Management of Sacred Heritage Places in Tanzania: A Case of Kuumbi Limestone Cave,Zanzibar Island

Abstract

The use and management of sacred sites that are still in use provide challenges to site managers since visitors fail to abide by rules established for the sacred area. In this study, it was revealed that there are ritual practices, strict taboos and customary laws put in place to control access to cave areas which are regarded as sacred to the locals. The habit of visitors not adhering to the established regulations when visiting caves and their areas have created a disconnection between people and their traditional religions and actually caused some of them to join mainstream religions such as Islam. The article proposes measures to be adopted by the antiquities authority, and other heritage managers in Zanzibar and Tanzania, in general, to provide the best practice for cave visitors and enable the communities to continue using the caves as a crucial part of their religious life without any molestations.

Keywords

Sacred sites management tourism limestone caves communities traditional knowledge systems Swahili coast

Introduction

For a long time, limestone caves have been regarded as places of mystery and intrigue. Prehistoric people used them for shelter and even as a dwelling. Some caves and rock shelters were decorated with some of the earliest known works of art (Baldwin, 2004). Pirates used them to hide their ill-gotten booty (Baldwin, 2004, p. 2). It should be noted that coastal limestone is from coral reefs. When these coral reefs rise above the seawater, polyps which form the reef die, and the reef solidifies into a limestone rock (McClanahan & Obura, 1996). In Tanzania, the largest part of the littoral and islands of East Africa are covered by limestone and red soil mantle above the limestone rock (Ngusaru, 2002; Stockley, 1928; Temple, 1970). Caves form in the exposed limestone when water percolates through the cracks, causing the reef to become honeycombed. When the reef is caused to break down, the combs become limestone caves (Chami, 2009; Ngusaru, 2002).

These limestone caves have become unique and significant to archaeology, heritage, tourism and ritualistic activities on the Swahili coast of East Africa (Chami, 2009; Kiriama, 2009). This also has been the same in different parts of the world whereby limestone caves have been preserving human cultural evidence and settlement patterns for many years (Braidwood, 1963). In many parts of the Swahili coast in Tanzania, limestone caves have been an area for the local communities to pray, worship their ancestors and perform other ritual activities. The local communities believe limestone caves are home to their gods (spirits) and must be left alone or approached with veneration (Chami, 2009; Osuagwu, 2017; Prendergast et al., 2016; Sinclair, 2006). Due to this, they used different methods and techniques to ensure the proper use and preservation of these sacred sites for posterity. As it was noted by Ingrams (1967), Swahili communities along the coast of East Africa have been conducting religious and cultural activities in remembering their ancestors since even before the arrival of colonialists.

In this article, we examine the use and management of sacred heritage places in Tanzania, taking the case of Kuumbi limestone cave in Zanzibar Island, with the aim of suggesting techniques for heritage protection and management of Kuumbi Cave. While we try to discuss how to ensure best practices of sacred sites in limestone cave areas, it should be well known that many studies in Tanzania and Zanzibar Island have concentrated more on the management and conservation of urban monumental heritage, for tourism satisfaction (Chami, 2018b; Chami & Kaminyoge, 2019; Chami & Lyaya, 2015; Juma et al., 2005) and for archaeological excavations (Chami, 2009, 2011, 2013; Juma, 2004; Kourampas et al., 2015; Peter, 2013; Prendergast et al., 2016). The emphasis has, unfortunately, affected how sacred sites in Tanzania are managed by government bodies, which focus on tourism development, and has created interferences and conflicts in the site use and management between local communities and heritage managers.

Therefore, we argue that the prescriptions for best practices of these sites should be developed in Tanzania to ensure that there are no conflicts and interferences of communities’ ritual activities that could result in negative effects for the heritage sites. We further argue that there is a big need to develop the management plan for Kuumbi Cave, which will act as the direction tool to help the site manager govern the site in a professional way. At the end, we propose measures that could help solve the problems of conflict and interference of communities’ ritual activities from tourism and research activities at the site.

Finally, the data presented here have been drawn from various interviews with local communities (traditional healer, cave custodian and community’s elders). Since the cave is also a gazetted cultural site, managers of the site were also interviewed in August–September 2017. Personal observations of activities going on in and around the cave are also included in this data. Actually, one of us, Felix Chami (FC), conducted archaeological work in and around the cave for more than 3 years (Chami, 2009). The first author, Maximilian Chami (MC), has frequently visited the site for his PhD research activities. During all these visits, both of us experienced the local community’s right to practise their cultural activities being interfered with by visiting tourists and research activities.

Overview of Traditional Knowledge Systems in Sacred Sites in Africa

In Africa, the protection of cultural heritage resources tended to focus more on those places that were held sacred by local communities before colonialism (Mahachi & Kamuhangire, 2008, p. 43). The local communities used different traditional knowledge systems. including techniques, methods and customary laws, to ensure the sustainability of these places. With the colonization, the African traditional knowledge systems were destroyed and replaced with European legal systems (Ndoro & Kiriama, 2008, p. 53). However, Jopela (2016) and Makhuvaza and Makhuvaza (2012) argued that in recent years, recognition of traditional knowledge systems has been difficult due to some of the local communities beginning to embrace Christian and Islamic values, thus abandoning their traditional beliefs and practices. As a result, they suggested that the governments have to revisit the issue of rituals and sacred places and enact laws to protect these shrines and elevate them to national heritage status. Furthermore, Oviedo et al. (2005) insisted that many sacred places have not been reflected in the management plans and that existing policy and legal frameworks do not adequately support the sacred places of indigenous and traditional peoples. Therefore, many of these sacred places are not remaining under the management of traditional ownership, which has raised the tension in the use of the local people and the management regime (Oviedo et al., 2005).

In Ghana, Kankpeyeng (2005) explained different traditional knowledge practices such as taboos, norms and penalties used in Tongo-Tenzuk by the Talensi community to preserve this cultural landscape. These traditional knowledge systems were further highlighted as the key to the management and conservation of sacred natural resources in Ghana and other parts of Africa by Sarfo-Mensah and Oduro (2007). However, Eneji et al. (2012) revealed that the acculturation and enculturation of most African communities through the introduction of Christianity and Islam as modern ways of worship has eroded African traditional knowledge and religious strategies for sacred and natural resource conservation and management. Meanwhile, Ceesay and Ceesay (2005) pointed out how prohibition of vegetation cutting and prohibition of hunting within the site were some of the traditional laws used in the conservation and preservation of the sacred pool in Gambia. The case has been similar in Sacred Mijikenda Kaya forest in Kenya, whereby traditional knowledge systems were used to ensure the sustainability of the site. Things such as tree cutting and cattle grazing in the sacred forests are prohibited (Githitho, 2005).

Furthermore, it should be well known that the community laws and traditional rules made the people fear the destruction of the sacred religious sites. For example, Mutta and Munyi (2009) found that social, cultural and spiritual values play an essential role in ensuring the conservation and management of the sacred forest, sacred places, biodiversity and culture itself. In Nigeria, Rim-Rukeh et al. (2013) revealed that wood collection, taboos, totems, bathing and washing of clothes around, near or inside the source of a river or ponds were strictly forbidden. Another traditional method exposed was that fishing or harvesting any aquatic animals within the source of a river was not allowed—traditional guards regularly patrolled the grove and arrested intruders, who reported to the chief priest for the necessary, customary sanctions. Cash fines, bottles of hot drinks, goats, sheep, chicken, kola nuts or alligator pepper was paid by those who broke these laws and was used as a sacrifice to the gods.

Heritage Protection and Traditional Knowledge System in Africa

Osuagwu (2005) argued that it is challenging to implement a legal framework for the protection and management of cultural heritage in Africa due to the failure to recognize traditional knowledge practices, customary laws and community participation. She further posed serious questions on the effectiveness of legal frameworks in Africa and their antagonistic relationship with traditional systems in protection dealing with sacredness (Osuagwu, 2017). Eboreime (2005) discussed customary laws and traditional conservation practices in the protection of cultural heritage resources and proposed that African tradition practices, laws and customs must be incorporated into formal state-based legislation, which many African countries have not done yet.

In Zimbabwe, Chiwaura (2005) described how the government of Zimbabwe tried to incorporate customary laws and traditional conservation practices in the preservation and management of cultural heritage resources. However, it was revealed that the effects of colonialism and modernization posed challenges in integrating traditional conservation practices and customary laws on cultural heritage management in Zimbabwe. Byers et al. (2001) emphasized that traditional spiritual values have influenced human behaviour affecting the sacred sites and have played a role in protecting them until now. Hence, Mawere (2013) argued that Zimbabwe could not underestimate these strategies because they can be more successful if they are integrated into the legal system.

In addition to that, some countries, such as Republic of South Africa, Botswana and Namibia, used the UNESCO convention of 2003 to develop cultural heritage legislation, which included community and traditional knowledge practice in the management and conservation of sites (Madiba, 2005; Mahachi & Kamuhangire, 2008, p. 47; Ndoro & Kiriama, 2008, p. 58). This idea has not been accomplished by many African countries, including Tanzania (Bwasiri, 2008; Kamamba, 2005a, b). The failure is because many of the legislative frameworks are marginalized (Mumma, 2009). Finally, Mumma (2003) examined the role of community-based legal systems in the management of World Heritage Sites in Africa. The researcher revealed that the use of community-based legal systems and integration of the community will improve the effectiveness of heritage management in Africa. The argument was supported by Sullivan (2003), who agreed that the use of traditional conservation practices was beneficial in the management of World Heritage Sites. Ndoro (2003) assessed the management of heritage sites in Africa through traditional and customary systems. The researcher conducted different case studies in various sites such as Silozwane, Domboshavu, the Kasubi tombs and the Kondoa Irangi Rock Paintings and found that customary systems and traditional conservation practices in the management of these sites are denied and side-lined.

Some Historical and Geographical Information: Kuumbi Limestone Cave

Kuumbi Cave was first reported by the team of one of us (FC) in 2006 and 2009 (Chami, 2005, 2009; Sinclair, Juma, & Chami, 2006). The cave, which was archaeologically worked on from 2005 to 2007, is located 40 km to the southern island of Unguja in Zanzibar in the areas of Makunduchi and Jambiani. It is on an elevated coral reef 26 m above sea level and 3–4 km from the Jambiani beach (Figure 1). The limestone cave occupation has now been dated archaeologically back to 30,000 years ago. It continued being a settlement until the early–mid-twentieth century. The people then moved from the cave area to Jambiani and Makunduchi villages and others opted to continue following the tradition and worship in cave and in another nearby cave called Mwanampambe (Chami 2009).

Kuumbi Cave (Kuumbi in Swahili means ukumbi mkubwa [Great Hall]) comprises two large chambers and a number of minor galleries which formed many million years ago as dissolution cavities from the coral limestone reef (Chami, 2009, p. 41). Stalagmites and stalactites containing useful data on the climate change are yet to be investigated. The cave is also a valuable source of fresh water for the residents of Jambani village (Sinclair et al., 2006). There are no obvious rock paintings or engravings, and this is not especially surprising given the rapid lime depositional rate on the cave walls (Sinclair, 2006). The cave is protected by traditional custodians, and a priest who is in charge of the cave is also a renowned preacher at a mosque in the Stone Town of Zanzibar (Chami, 2009, p. 41; Kourampas et al., 2015, p. 295; Prendergast et al., 2016, p. 4).

Figure 1.

Source: Chami (2020).

The main feature of the area is the coral stones. Coral stone rubbles had been arranged in a kind of a circular wall, around 100 m from the cave orifice. The path to the cave had also been walled on all sides. The walls were intact until 2005, when archaeological work began in the area. The effect of this research interference to the revered place was the indication that the place could be entered by anybody, and hence the beginning of the removal of stones from the walls for house construction on the beach village of Jambiani and elsewhere, mainly for tourist hotels. Archaeological surveys of the path to the cave suggest that the path could have been in use from at least the beginning of the second millennium CE, as Chinese coins of that period were found on this path and inside the cave itself (Figure 2). This archaeological survey and the Chinese coins provide an evidence that the cave was occupied from the Stone Age and the path could have used since then. There are also beehives on the roofs of the halls which are not exploited by anybody. Bats are also prevalent, and they are thought to be spirits protecting the cave against any evil. Any visitation by one of the bats in one’s living place suggests an evil thing was done to the cave environment and one is therefore required to visit the cave spirits for mercy.

Figure 2.

Source: Chami (2009, p. 50).

The environment of the cave is also characterized by forest groves. These groves of forest have been preserved near the cave, largely owing to a taboo around desecrating the flora around the cave. Another important taboo is that around desalinating the water at the pool. Visitors are not allowed to urinate or defecate inside the cave or outside around the cave. Visitors are required to leave shoes or sandals far outside the cave. As it is the case now for other resources, people are now despising the taboos and have started to interfere with these sacred features. Moreover, there are in the cave and on the grooves rare and endangered species of monkey endemic to Zanzibar (Shipton, 2016). Bones of monkeys have been recovered from the layers of the Stone Age in the cave excavations (Mbassa & Assey, 2009).

The climate of the entire South East coast of Zanzibar is drier compared to the rest of Zanzibar, even though it does have an annual rainfall of between 1,000 mm and 2,000 mm. This part of Zanzibar now has many tourist hotels due to the pristine sandy and white beaches. The cave holds deep symbolic and cultural meaning for the locals, and research is controlled by requiring permission from the elders of Jambiani and nearby villages associated with it. It is due to Kuumbi Cave that more research has been conducted in this part of Zanzibar and actually more tourists now visit this area to view, in the first place, probably the largest known limestone cave on the coast of East Africa and, second, the oldest archaeological site on the coast of East Africa.

Ritual Activities, Tourism and Social Structures at Kuumbi Limestone Cave

Kuumbi Cave is a special place to the southern district communities, who believed that the cave is a holy place and ancestral spirits (Mizimu in Swahili) reside in the dark recesses of the cave, near the freshwater spring. Offerings such as clothes and food are often deposited near the spring pool by the residents of towns who come for rituals and to pray (Chami, 2020; Sarathi, 2015). Usually, the local communities come to the cave to remember the ways of life of their predecessors/ancestors as an excellent resource to aid in the reconstruction of their life. Moreover, it was revealed that the communities regard the place as a sacred space, as they believe their forefathers were buried in this cave. Truly archaeological work has found a cairn with four skeletons dating back to 10,000–12,000 bce (Figure 3) (Bukenya, 2009; Chami, 2009). The cave is also used for different ritual activities such as healing, protection, thanksgiving and fertility, as well as rituals for other day-to-day problems experienced by members of the community. For example, in healing rituals, usually, sick people visit the cave for prayers to gods and spirits for healing and also to thank them for prayers fulfilled. Women too have ritual spaces in the cave where they ask the spirits to give them children. People, including national politicians, also come to pray for promotion in the cave. These responses imply the importance of the site to the communities. We can argue that the purpose of rituals in Kuumbi Cave to the local communities perhaps is to create fixed and meaningful transformations in their life cycle (birth, puberty, marriage and death) and ecological and temporal cycle, such as seasonal changes (Chami, 2020; Kgatla, 2014; Ray, 1976).

In this cave, usually, rituals and worships are only carried out on Mondays and Thursdays, when the cave is open for ceremonies. Usually, the local communities come with their families, cooking and drinking inside the cave. However, it was revealed that the residents of the southern districts (Jambiani, Makunduchi, Bwejuu and Charawe villages) were the only people who could use the cave for these rituals and other religious activities. Other people who want to use the site for prayers should be escorted by a local, specifically, a traditional healer or custodian. During interviews, traditional healers and custodians pointed out that tourism, research (archaeological excavation) and education activities (students) within the site have a negative effect on the sacredness of the cave. The effect is worse when these activities are done on the selected sacred days (i.e., Monday and Thursday), as they interfere with ritual activities. These interferences have led to the decrease in the number of people who come for worship and to carry out rituals in the cave, and many have opted for other religions like Islam, leading to the loss of traditional knowledge and beliefs about the cave (Mapesa, 2016). This also has been supported by Mhaka (2014), who argued that in the African world, the traditional African religion and rituals are inseparable from culture. This means that any interference in the African religion and ritual practices is the destruction of their culture. Hence, there is a need for the site authority and site manager to find a way to ensure best practice of the site so that the local communities has the right to pray without any interferences from tourism, research activities and secondary school students coming for their geography lessons.

Figure 3.

Source: Chami (2009).

Traditional Knowledge Systems in Kuumbi Cave

As stated earlier, before the colonization of Africa, protection of cultural heritage resources tended to focus more on those places that were held sacred by local communities (Mahachi & Kamuhangire, 2008, p. 43). With the colonization, African traditional knowledge systems were destroyed and replaced with European legal systems, and the local communities began to embrace Christian and Islamic values and Western education (Jopela, 2016; Ndoro & Kiriama, 2008, p. 53). It is this modern aspect which is observed at the Kuumbi Cave sacred site—abandoning traditional beliefs and practices. In fact, the local communities at Kuumbi Cave had their own knowledge to ensure the best practice of their site for the future generation. It was revealed that the local communities were prohibited from mining corals or taking any coral stones from the cave environment for the building or construction of their houses. This also goes with the prohibition of cutting any tree or collecting firewood in the forest near the cave. Hunting any animal also was prohibited within this landscape. For example, the traditional custodian of the cave tells a story of some hunters who were chasing down Dikdik, running with their dogs in support, near the cave environment, and unfortunately, Dikdik vanished behind some bushes and the hunters could not see it again (Chami, 2020; Sarathi, 2015).

Furthermore, it was revealed that the area had been protected by strong cultural taboos against entering without following their religious procedure (Chami, 2009; Prendergast et al., 2016). One was not allowed to enter the cave while wearing shoes. Also, women who were on their menstruation period were not allowed to even come near the cave. This also applied to men who had had sexual intercourse in the past three days—they were strictly prohibited from going to rituals or worshipping in the cave. If anyone did not obey these laws, usually, a bad thing was going to happen to him/her. However, since tourism and research activities have become frequent in this site, these traditional laws are being broken, and the communities believe that the spirits are angered by these activities, as seen in the occasional drying up of the water pool inside the cave. The young ones were taught these practices and laws and involved in the ritual ceremonies, which was the way of transmitting the knowledge from one generation to another (Kankpeyeng, 2005; Kourouma, 2005). In reality, this suggests that the traditional knowledge systems and customary laws are not recognized and respected by the site authority at Kuumbi Cave. This is perhaps due to the failure of Zanzibar Heritage Legislation (Ancient Monuments Preservation Act of 2002) to recognize and harmonize with the customary law and traditional practices in the management of Kuumbi Cave (Chami, 2018a; Eboreime, 2005; Mumma, 2003; Osuagwu, 2005, 2017). Therefore, it can be argued that there is a need to incorporate traditional customary laws and practices in the cultural heritage legislation while ensuring political willingness to move from a state-centred management system for heritage sites to a more integrated one in Zanzibar.

Communities’ Involvement in the Conservation and Management of Kuumbi Cave

Previous studies demonstrates that local community involvement creates a sense of ownership hence sustainability of heritage sites which are found within their communities (Chirikure & Pwiti, 2008). The word ‘involvement’ means the action or process of involving something, someone or the fact of being involved concerning something (Ismail, 2013). In Kuumbi Cave, it was revealed that there was little relationship between the local communities and the antiquities authority. This perhaps was due to the low level of communication and involvement between the village governments and the site authority. We can argue that there is a need for the relationship between the local communities and the antiquities authority to be improved by involving locals in the management and use of the site (e.g., Chirikure & Pwiti, 2008) to ensure that there are no conflicts that could result in negative effects for the heritage site.

Furthermore, the local communities in Kuumbi Cave had been involved in the early stages of decision-making and all activities such as those of gazetting of the site, building of the site museum and opening the site for tourism and research activities (archaeological excavations). However, it would seem that their ideas on the observation of cave taboos were not taken into account (Din, 1993; Saad, 1998). It should be understood that in any sacred site, the management regime has the right to inform the communities about the decision-making and the implementation process of any project which is about to be undertaken in their heritage site, for the locals to react (Munjeri, 2003). This communication with the local communities should also include the respect and acknowledgment of customary laws and traditional management systems sites.

For Kuumbi, it would also seem that the community had very little awareness on the primary heritage legislation (Ancient Monuments Preservation Act of 2002) for the management and conservation of heritage sites in Zanzibar. These observations suggested that there is a need for a collaborative approach to be used by the stakeholders in participatory decision-making and sharing of responsibilities and benefits, by involving hosting communities in all activities affecting the sites. This is because collaboration involves using sacred sites as economic resources and channels for investing back into the community due to the positive impacts of tourism and research activities. These financial and intellectual benefits can help the communities consider a sustainable way of managing heritage sites, as they see their value and hence the need to protect them (Abungu, 2006; Chirikure et al., 2010; Manyanga, 2003). Finally, we can argue that the local communities must be responsible for the management of the Kuumbi Cave site. This is because they have known the site for a long time, and it was found by their communities and they were the appropriate managers of the site.

Management Responsibility of the Kuumbi Limestone Cave: Site Managers

Site managers have been facing challenges and problems in the management and conservation of the sites, which are still in use by the local communities for religious activities. These complexities and challenges have made UNESCO, IUCN and ICCROM try to conduct different programmes, such as the Leadership Programme, with the aim of developing new approaches, frameworks and methodologies to support the heritage managers and other heritage practitioners to ensure best practices on these sites (ICCROM, 2017; Wijesuriya, 2015).

Considering Kuumbi limestone cave, the site managers have experienced similar challenges and complexities in the management and use of the site. As noted earlier, site managers revealed the site has been a very important place for religious activities of the local communities in the southern districts of Zanzibar. However, the site is very important academically, especially when it pertains to research activities. It was noted that this place provided evidence of early human occupation along the Swahili coast of East Africa around 30,000 years ago (Figure 4). An animal, human bones, stone tools and other artefacts were recovered from the cave by the second author (FC) (Chami, 2009; Sinclair, 2006). Research has been ongoing in the cave up to recent time.

Kuumbi Limestone Cave has been one of the upcoming tourists’ destination in a southern part of Zanzibar Island where a lot of tourists have been going to visit the cave. Throughout the week, there have been flows of tourists to the cave, who have caused interference and molestation to the local communities’ ritual activities, especially on Mondays and Thursdays, when the community members come for rituals and ceremonies. The first author of this article (MC) was able to witness one of the interferences and conflicts between a traditional healer and tourists on 28 August 2017 in the cave during the ritual practice. The traditional healer said:

Nyie Wazungu mbona mnatusumbua bwana? Kwanza hata hamjavua viatu. Subirini tumalize kusali kwanza basi (in Swahili), the literal translation means You white men why are you disturbing us? First of all, you have not even removed your shoes. Just wait for us until we finish our prayers.

Figure 4.

Source: Chami (2009).

This was one of the incidents which the researcher was able to witness in the cave. Responses from site managers and observed incidents suggested that there were strong interferences in communities’ ritual practices because of tourism and research activities at the site. These further suggested that the decay of ritual activities sometimes produced little or no feeling of group solidarity and no respect for the communities’ symbols. The decay of rituals provoked a sense of stale ceremonialism in the communities (Collins, 2004; Stark & Finke, 2000). Therefore, the rejection of ritual activities and destruction of and interference in sacred sites lead to the collapse of social orders, structure and violent reactions. Due to this, we argue that there is a need to respect and recognize the ritual practices in sacred sites by developing frameworks or approaches to ensure communities’ ritual and worship activities are not disturbed or interfered with by other activities within the sites. Site managers should be informed on the preferences of the local communities cultural activities in relations to tourism and research activities. Before any excavation was conducted in the cave, the committee was consulted for permission to excavate the site. However, the committee has already died due to the local communities feeling that the site has being taken over by the government and that they have nothing more to say about the use and management of their site.

Concerning the challenges facing the management of the Kuumbi limestone cave, one of the big challenges was lack of a site management plan and the failure of Zanzibar heritage legislation (Ancient Monuments Preservation Act of 2002) to specify clearly terms on the use and management of the sacred site which is still in use by the communities. For example, it has insisted on the protection of the sacred site from any destruction and specified that it should not be used for any purpose inconsistent with its character (see Articles 8 [2a], 11 [1 and 2a]). Still, sacred sites such as the Mwanampambe and Kuumbi limestone caves have been excavated by different researchers, which is against the law. Also, the failure to recognize community involvement and customary laws has been observed in the Act (e.g., Chami, 2018a; Mumma, 2009; Osuagwu, 2005, 2017). This led to a big problem in governing the site.

Other challenges identified were trees around the site being cut in the evening by people who are not affiliated with the site. This led to the destruction of the authenticity of the site. Another challenge was the presence of other people who were taking ritual instruments and offerings from the cave. This led the local communities to think the site managers were the ones who were taking their properties. Water contamination due to the throwing of stones and sand by visitors had led to the water from the spring being polluted, while other people came for hunting in the forest, which was not allowed due to the strong cultural taboos in the communities. Poor road infrastructure, lack of site fence, restaurants, security and curio shops were other challenges mentioned by site managers.

Finally, it was revealed that the number of local people who were coming for rituals has dramatically reduced. This was believed to be due to interferences from tourism, research activities, acculturation and enculturation to modern life, development of science and technology and other managerial issues, as the communities feel their site has been taken over by the government (Ntiamoa-Baidu, 1991). This will lead to the disappearance of the culture of the people of the southern districts due to their failure to practise the rituals that had been part and parcel of their lives. In reality, we can argue that all the problems and challenges faced by the Kuumbi limestone cave perhaps were due to the lack of a management plan for the site and low level of communities’ involvement in the site (Bardagot & Bida, 2005; Chiwaura, 2003). There is a need to develop a management plan for the site which will help govern the site and include the local communities as custodians of the site. This management plan will further help the local communities to space or a chance to practice their ritual activities that will help to safeguard their practices from disappearance e.g. (UNESCO, 2014).

Suggestions for Heritage Protection and Management in Kuumbi Limestone Cave

Several measures are required to ensure the best practice of the Kuumbi limestone cave to solve the problems of interference and conflict in the use and management of the site by the different stakeholders (i.e., researchers, communities, tourists and students) who want to share their experience in the site. First, there is a need to re-establish a management committee for the site. The committee should include the local communities, Ministry of Information, Culture, Tourism and Sport, Department of Tourism, university researchers and members from the antiquities division. The committee will ensure proper planning, protection, development, management and use of the sacred sites like the Kuumbi limestone caves (NMK, 2004). This will help monitor and solve the problems of interferences and conflict in the use of these sites by different stakeholders due to tourism, research and education activities in Zanzibar.

We further argue that the committee, with assistance from the site managers, should identify, recognize and record all ritual and worship ceremonies (i.e., important days) for the local communities and give them the chance, time and space to pray and conduct religious activities without interference from any other activities such as tourism and research. It also can be seen in the Constitution of Tanzania—Article No. 19 (1), Right to Freedom of Religion—that every person has the right to the freedom of thought or conscience, belief or faith, and choice in matters of religion, including the freedom to change his/her religion of faith.

Second, we propose that there is need to elect a traditional custodian to work with the site managers, with the responsibility of supervising and monitoring the development of the sacred site while guiding tourism and performing research activities within Kuumbi Cave. Furthermore, research activities in the sites should be supervised by custodians. Site managers and antiquities authorities should make possible efforts to ensure that local custodians access and supervise all archaeological excavations which may affect them or be of benefit to them (e.g., Bertucci, 1996). This will help solve the problem of communities’ sacrifices being taken from the sacred caves by unknown people and maintain the authenticity and integrity of the place. The antiquities authorities in Zanzibar should understand and recognize the primacy of traditional custodians in managing their sites, as they have successfully cared for the sites for many generations, since even before the arrival of the colonialists (e.g., Ormsby, 2007). This will help promote cooperation between site managers and custodians of the sites towards the enhanced management and proper use of these places.

Third, we propose the need to carry out training for tour guides and provide them with up-to-date information on the various local communities, events and values such as ritual activity days on the sites. This will help the tour guides have accurate information on the local cultural events and on values of the sites and help them enforce appropriate behaviours, restrictions and taboos for the tourists. It will include things such as how to behave when entering a sacred site and when not to take photographs of a ceremony or ritual activities (e.g., Wild & McLeod, 2008). This was observed in the study, whereby a traditional healer was lamenting on how the tourists and students were entering the cave without following the religious procedures. Furthermore, we argue that the dissemination of information to tourists, tour operators and students can lead to people from diverse backgrounds being encouraged to visit the sites on days and at times when the sites are not used for ritual practices and prayers by the local communities. This can be done by preparing tourist brochures and information materials and disseminating them to the different stakeholders. This will help the stakeholders get information and reduce interferences with the local communities’ religious activities in Kuumbi Cave.

Fourth, site managers should involve and integrate the local communities’ specific measures to protect the sites in terms of their traditional knowledge, taboos, traditional laws and practices, and they should be respected by all government authorities and other visitors. Proper utilization of traditional knowledge, taboos and practices in the conservation and management of the Kuumbi sites will help protect the water pool, cave chambers, forest and geological features and prevent illegal hunting (e.g., Berkes, 1999). Additionally, we can argue that the antiquities authorities should ensure the equal distribution of the income obtained from the tourism activities with the local communities. Tourism provides an alternative source of income for any country. If tourism income generated from the site is equally distributed among the communities, there is a great chance that it will be beneficial and support their livelihoods. This can have a positive impact on the conservation and management of the cultural values of these sites (e.g., Ormsby, 2007).

Moreover, we propose the need to develop a management plan for the site which will help consider all these complexities in the use and the management of the Kuumbi limestone cave. Proper management will help the site manager ensure the best practices of the site. Finally, there is a need to ensure community empowerment through active participation in decision-making on any project that affects the local communities and the sites. It was observed in this work, that relationship between Antiquities and local communities’ custodians were normal and trust was lacking due to the failure of their decision being taken into consideration. Therefore, site managers and antiquities authorities should involve the local communities in the decision-making process, which will help develop a strong sense of ownership of the sites (e.g., Wild & McLeod, 2008).

Conclusion

This article has examined the current status of the Kuumbi limestone cave in Zanzibar Island. This cave, since being discovered in 2004 by the second author (FC) of this article, has attracted more researchers from outside the country to come to conduct archaeological research on it. Also, it has become one of the upcoming tourists’ destinations in the southern part of Zanzibar Island, with a lot of tourists coming to visit the cave. Since then, the local communities in the southern districts of Zanzibar (i.e., Jambiani, Bwejuu, Makunduchi and Charawe) have experienced problems in using their site for religious activities. This has posed managerial challenges and complexities to the site managers at Kuumbi cave. Despite the presence of heritage legislation (Ancient Monuments Preservation Act of 2002) recognizing the sacred sites in Zanzibar, it has failed to specify clearly how the sacred sites should be used in terms of tourism, research and religious activities. In our opinion, we believe that lack of a site management plan and a clear framework or guidelines for best practice in the Kuumbi limestone cave has caused all the problems. This could have an impact on the culture of the people and can lead to the disappearance of the intangible cultural heritage of the communities. Hence, serious commitment is in need, from the antiquities authority, site managers and the Ministry of Information, Tourism, Culture and Sport, to ensure the best practice of the site and possible shared opportunities in the use and management of heritage sites, which have cultural and natural values to the different stakeholders who have an interest in the site.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by Deutscher Akademischer Austauschdienst – DAAD through Graduate School Scholarship Programme, 2017–2018 (57243780).

References

Abungu

(2006). Practicing archaeology in Eastern and Southern Africa: Coming of age or the indigenization of a foreign subject? In Layton

, Shennan

& Stone

(eds.), A future for archaeology (pp. 143–157). London, UK: Left Coast Press.

Baldwin

(2004, June 11). How are caves formed? Memphis Archaeological and Geological Society Youth Newsletter, Volume 3, No. 6.

Bardagot

, & Bida

(2005). The conservation of the Palace of the Sultanate of Zinder. In Joffroy

(ed.), Traditional conservation practices in Africa (pp. 40–49). Rome, Italy: ICCROM.

Berkes

(1999). Sacred ecology: Traditional ecological knowledge and resource management. Philadelphia, PA: Taylor & Francis.

Bertucci

M. L.

(1996). Encyclopedia of human rights; second edition. Bristol, PA: Taylor and Francis.

Braidwood

(1963). Prehistoric men. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago.

Bukenya

E. E.

(2009). Report on human and some other Bony remain from Kuumbi cave. In Chami

(ed.), Zanzibar and the Swahili coast from ca.30, 000 years ago (pp. 145–154). Dar es Salaam: E&D Vision Publishing.

Bwasiri

J. E.

(2008). Management of indigenous living heritage in archaeology world heritage site: A case study of Mongoni wa Kolo paintings sites (Dissertation University of Witwatersrand, South Africa: Published M.A). Retrieved from https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/39665789.pdf

Byers

B. A.

, Cunliffe

R. N.

, & Hudak

A. T.

(2001). Linking the conservation of culture and nature: A case study of sacred forests in Zimbabwe. Human Ecology, 29(2), 187–218. Retrieved from https://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs_other/rmrs_2001_hudak_a002.pdf

10.

Ceesay

, & Ceesay

(2005). Conservation at Katchikally sacred crocodile pool. In Joffroy

(ed.), Traditional conservation practices in Africa (pp. 50–55). Rome: ICCROM. Retrieved from https://www.iccrom.org/sites/default/files/ICCROM_ICS02_TraditionalPractices_en.pdf

11.

Chami

(2009). Zanzibar and the Swahili coast from ca.30, 000 years ago. Dar es Salaam, Tanzania: E&D Vision Publishing.

12.

Chami

(2011). The excavation of Mapangani cave, Pemba Island, Zanzibar. Studies in the African Past, 9, 74–79.

13.

Chami

(2013). Excavation of Kiwengwa cave, Zanzibar. Studies in the African Past, 11, 220–224.

14.

Chami

(2018a). Sacred limestone caves: Effectiveness of heritage legislation and institutions in managing sacred heritage places in Tanzania. South Asian Journal of Tourism and Heritage, 11(2), 5–15.

15.

Chami

M. F.

(2018b). Tourist touching loyalty in cultural heritage sites in Tanzania: A case of Zanzibar Stone Town, Zanzibar Island. International Journal of Economics, Business and Management Research, 2(4), 306–316. Retrieved from http://ijebmr.com/uploads2018/IJEBMR_02_246.pdf

16.

Chami

M. F.

(2020). “Sacred limestone caves”: Management and the use of sacred heritage places in limestone cave areas along the Swahili coast of Indian Ocean in Tanzania (PhD Published Thesis, The Brandenburg University of Technology Cottbus–Senftenberg). Retrieved from https://opus4.kobv.de/opus4-btu/files/5108/Maximilian+Chami_A–1b.pdf

17.

Chami

, & Kaminyoge

(2019). Closed house of Wonders museum: Implications to the tourism of Zanzibar Stone Town, UNESCO World Heritage Site. Journal of Tourism, Heritage & Services Marketing, 5(1), 31–36. Retrieved from https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/93887/1/MPRA_paper_93887.pdf

18.

Chami

, & Lyaya

(2015). Assessment of tourist satisfaction in cultural heritage tourism destinations in Tanzania: The case of Zanzibar Stone Town tourism. Studies in the African Past, 12, 259–276.

19.

Chirikure

, & Pwiti

(2008). Community involvement in archaeology and cultural heritage management: An assessment from case studies in Southern Africa and Elsewhere. Current Anthropology, 49(3), 467–485.

20.

Chirikure

, Manyanga

, Ndoro

, & Pwiti

(2010). Unfulfilled promises? Heritage management and community participation at some of Africa’s cultural heritage sites. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 16(1–2), 30–44. doi: 10.1080/13527250903441739.

21.

Chiwaura

(2003). Community involvement in management of the cultural heritage: A case study of Gede heritage site in Kenya. Nairobi, Kenya: University of Nairobi Research Archives.

22.

Chiwaura

(2005). The development of formal legislation and the recognition of traditional customary law in Zimbabwe’s heritage management. In Ndoro

& Pwiti

(eds.), Legal frameworks for the protection of immovable cultural heritage in Africa (pp. 18–21). Rome, Italy: ICCROM. Retrieved from https://www.iccrom.org/sites/default/files/ICCROM_ICS05_LegalFrameworkAfrica_en.pdf

23.

Collins

(2004). Interaction ritual chains. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

24.

Din

K. H.

(1993). Dialogue with the hosts: An educational strategy towards sustainable tourism. In Hitchcock

, King

V. T.

, & Parnwell

M. J. G

(Eds.), Tourism in South-East Asia (pp. 327–336). London, UK: Routledge.

25.

Eboreime

(2005). Nigeria’s customary laws and practices in the protection of cultural heritage with special reference to the Benin Kingdom. In Ndoro

& Pwiti

(eds.), Legal frameworks for the protection of immovable cultural heritage in Africa, (pp. 9–12). Rome, Italy: ICCROM.

26.

Eneji

C. V.

, Ntamu

, Unwanade

, Godwin

A. B.

, Bassey

J. E.

, Willaims

J. J.

, & Ignatius

(2012). Traditional African religion in natural resources conservation and management in Cross River State, Nigeria. Environment and Natural Resources Research, 2(4), 45–53. Retrieved from http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/enrr/article/view/21376

27.

Githitho

A. N.

(2005). The sacred Mijikenda Kaya forests of coastal Kenya traditional conservation and management practices. In Joffroy

(ed.), Traditional conservation practices in Africa (pp. 62–69). Rome: Italy: ICCROM. Retrieved from https://www.iccrom.org/sites/default/files/ICCROM_ICS02_TraditionalPractices_en.pdf

28.

ICCROM (2017, February 20). Linking nature and culture in world heritage site management. Retrieved from http://www.iccrom.org/international-course-on-linking-nature-and-culture-in-world-heritage-site-management/

29.

Ingrams

W. H.

(1967). Zanzibar: Its history and its people. London, UK: Frank Cass and Co. Ltd.

30.

Ismail

M. H.

(2013). Local community involvement in cultural heritage management: A case study of Melaka Heritage Trail, Malaysia (Ph.D. thesis). Portsmouth, UK: University of Portsmouth.

31.

Jopela

(2016). The traditional custodianship system in Southern Africa. In Abungu

G. O.

, Ndlovu

, Thiombiano

, Zulu

& Varissou

(Eds.), Traditional management systems at heritage sites in Africa, (pp. 13–24). South Africa: African World Heritage Fund, South Africa.

32.

Juma

(2004). Unguja Ukuu on Zanzibar, Archaeological study of early urbanism. Uppsala, Sweden: University of Uppsala.

33.

Juma

, Ali

, & Khamis

(2005). Management of Zanzibar cultural heritage. In Mapunda

B. B.

& Msemwa

(eds.), Salvaging Tanzania’s cultural heritage (pp. 317–323). Dar es Salaam, Tanzania: Dar es Salaam University Press.

34.

Kamamba

(2005a). Conservation and management of immovable heritage in Tanzania. In Mapunda

B. B.

& Msemwa

(eds.), Salvaging Tanzania’s Cultural Heritage (pp. 262–270). Dar es Salaam, Tanzania: Dar es Salaam University Press.

35.

Kamamba

(2005b). Cultural heritage legislation in Tanzania. In Ndoro

& Pwiti

(eds.), Legal frameworks for the protection of immovable cultural heritage in Africa (pp. 13–17). Rome, Italy: ICCROM. Retrieved from https://www.iccrom.org/sites/default/files/ICCROM_ICS05_LegalFrameworkAfrica_en.pdf

36.

Kankpeyeng

(2005). The cultural landscape of Tong-Tengzuk traditional conservation practices. In Joffroy

(ed.), Traditional conservation practices in Africa (pp. 16–23). Rome: Italy: ICCROM.

37.

Kgatla

S. T.

(2014). Rituals of death enhance belief and belonging: Analysis of selected elements of Northern Sotho death rituals. Online Journal of African Affairs, 3(6), 81–86.

38.

Kiriama

(2009). Heritage and the politics of remembrance: The case of Shimoni slave caves in Kenya. Journal of Studies in the African Past, 7, 79–89.

39.

Kourampas

, Shipton

, Mills

, Tibesasa

, Horton

, … Boivin

(2015). Late quaternary speleogenesis and landscape evolution in a Tropical Carbonate Island: Pango la Kuumbi (Kuumbi Cave), Zanzibar. International Journal of Speleology, 44(3), 293–314. Retrieved from https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.5038/1827–806X.44.3.7.

40.

Kourouma

S. K.

(2005). The ritual hut of Sosso-Bala in Niagassola conservation values and practices. In Joffroy

(ed.), Traditional conservation practices in Africa (pp. 70–75). Rome, Italy: ICCROM.

41.

Madiba

(2005). The new heritage protection act for South Africa. In Ndoro

& Pwiti

(eds.), Legal frameworks for the protection of immovable cultural heritage in Africa (pp. 54–55). Rome, Italy: ICCROM.

42.

Mahachi

, & Kamuhangeri

(2008). Administrative arrangements for heritage resources management in Sub-Saharan Africa. In Ndoro

, Mumma

& Abungu

(eds.), Cultural heritage and the law. Protecting immovable heritage in English speaking countries of Southern Africa (pp. 43–51, ICCROM Conservation Studies 8). Rome, Italy: ICCROM.

43.

Makhuvaza

, & Makhuvaza

(2012). Empty promises and false hopes. Conservation and Management of Archaeological Sites, 5(1), 9–34.

44.

Manyanga

(2003). Intangible cultural heritage and the empowerment of local communities: Manyanga (Ntaba zi ka Mambo) Revisited. Proceedings of the 14th ICOMOS General Assembly, 27–31 October. Victoria Falls. Retrieved from http://www.international.icomos.org/victoriafalls2003/papers/C3-Munyaradzi.pdf

45.

Mapesa

M. W.

(2016). Traditional management systems in natural world heritage sites in East Africa. In Abungu

G. O.

, Ndlovu

, Thiombiano

, Zulu

& Varissou

(eds.), Traditional management systems at heritage sites in Africa, (pp. 43–50). South Africa: African World Heritage Fund.

46.

Mawere

(2013). Traditional environment conservation strategies in pre-colonial Africa: Lessons for Zimbabwe to forget or to carry forward into the future? Afro Asian Journal of Social Sciences, 4(4), 1 Quarter I: 1–23. Retrieved from http://www.onlineresearchjournals.com/aajoss/art/105.pdf

47.

Mbassa

G. C.

, & Assey

R. J.

(2009). Analysis of Bony remains excavated from Kuumbi and Mwanampambe caves. In Chami

(ed.), Zanzibar and the Swahili coast from ca.30, 000 years ago (pp. 155–178). Dar es Salaam, Tanzania: E&D Vision Publishing.

48.

McClanahan

, & Obura

(1996). Coral reefs and nearshore fisheries. In McClanahan

(ed.), East African ecosystem and their conservation (pp. 67–100). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

49.

Mhaka

(2014). Rituals and taboos related to death as repositories of traditional African philosophical ideas: Evidence from the Karanga of Zimbabwe. Academic Research International, 5(4), 371–385.

50.

Mumma

(2003). Community-based legal systems and the management of world heritage site. In de Merode

, Smeets

, & Westrik

(Eds.), World heritage papers (Vol. 13, pp. 43–44). Paris, France: UNESCO.

51.

Mumma

(2009). Framework for legislation on immovable cultural heritage in Africa. In Ndoro

, Mumma

& Abungu

(eds.), Cultural heritage and the law protecting immovable heritage in English-speaking countries of Sub-Saharan Africa (pp. 97–108). Rome, Italy: ICCROM.

52.

Munjeri

(2003). Anchoring African cultural and natural heritage: The local community awareness in context of capacity-building. Paper Presented at a Conference Organised by the Netherland National Commission for UNESCO in Collaboration with the Netherlands Ministry of Education, Culture and Science. Retrieved from http://www.international.icomos.org

53.

Mutta

, & Munyi

(2009). Kenya case study: Protecting Maasai and Mijikenda Healers’ rights. In Protecting community rights over traditional knowledge: Implication of customary laws and practices, key findings, and recommendations 2005–2009 (pp. 15–16). IIED. ISBN: 1843697726, 9781843697725.

54.

Ndoro

(2003). Traditional and customary heritage systems: Nostalgia or reality? The implications of managing heritage sites in Africa. In Merode

E. D.

, Smeets

& Westrik

(eds.), Linking universal and local values: Managing a sustainable future for world heritage (pp. 81–84). Paris, France: UNESCO World Heritage Centre.

55.

Ndoro

, & Kiriama

(2008). Management mechanism in heritage legislation. In Ndoro

, Mumma

& Abungu

(eds.), Cultural heritage and the law. Protecting immovable heritage in English speaking countries of Southern Africa (pp. 53–64). Rome, Italy: ICCROM.

56.

Ngusaru

(2002). Geological history. In Richmond

(ed.) A field guide to the seashores of Eastern Africa. Stockholm, Sweden: Department of Research and Cooperation, SAREC.

57.

NMK (2004). Sacred Mijikenda Kayas: World heritage nomination dossier. Kenya: National Museums of Kenya.

58.

Ntiamoa-Baidu

(1991). Conservation of coastal Lagoons in Ghana: The traditional approach. Landscape and Urban Planning, 20, 41–46.

59.

Ormsby

(2007). Cultural and conservation values of sacred forests in Ghana. Paper Presented at the Sacred Species and Sites Meeting, Cambridge Centre for Landscape and People, 23–28 September. Cambridge, UK.

60.

Osuagwu

(2005). Implementation and enforcement of immovable cultural heritage legislation in Nigeria. In Ndoro

& Pwiti

(eds.), Legal frameworks for the protection of immovable cultural heritage in Africa (pp. 56–61). Rome, Italy: ICCROM.

61.

Osuagwu

V. N.

(2017). Managing sacred places as heritage in West Africa. In Ndoro

, Chirikure

& Deacon

(Eds.). Managing heritage in Africa. Who cares? (pp. 110–121). New York, NY: Routledge.

62.

Oviedo

, Jeanrenaud

, & Otegui

(2005). Protecting sacred natural sites of indigenous and traditional peoples: An IUCN perspective. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN.

63.

Peter

(2013). Archaeological study of Amboni limestone cave, Tanga in Northeastern coast of Tanzania (M.A. dissertation). Dar es Salaam, Tanzania: University of Dar es Salaam.

64.

Prendergast

, Rouby

, Punnwong

, Marchant

, Crowther

, & Kourampas

(2016). Continental Island formation and the archaeology of defaunation in Zanzibar, Eastern Africa. PLOS One, 1–23. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0149565.

65.

Ray

B. C.

(1976). African religion: Symbol, ritual, and community. London, UK: Prentice Hall.

66.

Rim-Rukeh

, Irerhievwie

, & Agbozu

I. E.

(2013). Traditional beliefs and conservation of natural resources: Evidence from selected communities in Delta State, Nigeria. International Journal of Biodiversity and Conservation, 5(7), 426–432. Retrieved from http://www.academicjournals.org/app/webroot/article/article1380045794_Rim-Rukeh%20et%20al.pdf

67.

Saad

(1998). Public participation and community design in tourism development: Case studies and implications for a model of tourism development in Langkawi, Malaysia (unpublished master’s thesis). Ames, IA: Iowa State University.

68.

Sarathi

(2015). Preliminary report on excavations conducted at the site of Kuumbi cave (PangolaKuumbi) Zanzibar. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Akshay_Sarathi/publication/268513219_SEA_Project_Kuumbi_Cave_Excavation_Report_JuneJuly_2015__Expected_July_2015/links/57109cff08aefb6cadaaadd7.pdf?origin=publication_detail

69.

Sarfo-Mensah

, & Oduro

(2007). Traditional natural resources management practices and biodiversity conservation in Ghana. A Review of Local Concepts and Issues on Change and Sustainability. Retrieved from http://ssrn.com/abstract=1017238

70.

Shipton

(2016). Reinvestigation of Kuumbi cave, Zanzibar, reveals later Stone Age coastal habitation, early Holocene abandonment, and Iron Age reoccupation. Azania: Archaeological Research in Africa, 51(2), 197–233.

71.

Sinclair

(2006). The cave, the coast, and ocean links. In Blundell

(ed.), The story of the emergence of humans and humanity in Africa (pp. 152–159). Cape Town, South Africa: Mercury Crescent, Wetton.

72.

Sinclair

, Juma

, & Chami

(2006). Excavations at Kuumbi cave on Zanzibar in 2005. Studies in the African Past, 5, 95–107.

73.

Stark

, & Finke

(2000). Acts of faith: Explaining the human side of religion. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

74.

Stockley

G. M.

(1928). Report on the geology of Zanzibar protectorate. London, UK: Government of Tanzania.

75.

Sullivan

(2003). Local Involvement and Traditional Practices in the World Heritage Site: Linking Universal and Local Value. Managing a Sustainable Future for World Heritage. Paper Presented at a Conference Organised by the Netherland National Commission for UNESCO in Collaboration with the Netherlands Ministry of Education, Culture and Science, http://www.international.icomos.org. Accessed, 25 August 2017 .

76.

Temple

P. H.

(1970). Geomorphology. Tanzania Notes and Records, 71, 20–54.

77.

UNESCO (2014). Basic texts of the 2003 convention for the safeguarding of the intangible cultural heritage. Paris, France: Intangible Cultural Heritage Section Division for Creativity, Culture Sector.

78.

Wijesuriya

(2015). Living heritage: A summary. Rome, Italy: ICCROM.

79.

Wild

, & McLeod

(2008). Sacred natural sites. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN.