage management at the Cultural and Museum Centre Karonga and the plans of Department of Museums and Monuments to iron out the outstanding issues:

There is an MOU that was signed between the two parties. Of course, the MOU needs amending and needs to be updated. We did the drafting but what remains now is for our counterparts to look at it and then we agree. Conflicts are always there especially in terms of financial contribution and management. The MOU stipulates a certain amount of percentage of funds collected to go to a certain party. But that is not really working. And also even in terms of administration sometimes there is a misunderstanding. In the sense that the other party may feel that the other is encroaching into others area. And also ourselves may feel that as a partnership every area is our area. So there are really outstanding misunderstandings which we really need to resolve. I have discussed with the Chief Human Resource officer that we really need to plan to go there and resolve both the human resource and administrative issues. (Director of Museums and Monuments, 2018)

One junior worker at the museum maintained that another problem with the Department of Museums and Monuments is corruption. He claimed that there is a syndrome of diverting resources that are meant for projects into personal accounts. He cited the case of Prince Claus Funded project on renovation of the building in which the funds were mismanaged before the completion of the project. He claimed that most of the cultural projects by government are either half done or stalled forever. Because of this “syndrome” he explained that the Royal Norwegian Embassy deals directly with the community through the Uraha Foundation Malawi on its funded projects. For instance, the project on the extension of the amphitheatre in 2018 was supervised by Uraha Foundation Malawi and not Department of Museums and Monuments. At one point the Norwegian Ambassador openly told the Cultural and Museum Center Karonga staff, in the presence of senior officials from Department Of Museums and Monuments headquarters in Lilongwe, that for the officials in the Department of Museums and Monuments the funds for the projects become the allowances for officers with no substantial work done. And when Uraha Foundation Malawi heard this it just compounded their mistrust with their partner (Former Uraha Foundation Assistant Curator, 2018). Figure 3 shows the contested M.O.U.

Figure 3. The contested M.O.U between the department of Museums and Monuments of Malawi and Uraha Foundation.Malawi Source- Cultural and Museum Center Karonga.

While the tension and suspicion raged on between the Department of Museums and Monuments and Uraha Foundation Malawi there was generally a high level of agreement between them that Uraha Foundation Germany played a crucial role in trying to keep them apart in order to have control over the museum.The Chief Historian at the museum was sceptical of the Germany researchers and what they do with the specimens from Karonga. He argued that he has been to a number of German museums but he has never seen Malawian specimens in their museums. He further explained that the German Professor had worked hard in Karonga as he was working for his doctorate. And he later committed himself to research in Karonga and that helped him to be awarded Professorship status at University of Frankfurt. Similarly according to Uraha Foundation Malawi r it seemed despite German Professor’s passion for Karonga he has ulterior motives and interests. He pointed out how the Professor coordinated trips of both students and tourists from Germany of up to forty people. These people paid substantive fees for logistics. And when they arrived, the museum took them on tour to excavation sites apart from visiting the gallery. Both the Department of Museums and Monuments and Uraha Foundation Malawi asserted to the author that German Professor uses Karonga for his professional advancement and economic empowerment. But they complained that the museum does not get enough benefits from the activities of the Professor. It was also revealed that Uraha Germany Foundation failed to honour some of the agreements in payment to Uraha Foundation Malawi, its sister organization. Both the government officials and the community representatives at the museum were skeptical of the German Professor in intercepting some of the funds intended for Uraha Foundation Malawi. Again Uraha Germany Foundation was not interested to capacitate the staff from Uraha Foundation Malawi by offering them the opportunities for training in museum and conservation at the universities in Germany (Chief Historian, 2018; Uraha Foundation Malawi Secretary, 2018).

While Stakeholder Theory may be helpful to understand the dynamics at play in a heritage management like the one under discussion it cannot precisely tell us what is the main cause of the conflict or power play in a project, for instance, the struggle of ownership of heritage at the Cultural and Museum Centre Karonga (Freeman, 1984). It is only a critical historical analysis of the situation that can provide us with the root cause of the struggle over control and heritage management at museum. It is on this understanding that I argue, based, on the historical situation discussed in this article that the fossil heritage have put Karonga as the prism to look into the evolution of the earth and its different life forms. Effectively this has projected Karonga as a significant fossil district and focal point of evolution not only for Malawi but for the global community of people and researchers. In the process what is the local fossil heritage is made global heritage in Karonga and this has implications in its management. This triangulation of interests and relationships makes the heritage work at Cultural and Museum Center Karonga much more complex.

2. Concluding remarks: community, collaboration and heritage management

The case of Cultural and Museum Center Karonga provides a window into the challenges and complexities in management of a heritage resource between the community and the state or any partnering authority. Indeed joint ventures in management of heritage have their own problems that need to be properly managed by addressing the various conflicts that arise. This is very much common when the divergent interests of the parties in the management of heritage are not mutually respected and consequently conflicts erupt. Furthermore, the problems of collaboration in heritage management are compounded when the terms of agreement are not honoured. Elsewhere studies have explored these challenges in the context of relations between the community and the authorities in heritage management. In South Africa Bongani Mgijima explored the relations between the Lwandle Museum and local communities, examining how the creation of the museum involved various forms of conflict including tensions between preservationism and tourism as alternative museum goals and strategies (Mgijima, 2006). In Australia studies have appealed for heritage management to take cognizance of the cultural values of the community owning the cultural heritage resource as a effective and democratic strategy in heritage management (Prangnell et al., 2010). Finally, in Zimbabwe misunderstanding between Gudo community and the Save Valley Conservancy over management of a cultural village led to the community burning the cultural village.This is an instance of power struggle to control heritage resource that in turn affects social relations between the parties involved in heritage management (Mataga & Thondhlana, 2022). What these case studies underline is that conflicts over management of heritage are inevitable and there is need to moot critical strategies to address them. For the case of Cultural and Museum Center Karonga it is apparent in the discussion that key to the conflict and tension over its management was lack of accountability and transparency from both Uraha Foundation Malawi and the Department of Museums and Monuments. This was evident in how they conducted their operations sometimes secretively and not involving the partner which raised suspicions and created an environment of animosity amongst the partners. This is linked to another important source of tension which is dishonoring of the memorandum of understanding between the two parties. It is evident that while there was a contract or terms of common understanding between the key partners there was no sincerity in abiding by these terms. For example there was no sincerity from Uraha Foundation Malawi, to share 40% of the revenue collected at the museum with its counterpart the Department of Museums and Monuments. In retaliation the Department of Museums and Monuments withdrew its commitment for example to pay utility bills at the museum and this exacerbated the tension of managing the Cultural and Museum Center Karonga.

Another important aspect of this case study is the invitation to revisit the old debates on the notion of the community in the context of heritage management (Watson & Waterton, 2010). Thus how do museums imagine and construct their community or who constitutes the community of the museum, and how is this community identified and on what criteria? Specifically to this study we may be obliged to ask, does Uraha Foundation Malawi really represent the whole community of Karonga or its just a grouping of elite individuals with its own interests dressed up as community interests? And how do the revenues collected by Uraha Foundation Malawi reach out to the community it claims to represent? The case of The Cultural and Museum Center Karonga therefore compels the heritage managers and professionals to think critically on how to identify, define and constitute their community they seek to collaborate with.

In closing perhaps it is worth exploring the possible solutions to the issues of heritage management that have bogged down the Cultural and Museum Center Karonga. It is important that the Department of Museums and Monuments and Uraha Foundation Malawi be open to each other in their activities. Thus there is need to promote transparency and accountability so that all forms of suspicions are removed. There is also need for both parties to honour the terms of their memorandum of understanding. The parties need to have a designated time during which they can meet to reflect on their partnership. It is unfortunate that since the memorandum of understanding was signed in 2004 and got expired five years later there has not been any effort to meet and revise the agreement and consider other important emerging issues. While the Department of Museums and Monuments shows willingness to revise the agreement Uraha Foundation Malawi does not want to come to the negotiation table. Such kind of attitude surely can not help matters to resolve the tension. Perhaps there is a need of a third party to come and arbitrate the tension. Finally, there is need to hold the international researchers to commit to the development and sustainability of Cultural and Museum Center Karonga rather than freely allowing them to replicate colonial tendencies of exploiting African heritage at the expense of the owners of this heritage.

Acknowledgments

The research for this article was part of doctoral research when I was in the Department of History at the University of the Western Cape in South Africa from 2016 to 2019. I am grateful to the Andrew W. Mellon Doctoral Fellowship Grant at UWC’s Center for Humanities Research which made this research possible. I am deeply indebted to Professor Leslie Witz who supervised my thesis. I am grateful to members of staff in the Department of Museums and Monuments of Malawi and particularly staff members at Karonga Museum for granting me interviews and access to the museum gallery and important documents which shaped and framed this article.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Mwayi Lusaka

Mwayi Lusaka is a PhD graduate (2020) in History (Heritage issues) from the University of the Western Cape in South Africa. He is former Andrew Mellon Doctoral Fellow at the Center for Humanities Research (CHR) of the University of the Western Cape in Cape Town, South Africa. He once worked as a Principle Researcher in the Department of Museums and Monuments of Malawi. Currently he is a Lecturer of History and Heritage Studies at Mzuzu University in Malawi. His research interests are in History, Politics, Production and representation of history in public spaces, Museums, Cultural Heritage, Tourism, Memory, Critical theory, Political philosophy, Post-Colonial Studies, Cultural theory Migration issues and Identity issues.