By News of The South
Harare, Zimbabwe (News Of South) – The ongoing controversy surrounding the repatriation of Zimbabwe’s First Chimurenga heroes and sacred cultural artefacts from Britain has raised serious questions about the observance of traditional protocols, the spiritual significance of ancestral possessions and the responsibilities of those entrusted with their return.
At the centre of the debate is the timing of the repatriation process during November, a period traditionally regarded by some Zimbabwean communities as spiritually sensitive and commonly associated with the Month of the Goat. The involvement of Reverend Dhamasani and other members of the Zimbabwean delegation has brought renewed attention to the delicate relationship between government-led repatriation initiatives and the traditional customs governing ancestral matters. While the return of ancestral remains and sacred objects is an important step towards addressing historical injustices, the process cannot be treated as an ordinary administrative exercise. For many African communities, ancestral remains and sacred artefacts carry deep spiritual, historical and cultural significance. Their movement, handling and reception may require consultation with traditional custodians and the observance of established customary practices.
The Spiritual Significance of the month of a goat
In Zimbabwean traditional belief systems, November is widely associated with Mbudzi, the Month of the Goat, and is regarded by many communities as a sacred period during which certain traditional ceremonies and activities are restricted. These restrictions are not necessarily identical across all communities, but they reflect longstanding beliefs concerning the relationship between the living, the ancestors and the spiritual order. Certain ceremonies, particularly those involving ancestral communication, spiritual consultation and significant customary rituals, may be postponed until the appropriate period. The question therefore arises: should a repatriation process involving ancestral remains and sacred objects proceed during a period when traditional protocols may restrict such activities? This is not simply a matter of choosing a convenient date. For communities that observe these restrictions, the timing of a ceremony is part of its spiritual legitimacy.
Sacred Artifacts Belong to different clans and traditions
Another important issue concerns the cultural diversity of the artefacts associated with the repatriation process. The objects reportedly involved originate from various clans and were historically used for different purposes. Their significance cannot be understood through a single, generalised interpretation of Zimbabwean traditional culture. Some sacred objects may have been associated with royal authority, traditional leadership, ancestral ceremonies, spiritual practices or the preservation of clan identity. Others may have served different ceremonial or cultural functions. Each object has its own history, meaning and relationship with the community from which it originated. Consequently, the handling and eventual return of such artefacts should be informed by their provenance and the customs of the relevant clan or traditional institution. An object considered sacred by one community cannot automatically be subjected to the same ceremonial arrangements as an object belonging to another. This is why the participation of knowledgeable traditional custodians, descendants and relevant cultural authorities is essential. The repatriation of sacred heritage must recognise that Zimbabwe is home to different clans, lineages and traditional institutions, each with its own customs and ancestral responsibilities.
The Question of ancestral appeasement
Concerns about the timing of the process have also brought attention to the possibility of an ancestral appeasement ceremony, commonly understood as a traditional process of seeking forgiveness, reconciliation or spiritual restoration where customary obligations are believed to have been breached. Within communities that observe such practices, an appeasement ceremony is not simply a symbolic public event. It may involve traditional authorities, spiritual custodians, clan representatives and other individuals recognised as having the appropriate customary responsibilities. The purpose is to acknowledge an alleged breach of protocol and seek to restore harmony according to the beliefs of the affected community. However, the need for such a ceremony, its timing and who should conduct it must be determined through appropriate consultation rather than political or administrative convenience. An appeasement ceremony should not become a substitute for transparency about what has actually been repatriated.
Reverand Dhamasani and the responsibilities of the delegation
Reverend Dhamasani has been identified among those involved in the Zimbabwean delegation associated with the repatriation process. He was the head of delegation to London around November 1. A ceremony was scheduled 2 November 2026. The delegation’s involvement raises broader questions about how individuals entrusted with ancestral heritage are selected and whether sufficient consultation takes place with the traditional custodians of the communities concerned. Repatriation requires more than diplomatic arrangements, transportation and official ceremonies. It requires an understanding of the historical origins of the remains or artefacts, their cultural significance and the responsibilities attached to their return. The involvement of religious figures, government representatives and heritage officials can contribute to the process, but it does not remove the need for consultation with the clans and traditional institutions to which the ancestral heritage belongs. No single individual or delegation can automatically speak for every clan whose sacred possessions may be involved.
Human Remains and artefacts must not be confused
A further concern is the need to distinguish clearly between the return of human remains and the return of cultural artefacts. These are related but fundamentally different categories of heritage.
Human remains require particular attention to identification, provenance, dignity and the rights of descendants. Sacred artefacts require their own historical documentation and culturally appropriate arrangements for handling, custody and return. Public statements should therefore specify whether a repatriation involves human remains, cultural objects or both. The physical transfer of artefacts must not be presented as confirmation that the skulls of named First Chimurenga heroes have been returned unless reliable identification and transfer records support that conclusion. Similarly, an approved repatriation does not necessarily mean that the objects or remains have already arrived in Zimbabwe. Such distinctions are essential to maintaining public confidence in a process of profound national importance.
Traditional Custodians Cannot be an afterthought
The repatriation of Zimbabwe’s ancestral heritage is not exclusively a matter between the British and Zimbabwean governments. It also concerns the families, clans and communities whose ancestors and sacred possessions were removed during the colonial period. These communities carry traditions and responsibilities that predate modern government institutions. Their involvement should begin at the planning stage, not merely when an official ceremony has already been arranged. Traditional leaders and spiritual custodians should be consulted about appropriate dates, ceremonial requirements, identification procedures and the eventual custody or resting places of returned heritage. Where artefacts originate from different clans, the process should recognise those differences rather than impose a uniform national ceremony without sufficient consultation.
A historic sensitivity requiring sensitivity
Zimbabwe’s efforts to recover ancestral remains and sacred objects from British institutions are part of a wider African struggle to restore heritage displaced during colonial rule. Yet the importance of repatriation makes proper procedures even more necessary. The return of ancestral heritage should be an occasion for historical restoration, dignity and reconciliation, rather than uncertainty over what has been returned, who has authority over it and whether traditional protocols have been respected. The Month of the Goat controversy highlights a broader lesson: cultural heritage cannot be separated from the beliefs and customs of the communities that created, protected and inherited it. Where mistakes are believed to have occurred, appropriate traditional consultation and, where warranted, ancestral appeasement may provide a culturally meaningful way forward. But such measures must be accompanied by accurate documentation, transparent communication and respect for the different clans involved.
Zimbabwe cannot claim to be restoring ancestral dignity while overlooking the very traditions that give that heritage its meaning.
The successful return of First Chimurenga heritage will ultimately be measured not only by what arrives on Zimbabwean soil, but by whether its history, spiritual significance and rightful custodians are respected. Zimbabwe awaits the end of the sacred month of a goat. Zimbabwe is currently observing the sacred Month of the Goat, traditionally recognised by some communities as running from 15 October to 15 November. As of today, 10 November 2026, only five days remain before the end of this spiritually significant period. During this time, certain traditional ceremonies and activities involving ancestral matters are restricted in accordance with customary beliefs. With the sacred period drawing to a close, attention now turns to what will happen after 15 November, particularly concerning the reported repatriation of First Chimurenga ancestral remains and sacred cultural artefacts. Will there be an ancestral appeasement ceremony to address concerns over traditional protocols? Will the authorities clarify what has been returned from Britain and how the sacred objects belonging to different clans will be handled? Zimbabweans following this historic process now await developments after the sacred period, when appropriate traditional ceremonies may resume. The coming days could provide an important opportunity to establish whether ancestral protocols will be respected and whether the long-awaited repatriation process will move forward with greater clarity, dignity and cultural responsibility.
Comments
About Author
