By Princess Eugene Majuru
Abstract
Place names are central to the construction of national identity, historical memory, and post-colonial sovereignty. In Zimbabwe and Zambia, several sites of political and cultural significance continue to bear colonial names that neither reflect indigenous history nor honour African custodianship of land. This article examines Mount Hampden, Zimbabwe’s emerging capital city, and Victoria Falls, one of the world’s most significant natural heritage sites, arguing that the retention of these colonial names represents an incomplete decolonisation process. It contends that renaming these sites is not merely symbolic but constitutes a necessary act of historical justice, cultural restoration, and policy coherence.
1. Introduction: Place Names and Post-Colonial Statecraft
Scholars of post-colonial studies have long argued that decolonisation extends beyond political independence to include cultural, linguistic, and epistemic reclamation (Ngũgĩ wa Thiong’o, 1986). Geographic names, imposed during colonial occupation, function as enduring instruments of symbolic power. They normalise colonial presence and perpetuate the marginalisation of indigenous histories.
In Southern Africa, while many urban centres and landmarks were renamed following independence, others remain conspicuously unchanged. This selective decolonisation raises critical questions about national priorities, historical accountability, and the meanings attached to sovereignty in the post-independence era.
2. Mount Hampden: Colonial Commemoration in a Post-Colonial Capita
Mount Hampden derives its name from John Hampden, a 17th-century English political figure associated with parliamentary resistance to monarchy in Britain. While significant within British political history, Hampden bears no historical, cultural, or geographical relationship to the land now designated as Zimbabwe’s future capital.
The decision to retain this name is particularly problematic given the symbolic role of a capital city. Capitals function as embodiments of national identity and political legitimacy. As such, their naming carries ideological significance. Zimbabwe’s renaming of Salisbury to Harare in 1982 demonstrated an early and deliberate commitment to decolonisation, restoring historical recognition to pre-colonial authority associated with Chief Neharawa.
In contrast, the continued use of Mount Hampden reflects a retreat from this decolonial logic.
3. Indigenous Custodianship and the Mbari Clan
Historical and oral traditions confirm that the area currently known as Mount Hampden was under the custodianship of the Mbari clan prior to colonial occupation. Like many African communities, the Mbari possessed indigenous place names embedded in cultural meaning, land use, and spiritual identity.
The erasure of these names during colonial land appropriation was a deliberate act of dispossession. Restoring an indigenous name—either the original Mbari designation or a new name derived from Mbari heritage—would constitute a corrective intervention aligned with constitutional commitments to cultural recognition and traditional leadership.
Policy precedents across Africa demonstrate that such renaming strengthens, rather than destabilises, national cohesion by reaffirming historical continuity.
4. Victoria Falls and the Politics of “Discovery”
Renamed Victoria Falls in 1855 by David Livingstone after Queen Victoria, the waterfall’s colonial name exemplifies the imperial practice of symbolic possession through naming. This act disregarded the long-standing indigenous name Mosi-oa-Tunya, meaning “The Smoke That Thunders,” which reflects both the physical characteristics and spiritual significance of the site.
Importantly, the argument that “Victoria Falls” functions as a global tourism brand is empirically weak. The attraction’s international prominence predates modern tourism branding and is rooted in its natural grandeur. Moreover, the name Mosi-oa-Tunya is already globally recognised through UNESCO’s dual designation and widespread usage in academic, cultural, and touristic contexts.
Thus, the perceived economic risk of renaming is largely unfounded.
5. Zimbabwe–Zambia Relations and Policy Paralysis
Bilateral discussions between Zimbabwe and Zambia on jointly renaming Victoria Falls were initiated but ultimately abandoned. This policy inertia represents a missed opportunity for regional leadership in heritage reclamation. While diplomatic coordination is desirable, it should not function as a veto on decolonial action.
From a sovereignty standpoint, each nation retains the right to determine place names within its jurisdiction. Zimbabwe, therefore, can proceed with renaming its section of the falls to Mosi-oa-Tunya irrespective of Zambia’s position, and vice versa. Leadership in heritage reform often requires unilateral initiative, subsequently normalised through regional consensus.
6. Colonial Figures and the Question of National Honour
Neither Queen Victoria nor John Hampden occupy meaningful positions within Zimbabwean or Zambian historical consciousness. Their continued commemoration through prominent geographic naming privileges colonial memory over indigenous experience and liberation history.
In contrast, indigenous names:
-
Affirm pre-colonial governance systems
-
Restore African epistemologies
-
Support intergenerational historical education
-
Align state symbolism with constitutional values
Decolonisation, in this context, is not an act of erasure but of recalibration.
7. Policy Recommendations
This article proposes the following policy interventions:
-
Immediate renaming of Mount Hampden through a consultative process involving traditional leaders, historians, and local communities, prioritising Mbari heritage.
-
Formal adoption of Mosi-oa-Tunya as the official name of Victoria Falls within Zimbabwe’s jurisdiction.
-
Renewed bilateral dialogue between Zimbabwe and Zambia grounded in heritage policy rather than tourism branding anxieties.
-
Institutionalisation of a national toponymy review framework to address remaining colonial place names systematically.
8. Conclusion
The persistence of colonial place names at sites of national importance signals unfinished decolonisation. As Zimbabwe constructs a new capital and continues to promote its most iconic natural heritage site, it faces a critical choice: to reproduce colonial symbolism or to affirm African historical agency.
Reclaiming indigenous geography is not an exercise in nostalgia. It is a declaration of confidence, sovereignty, and historical responsibility.
Comments
About Author
