African Archaeology Today. (Special section).

Lane, Paul

For most archaeologists across the globe, mention of Africa in the context of archaeological research will probably bring to mind the important discoveries of early stone tools and hominid remains in eastern and southern Africa, the spectacular stone-walled enclosures and other structures at Great Zimbabwe, and images of `tribal' culture, subsistence practices, artefacts and housing that, to some Western eyes at least, can seem reminiscent of a more distant non-African past. For some, the architectural and artistic splendours of Egyptian civilization may also form part of this image of archaeology on the continent, although for complex geopolitical, historical and academic reasons the study of Egyptian archaeology, in all but a few instances, continues to be regarded as distinct from that of the rest of Africa. While accepting that the preceding sentences are something of a caricature of the non-Africanist's understanding and perception of the work of archaeologists on the continent, and that general introductory texts on archaeological methods and theory nowadays give wider coverage of African case-studies than was the case even a decade ago (e.g. Renfrew & Bahn 1991; Fagan 1995), the level of awareness of the breadth of African archaeology, current discoveries and research issues, as well as the many problems that practitioners and managers face on a daily basis, remains abysmally low.

Accounting for this restricted view of African archaeology within the wider discipline is beyond the scope of this Introduction, but any attempt would have to consider, at the very least, the history of Africa's relationship with the West (and, to a certain extent also the East); the dominant images of the continent, its peoples and their lives at large in the world today; the low levels of funding of archaeology across the continent by both African governments and the broader academic community; and the publication crisis which afflicts not just archaeologists but virtually all academics who live and work in Africa (for discussions of these different issues and how they constrain and channel the production of knowledge about Africa's pasts, see e.g. Robertshaw 1990; Schmidt & Patterson 1995; Hall 1996). Whatever the precise reasons (which are bound to be both varied and multi-layered), the relative neglect by the broader discipline of the substantive archaeology of such a vast continent, and the theoretical, methodological and practical issues that its study raises, is disheartening.

It is disheartening in the first place because of the enormous opportunities on offer for field research, given that large tracts of land remain in archaeological terms terra incognita. The results of such surveys not only enhance understanding of regional culture histories, but are also crucial to the establishment of viable sites and monuments registers and effective management and protection of the archaeological resources of individual African countries.

Secondly, there is the very real potential that careful analysis of African archaeological material and contexts has to inform most of the broader `big-issue' theoretical debates in the discipline. Regrettably, aside from the debates over the evolution of our species and the origins of hominid and modern human behaviour, virtually no other major theme in the discipline is routinely discussed using African case-studies. Where such material is considered, it is normally used to illustrate examples of either `secondary' centres of adoption or technological diffusion. That this is so can only serve to reinforce perceptions by the outside world of Africa as `primeval' and peripheral. Yet, whether one examines the emergence of complex hunter--gatherers; the nature and meanings of rock art; plant and animal domestication and the adoption of agriculture; the development of metallurgy; the rise of urbanism and emergence of complex societies; indigenous responses to colonialism; or a host of other issues, in all cases there is much to learn from Africa's experiences and the historical trajectories of its peoples. This is not to say that everything about Africa's archaeology is different. Far from it, there are many similarities and common themes with other parts of the world; but, by the same token, the causes and consequences of such events and processes in African contexts are important and potentially highly informative components of the human story.

Finally, and most importantly, the disciplinary neglect of African archaeology is disheartening because of the growing engagement of Africans themselves in the production of archaeological knowledge, their achievements as fieldworkers and researchers, and their efforts to interpret archaeological sites and monuments to members of their own societies and to preserve them for future generations to enjoy and admire. Sidelining such work, however unintentional, says something about just how peripheral the continent is perceived to be in the modern world, no doubt because of the stories of famines, civil wars, chaos and corruption which dominate the global media's reporting of African affairs. `Nothing works there, so leave well alone', seems to be the message. Increasingly, however, researchers from other disciplines are arguing differently. That is, that the external world has frequently misread or reinvented Africa's physical, economic and cultural landscapes, (e.g. Coombes 1994; Mudime 1995; Fairhead & Leach 1996; Amselle 1998), and that in reality, as the political scientists Patrick Chabal & Jean-Pascal Daloz (1999) put it -- Africa works, but in ways quite distinct from the workings and expectations of Western society. It was in this context that the compilation of this Special Section (and the invitation extended to others to submit shorter notes on research in progress) was conceived. More specifically, an attempt has been made to provide a different `reading' of African archaeology today, which highlights the diversity of its practice and the range of current research agendas.

How, then, to `read' these assembled papers and the briefer notes on other current research? First, and most obviously, the papers provide very concrete demonstration of the breadth of research routinely conducted across Africa, and an indication of current archaeological practice and problems. Thus, for example, the papers by Crossland, Cremaschi & Di Lernia and Schmidt & Curtis illustrate just how under-investigated are large parts of the continent, and how three or four seasons of systematic field survey and test-excavations can virtually transform previous understanding of the culture history of these areas, and the processes of social and environmental change and continuity they experienced. Similar examples could be drawn from most other parts of Africa, and are briefly illustrated in the notes by Kleinitz, Kuper and Reid. The work by Bedaux et al. at Dia in the Inner Niger Delta is similarly transforming interpretations of the settlement history of a particular region, but in this case one which was regarded as comparatively well-known.

In contrast, analytical studies, such as the detailed investigation of mastic traces on stone tools from Steenbokfontein Cave in South Africa by Jerardino, or that of iron technologies in the Kintampo region of Ghana briefly reported on by Watson & Woodhouse, are rarer. There is a similar need for more integrated archaeological and palaeoenvironmental research in Africa, along the lines adopted by Plummer et al. at Kanjera South and other Oldowan sites in southwest Kenya, and by Cremaschi & Di Lernia. Aside from the contribution of substantive knowledge about the past such studies can make, in some cases they also have the potential to inform debates of more direct relevance to Africa's present-day populations, as illustrated by the on-going work of Lane et al.

That analytical and palaeoenvironmental studies are comparatively rare is in part due to the virtual dearth, other than in South Africa and Egypt, of laboratories suitably equipped for archaeometry and the tiny number of African scholars who have trained in archaeological science. However, the scope for such work is enormous, and it is in this area even more than in basic field research that collaboration between African scholars and institutions and those in Europe, North America, Japan and Australasia is urgently needed. There are other benefits to collaborative research, as is illustrated in the note by Breen et al. on recent initiatives to establish maritime archaeology in East Africa, that has involved the Centre for Maritime Archaeology at the University of Ulster, the National Museums of Kenya and the British Institute in Eastern Africa. Although the latter two institutions have been engaged separately and collectively for many years in the investigation of Swahili coastal archaeology, the participation by Irish researchers, aside from providing access to expensive geophysical and diving equipment, has helped generate novel ways of looking at this maritime landscape.

Innovative perspectives on Africa's archaeological remains are by no means the preserve of foreign scholars, however, as ably demonstrated by Mguni's research into the symbolism of one of the more enigmatic type of motifs, known as `formlings', that occur in the rock art of Zimbabwe and to a lesser extent that of South Africa and Namibia. Specifically, although the representational meaning of formlings have preoccupied scholars since the early 20th century, Mguni is the first to have seen the importance of indigenous beliefs as clues to their deeper metaphorical significance. Similar respect for the potential value of indigenous beliefs and conceptions of the past would seem to be crucial to the introduction of successful strategies for managing Africa's rich archaeological resources in face of growing threats of destruction from road building, quarrying and the construction of dams and pipelines as detailed by MacEachern, and illustrated also in the report by Mbida et al. on rescue projects in Cameroon, and by Reid and Watson & Woodhouse in connection with their work in Uganda and Ghana. As MacEachern observes, rescue archaeology and related CRM projects currently provide a much-needed injection of funds into the profession in many African countries, and where properly conducted can yield valuable results. However, he also cautions against uncritical adoption of CRM policies based exclusively on North American or European models, not least because in doing so there is a very real danger that African participants on such projects may end up losing control over their national heritage to expatriate archaeological consultants.

In the light of MacEachern's observations, therefore, it is especially encouraging that two of the other papers in this Special section could be said to provide examples of `good practice'. Namely, Schmidt & Curtis' account of how responding to the destructive threats posed by a programme of urban renewal in and around Asmara has provided opportunities to equip a new generation of young Eritreans with the skills needed to research and manage their own archaeological heritage, while at the same time generating fresh data concerning the Pre-Aksumite cultures of the area. And Bedaux et al.'s work at Dia which, although concerned with specific research questions, has been conceived and designed as part of a broader strategy of intervention (explained in greater detail in the paper by Bedaux & Rowlands), aimed at the protection of Mall's archaeological and architectural heritage in the face of the continuing ravages of the international trade in illicit antiquities that will be only too familiar to readers of ANTIQUITY.

If all this seems rather mundane or recognizable, then my point has been made -- archaeology, in all its manifestations, is and can be practised successfully in Africa. There is much of promise in Africa's archaeology, and its study and promotion deserves better coverage in the archaeological literature than it tends to get at present. However, I would also contend that there other ways of `reading' the significance of these papers, in that all in their separate ways address issues of more general relevance. Thus, the papers by Bedaux et al. and Schmidt & Curtis provide useful comparative perspectives on the role of pastoralism in the emergence urbanism. Crossland's is an excellent demonstration of the potential of historical archaeology on the continent and an indication that archaeologies of colonialism need not be about European expansion. Jerardino's paper raises issues concerning the relationship between technological innovations and changes in hunting strategies. The papers by Cremaschi & Di Lernia and Bedaux et al. describe, among other issues, the emergence during the later Holocene of ceramic-using, complex hunting-gathering-fishing cultures, of which other examples such as those associated with Bambata ware in southern Africa and Kansyore ware in eastern Africa, are known from across the continent and which are worthy of comparative study in their own right. And so on, and so forth. The challenge is not for those of us who conduct research in Africa and on African material to find something interesting and relevant to broader concerns within the discipline, but rather, for archaeologists whose interests lie with other parts of the world to recognise just how rich, exciting and intellectually challenging the study of Africa's pasts can be!

References

AMSELLE, J.-L. 1998. Mestizo logics: anthropology of identity in Africa and elsewhere. Stanford (CA): Stanford University Press.

CHABAL, P. & J.-P. DALOZ. 1999. Africa works: disorder as political instrument. London: The International African Institute, in association with Oxford: James Currey/ Bloomington (IN): Indiana University Press.

COOMBES, A.E. 1994. Reinventing Africa: museums, material culture and popular imagination in Late Victorian and Edwardian England. London: Yale University Press.

FAGAN, B.M. 1995. People of the Earth: an introduction to world prehistory. 8th edition. New York (NY): HarperCollins.

FAIRHEAD, J. & M. LEACH. 1996. Misreading the African landscape. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

HALL, M. 1996. Archaeology Africa. London: James Currey.

RENFREW, C. & P. BAHN. 1991. Archaeology: theories, methods and practice. London: Thames & Hudson.

ROBERTSHAW, P. (ed.). 1990. A history of African archaeology. London: James Currey.

SCHMIDT, P.R. & T.C. PATTERSON. (ed.). 1995. Making alternative histories. Santa Fe (NM): School of American Research Press.

MUDIME, V.V. 1995. The idea of Africa. London: James Currey.

Paul Lane, British Institute in Eastern Africa, P.O. Box 30710, Nairobi, Kenya. pjlane@insightkenya.com