In last week's instalment, I conscientiously drew the reader's attention to the identity of the Mambos who ruled in Bukalanga. I also mentioned that the mamboship of the Bakalanga can be divided into two parts; that of the Chibundule dynasty (that ruled in Butua after the collapse of Great Zimbabwe in about AD 1450 until 1685) and that of the Nichasike dynasty that ousted Chibundule and ruled until around AD 1830. Those who have been following this series resplendently argue that despite the discussion in last week's edition, the names of the mambos, their specific time of rule, issues of successions and general information on the royal lineages remains distant from the ordinary Bakalanga people. In fact, in the last few weeks, I have held many fruitful discussions on this issue with ardent readers like Kedibonye Kombani and Alvin Nsenga whose interest in the approach I use to invigorate ruins such as Domboshaba, Vukwi and Madandume led to this article.
Enlivening heritage sites for public appreciation is a tortuous duel that requires serious imagination, comprehension of archaeological evidence emanating from such ruins, appreciation of oral traditions and some historical sources. Striking a balance of these various sources is a lucid way of bringing up a complete picture of how life was like during the hey-day of the heritage sites in question. Many critics have lambasted me in recent times for stubbornly sticking to archaeological data for explaining the evolution and indeed zenith of the Bakalanga state of Butua. Many a times, I have reasoned that archaeological interpretation offers one of the best methods of cross checking the validity of historical data by straightening out oral traditions. My reasoning follows a simple logic that since there are no written documents detailing the ways of life of people in Southern Africa dating before the 16th century, archaeology is simply the most reliable discipline that traces humankind's past into antiquity.
