University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln

Nebraska Anthropologist Anthropology, Department of

1997

On Two Eras of African : Colonial and National

Clea Koff

Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/nebanthro

Part of the Anthropology Commons

Koff, Clea, "On Two Eras of : Colonial and National" (1997). Nebraska Anthropologist. 107. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/nebanthro/107

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Anthropology, Department of at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Nebraska Anthropologist by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. On Two Eras of African Archaeology: Colonial and National

e/ea Koff

This paper examines the role of archaeology in the political agendas of both colonial and post-colonial African governments. Both fotms of government have utilized selective interpretations of the archaeological f8COI'd to further their political goals. The marriage between archaeologists and colonial administrations is examined in light of the temporal coincidence between the international rise of professional archaeology in the 18908 and the zenith of colonial occupation in sub-Saharan . The concurrent nature of these two phenomena resulted in employment within colonial administrations for the majority of professional archaeologists. The archaeology of the post-independenoe 818 reflects a shift in parad"1gfII, as evident in the kinds of questions asked by archaeologists. Interpretation of the archaeological record, however, has often remained within the service of government agendas. In some African countries, archaeology is now heralded as a lubricant for extra-ethnic national unity. Meanwhile, the governments of other countries have suppressed archaeology, while they weigh its potential for fueling ethnic struggles as peoples gain 'evidence' for their ancient origins and subsequent rights to /and. Examples of the role of archaeology in Africa are provided from various sites in the eastern, western, and southern regions of the continent.

Introduction as an archaeologist's paradigm. In It is true that colonial-era Africa two additional factors have archaeology in Africa served to justify played a role in the interpretation of the and validate the colonial effort It is archaeological record: (1) the shift from also true that post-independence-era amateur to professional archaeology in archaeology has effected a shift in the late 19" century and (2) the funding interest areas and interpretations, and and employment sources for the primary aim of which is to bolster archaeologiSts, from the colonial . One aspect of administrations to state universities or African archaeology has remained foreign institutions. The first factor constant, however, and that is the brings to bear the rise in increasingly archaeological record. Indeed, many of scientific and empirical archaeological the sites investigated during colonialism investigations. The evolution of in Africa are the same sites investigated professional archaeology, particularly today. It is the interpretation of these the "new" archaeology, constrains sites that has changed, along with the "Socially induced fantasies· as it can explanatory powers of more recent provide an 'objective' mode of data scientific knowledge such as collection and interpretation (Trigger radiocarbon dating. Interpretations of 1990:318). Professional archaeology the African archaeological record have does not always succeed in reflected the paradigms of both the deconstructing "fantasies· but it allows practitioners and the end-users, for a challenge that is more difficult to whether the latter be a South African refute or ignore. settler community or a cohort of The second factor, funding for Afrocentric scholars. archaeologists, can often dictate, if not As several authors (Thomton the interpretation of the archaeological 1997; Trigger 1990; Ucko 1990) have record, at least the questions being observed, interpretation is only as thick asked by a given investigation.

47 CoIonial-era funding carne from within to their subjects - both at home and either the colonial administration or from abroad - their innate right to rule the European universities. Therefore, the colony. Propaganda of this nature questions asked were aligned with encourages the support of the home phenomena of interest or concern constituency while also indoctrinating within European academia. Many post­ new generations born into the short end independence African governments of the colonial stick who hear stories have, in turn, funded archaeological about 'how things used to be' but can questions that speak to indigenous see only 'how things are now.' history and prehistory. Some African Archaeology, then a fledgling field governments, however, have not practiced by explorers and amateurs, transcended the European funding played a role in this great persuasion. relationship, often because archaeology It cannot be argued that colonial is not recognized as a discipline that administrations relied solely upon can serve African needs. Therefore, archaeology to support their regimes, government funds and even university only that the interpretations of the majors are not allocated to the study of archaeological record tended to the past Archaeology in those conform to the dominant paradigm of a countries is still funded from European 'backward' Africa at the mercy of not­ institutions. wholly-evolved peoples incapable of Through site examples, this governing themselves (Holl 1995:193). paper will illustrate how the three This paradigm is manifested in the use fadors, paradigm, empirical research, of diffusion theories in early and funding sources, have influenced interpretations of the African African archaeology in the colonial and archaeological record. Through such post-independence eras. interpretive frameworks and selective presentation or recognition of Myth-making and Hegemony: archaeological data, archaeologists in Colonial.ra African Archaeology the colonial era were not compelled to The Diffusion of the White Man's state their explicit support of a given Butr:Jen' imperial agenda, they had only to The governments of seven naturalize that agenda. European countries colonized Africa In , which was part of during the late 18oos: Britain, Belgium, French West Africa until 1960, one can , , , , and see the filter of one archaeologisfs (Figure 1). African response to paradigm in Jean Maes' 1924 the European "­ interpretation of the megaliths of the ranged from strategic acceptance, such Tondi-Daro site: as 's acceptance of Belgium over Germany, to armed resistance, For he who knows the psychology of such as 's defeat of Italy. Negroes, one can surely ascertain that Colonial rule, however, was this undertaking was not executed by the representatives of the Negro race successfully imposed in every country because it represents such a save Uberia, regardless of the considerable amount of effort, without indigenous response. Particularly in the any immediate utility and bearing no instances where there was resistance to relation to the regular requirements of colonization, colonies were settled feeding and reproduction, the only through ·pacification'. The colonists functions which are really appealing to sanctioned this use of force by claiming the Negro (Maes in HoIl1997:62).

48 Maes' interpretation Beyond the Hamitic Myth: accomplishes several feats at once. It reaches into the past to indicate that The site of Great Zimbabwe peoples other than Africans were at exemplifies the evolution in Tondi-Daro in presumably ancient archaeological interpretations from times, and yet, speaks to the present to echoes of the Hamitic Myth to a characterize the African "race" as one in recognition of indigenous African need of support to accomplish goals origins. Great Zimbabwe is represented beyond somatic functions. This site is by a series of stone ruins in central now interpreted as the material remains Zimbabwel . The ruins were first alluded of a Malian agrarian ritual. The to in sixteenth century Swahili megaliths are associated with burials statements gathered by Portuguese that date by' radiocarbon to the first half colonists in neighboring Mozambique of the -,va century A.D. (Connah (Trigger 1989:131). The first 1987:109; HoI11997:62). archaeology-minded visitor to the site The suggestion that Africans was Cart Mauch, a German geologist­ were not the original occupants of explorer, in 1871. Mauch's explanation Africa is a theme that permeated for the stone enclosures and buildings colonial propaganda. This theme was a lacks both dynamic and empirical component of validation for the sufficiency, although it is parsimonious European mission civilisatrice that could with the prevailing views of Afrikaaners: then be characterized by colonists as a dutiful continuation of "the onerous task I believe I do not err when I suppose that of their white forerunners" (Holl the ruin on the mountain is an imitation 1995:191). The "forerunners" were, of the SoIomonic temple on Mount among others, the Caucasian Moria, the ruin on the plain a copy of the palace in which the Queen of Sheba foreigners of Char1es Seligman's dwelled during her visit to Solomon Hamitic Hypothesis. Seligman (1930) (Mauch in Mallows 1984:75). contended that light-skinned, Hamitic speakers from the 'Near Easf civilized Cecil Rhodes, the progenitor of and were responsible for any the British South African Company, and signs of culture in sub-Saharan Africa for whom Zimbabwe was named prior to (Fagan 1997:52). The Hamitic independence in 1980 (Southern Hypothesis (later known as the Hamitic Rhodesia), embraced Mauch's Myth) was invoked in earty interpretation. Rhodes had already led archaeological explanations throughout settlers into the interior of the country to Africa, at sites such as the royal search for gold while suppressing Bacwezi complexes of Uganda and the African resistance with force (Trigger Lobi stone ruins of Upper Volta (de 1989:131). The British South Africa Barros 1990:161; Schmidt 1990:256). Company commissioned the first As Trigger (1989:130) notes, -rhe role scientific study of the stone ruins. The that was assigned to the prehistoric goal was to find more evidence to Hamitic conquerers bore a striking bolster Great Zimbabwe as "a symbol of resemblance to the civilizing missions the justice of European colonization, that European colonists had been which was portrayed as the white race claiming for themselves since the late returning to a land that it had formerty nineteenth century." ruled" (Trigger 1989:131). J. T. Bent was the first archaeologist to conduct excavations at

49 Great Zimbabwe in 1891. The contrast to Mauch and Hall, both excavations yielded trade materials only Randall-Maciver and Caton-Thompson several hundred years old in the midst were professional archaeologists of Bantu occupation sites. Perhaps trained by Flinders Petrie (Mallows under the combined weight of a 1984:76-7). dominant diffusionist paradigm, Trigger (1990:312) notes that employment by the British South Africa the interpretations of an African origin Company, and "unscientific selection of for Great Zimbabwe were accepted by architectural and stylistic features,· Bent professional archaeologists both in concluded that Great Zimbabwe was Africa and beyond. For example, constructed by a "northern race coming Connah (1987) states: "There was from Arabia ... a race closely akin to the never any doubt about its African Phoenician and the Egyptian- (Fagan origins in the minds of those who really 1997:52; Trigger 1989:131). understood the archaeological Bent was followed by Richard evidence.· Yet, many settlers and Hall, who was also appointed by the amateur archaeologists in Rhodesia British South Africa Company as wholly refuted such interpretations. Curator of Great Zimbabwe in 1902. Richard Hall (1909) went so far as to Hall, an amateur archaeologist, also publish Prehistoric Rhodesia as a interpreted the ruins as those of a challenge to Randall-Maclver's Phoenician colony that later interpretation. Hall's book "made degenerated. Hall, however, was explicit for the first time the racial dismissed in 1904 after other theories that were implicit in excluding archaeologists decried Hall's Africans from the consideration of destruction of archaeological evidence Zimbabwe's pas~.{Trigger 1989:134). at the ruins through disposal of The strong negative reactions to stratified deposits he described as "the interpretations of Great Zimbabwe as filth and decadence of the Kaffir originating in African culture suggests occupation· (Trigger 1989:133). that while archaeology may be given The archaeological criticism of free rein to support a colonialist Hall ushered in a new era of ideology, it shall not so easily be investigation into Great Zimbabwe allowed to challenge it. Accordingly, despite Southern Rhodesia's continued some archaeologists involved with the status as a British colony. Indeed, well­ Great Zimbabwe site could no longer within the colonial time frame, several compromise their integrity as colonial archaeologists excavated at Great tools and registered their discontent Zimbabwe and emerged with through speaking out and resigning incontrovertible evidence for its African from their posts. For example, Peter onglns. David Randall-Maciver Gar1ake, Inspector of Monuments since excavated in 1905 and interpreted the 1964, resigned after the government of ruins to be of medieval African origin. Southern Rhodesia released a "secret In 1926, Gertrude Caton-Thompson order ... that no official publication utilized new stratigraphic techniques should indicate that Great Zimbabwe that culminated in the interpretation that had been built by blacks- (Trigger "... all the existing evidence, gathered 1989:134). In contrast, one from every quarter, still can produce not profeSSional archaeologist who worked one single item that is not in at Great Zimbabwe after 1950, accordance with the claim of Bantu succumbed, "against his own better origins and a medieval date- (Caton­ judgment,- to settler demands for a Thompson in Mallows 1984:77). In so supportive reading of the past (Trigger This story is in direct contradiction to 1989:135). contemporaneous interpretations of a Nonetheless, by 1993, Great Bantu presence in southem Africa from Zimbabwe is introduced in archaeology at least the sixteenth century, if not books as a site "renowned as the place significantly earlier. However, like where the indigenous southem African Garlake at Great Zimbabwe, not all tradition of drystone architecture archaeologists during this time period reached its most impressive subsumed empirical evidence to the achievement" (Phillipson 1993:231). pressures of creating a support for Great Zimbabwe has been referred to colonialism. Holl (1997:58) notes that as "a mystery" (Mallows 1984) but as Henri Lhote argued in 1952 for an Connah (1987:184) states, "the only ancient African origin for iron 'mystery' ... connected with this site is technology in West Africa despite the why it should have taken archaeologists ubiquity of the diffusionist explanation so long to recognize it for what it is." at that time. Archaeologists were able to Towards an Altemative History: argue minority opinions such as Lhote's The Wane of Colonial Power with greater strength towards the end of Compounding the pull of colonial the colonial era in.part due to the "rising administration employers and tide of African nationalism" (Fagan adherence to dominant paradigms, it 1997:53) and to the development of an must be considered that many of the absolute dating method. Radiocarbon early coloniai-era archaeologists were dating allowed for an objective, often cliques of like-minded individuals scientific fact to stand on its own, either who, although producing archaeological in glaring contrast to or in glorious histories 'by night,' by day were an harmony with prevailing dates attributed "interconnected, overlapping, and tightly to a site. Indeed, debates such as the knit [network] of ... soldiers, teachers, antiquity of Great Zimbabwe were and civil servants who were obliged in settled in one swift motion. their daily tasks to enforce, directly, or Radiocarbon dating "not only confirmed indirectly, colonial policies and the accuracy of Caton-Thompson's ideologies" (HolI, 1995: 193). Some medieval chronology for Great archaeologists, therefore, initially Zimbabwe but also showed that iron­ validated the imperial and ethnocentric using farmers had been living in most colonial exercise. In tum, govemments parts of tropical Africa for at least 2,000 could more easily employ selective years" (Fagan 1997:53). interpretations of the archaeological Trigger (1990:309) argues that record. This is evidenced in this 1967 "archaeology has played a significant South African Bureau of Information role in helping to promote the publication: decolonization of Africa" as its "often unanticipated findings have altered South Africa has never been exclusively entrenched interpretations of African a Black man's country. The Bantu have history" in spite of the extemal no greater claim to it than its white influences (i.e., colonial ideology, population. Bantu tribes from Central European hegemony) on the diScipline. and East Africa invaded South Africa at the time when Europeans landed at the The question then becomes, does Cape [1652] (South African Yearbook in archaeology play a role in the Gawe and Meli 1990:100). promotion of nationalism or do unanticipated findings alter those interpretations as well?

51 archaeologists and Africanists, though, Out of the Frying Pan? were swept with the "winds of change" Post-independence Archaeology and embraced a new paradigm under By 1980, almost all countries in the encouragement of developing Africa had won independence from their independent governments. colonizers (Figure 2). The exceptions In the 1960s, countries such as were 14 square miles of Spanish North , Senegal, Ghana, and Africa, several islands, and South Africa included archaeology as a course of (if apartheid is considered "colonialism study within the newly developed of a special typej which gained majority universities. This led to employment for rule only in 1994 (Gawe and Meli professional expatriate archaeologists 1990:98; Griffiths 1995:71-2). Along and training for indigenous students. with the ubiquitous name changes (i.e., As with the colonial administrations Belgian Congo became Zaire), there before them, "the nationalist was a shift in the dominant ideology governments that provided for the from imperialism to nationalism. infrastructure of education and research Archaeology, however, did not turn this also took an interest in supporting comer at the same rate in every archaeological research that would country. Where some independent serve its needs ... to locate and governments recognized an opportunity document a precolonial history for the for advancement of their agendas in continent" (Thornton 1997:55). The archaeological discoveries, others paradigm at work was one that feared that they would have a promoted equality of Africans in both disunifying effect on the local populace the past and the present, to counter the and archaeological investigations were earlier myths of an ahistorical people discouraged. In addition, some and a continent that was "unprogressive archaeologists were wary of nationalist and lacked complex societies· (Stahl agendas to incorporate archaeological 1996:17). evidence into the promotion of a "glorious past,· for they knew too well The Place of Archaeology in Nationalist the academic shortcomings of other Amca:Cen~rorPeriphe~? agenda-driven 'evidence,' such as Paul Sinclair (1990) details a Seligman's Hamitic Hypothesis Mozambican example of .archaeology (Thornton 1997:56). within the post-colonial paradigm and Phillip de Barros (1990:165) nationalist institutions. Mozambique notes that by the 1970s the diffusionist gained independence from Portugal in paradigm "was seriously questioned, • 1975. Prior to this time, colonial particularly as excavations "brought the archaeologists all but ignored first tangible archaeological evidence Mozambican prehistory, preferring to that sub-Saharan African civilization focus on early colonial sites. The few was much older than once believed.· children who attended secondary Some archaeologists continued to school (less than one percent of 12 argue for a short African history, million) were not taught non-Portuguese including Munson who in 1971 prehistory (Sinclair 1990:152). eschewed paleobotanical evidence of Immediately after independence, an indigenous origin for a West African however, President Machel directed the sorghum domesticate in favor of a (renamed) Mondlane University to focus diffusionist explanation. (De Barros on sciences and humanities relevant to 1990:165). The majority of Mozambicans. This focus led to the

52 establishment of a Department of places importance on who arrived Archaeology and Anthropology at the where first, particularty in regions where university that has prioritized the role of there is no written history: "Ethnic archaeology in creating a post-colonial groups, like nations, seek historic cultural identity. The excavation of the charters, and archaeological evidence Manyikeni site in south central plays an important role in creating Mozambique is an example of a charters that legitimize claims to land collaborative effort between and power" (Stahl 1996:17). Peter archaeologists and local residents. Robertshaw encounters this "dilemma" Sinclair (1990:154) notes that in Uganda, "where both the govemment Manyikeni's "national significance ... and the president have repeatedly was reflected in the issue of postage invoked the notion of a Cwezi empire in stamps and the change of the locality the pre-colonial era as a symbol of name to the name of the archaeological Uganda's glorious and united pasr site.- (Robertshaw 1996:8). Robertshaw's In contrast to the Manyikeni own archaeological research, however, excavations, regional archaeological suggests a Cwezi 'empire' made up of investigation in has been several pOlities. Although he has not suppressed outside of the been stopped from carrying out his paleoanthropological work of the research so far, his public lectures and Leakeys and the British Institute in interviews have been objected to by Eastern Africa. Schmidt (1995) listeners. Robertshaw identifies "the ascribes this selective investigation of challenge [as maintaining] scholarty the past to· the Kenyan governmenfs Integrity, but also without undermining attempt to subdue the land claim the govemmenfs laudatory efforts to struggles of the several ethnic groups use the past to promote national unity" that live in Kenya, such as the Luo and (Robertshaw 1996:8). Kikuyu: This "dilemma" may parallel concems of archaeologists during the Archaeology, if allowed to flourish at the colonial era, such as Gartake at Great regional level, can easily be identified Zimbabwe, in that they recognize the with an attempt to valorize the history ... conflict between their expert of one ethnic group at the perceived investigations and the 'party line' expense of others. The state's deep investment in [paleoanthropological spread by the govemment institutions. studies) has been an ideal way to Both situations involve the manipulation neutralize regional histories ... in an of archaeology to support govemment enterprise that is extra-ethnic: it focuses policy. Yet, where it appears clear that on a 'population' devoid of ethnicity­ colonial policy aimed to suppress indeed, devoid of humanness. State African individuality, it is not so clear investment in this perspective creates a that the "unifying" policies of Uganda national identity from a period of history are so detrimental. As Robertshaw so remote that it imitates mythological time. Using a belief that is globally notes, "What, then, should be done endorsed, the state can draw on the when archaeological results seemingly neutrality of ancient nonhumans to contradict the version of the past being provide Kenya with a new universal myth promulgated by a democratically of origin (Schmidt 1995:128-9). elected govemment ... aimed at the promotion of national pride and ethnic Ann Stahl (1996) echoes reconciliation?" (Robertshaw 1996:8). Schmidt's recognition of archaeology as Beyond pride and reconciliation, a tool in an evolutionary scheme that some govemments have seen in

S3 archaeology possibilities for social places, but in Africa its methodologies reform. Peter Schmidt (1995:132-6) "helped to create a new African history describes the initial peripheralization of that principally aimed at understanding archaeology in in the 1970s at what happened to particular peoples the hands of Marxists at the University and regions at specific times." A site of Dar es Salaam's School of History. from Cameroon exemplifies the When N. J. Karoma, an archaeologist altemative interpretations that were at the university, proposed a curriculum enabled by the emergence of the "new" in archaeology, "he was greeted with archaeology. derision and challenged on the grounds During the colonial era, that archaeology was not relevant to the archaeology of the Cameroonian socialist experiment." Schmidt Grassfields relied heavily upon sporadic theorizes that the rejection of surface collections and interpretations archaeology as a bourgeois of oral histories to establish a picture of undertaking was grounded in an recent settlement by immigrants from interpretation of archaeological the North (Holl 1997:54). Under the empiricism as "the collection of facts influence of the "new" archaeology, which themselves are produced under however, excavations began in 1974 the aura of 'science' and therefore take and their results have shown habitation on a false objectivity." In addition, the of the grassfields since A.D. 1000, with Historians queried, "Does archaeology iron technology from the third or fourth produce food?" century. Ho" (1997:64) sums up that Over the course of a decade, "the nature of the ironworking sites, the however, archaeology was elevated to technologies used, and the scale of its own curriculum, primarily due to a production achieved a" contradict the visit to China by representatives of the colonial stereotype, according to which Tanzania National Scientific Research African peoples lacked any kind of Council and the Ministry of Culture in technological skill and initiative, a 1978. In China, the Tanzanians stereotype given credibility by the fact "observed firsthand the power of that the first Europeans to travel there antiquities in building a national socialist observed highly dispersed, sma"-scale state, particularly through Chinese smelting operations." emphasis on the contributions of The colonial-era interpretation of worker-artisans to remarkable royal the grassfields conformed to the sites" (Schmidt 1995:136). By 1986, paradigm that viewed Africans as archaeology, bolstered by non-profit incapable of technological funding, assumed its place in development. Empirical investigation, Tanzanian academia as a useful although fallible at the interpretative discipline. level, at least allows the question, "what was the cause of change at the The Role of the ·New· Archaeology grassfields?" This question, in tum, led Post-colonial archaeology has investigators to recognize the also experienced a methodological processes of trade destabilization that evolution akin to that which resulted led to the social structure that early from the radiocarbon breakthrough Europeans encountered (Ho" 1997:65). during the colonial era: the "new" archaeology. Trigger (1990:316) Conclusion cautions that the "new" archaeology is Janette Deacon (1990:47) not a panacea for a" times and a" characterizes the legacy of colonial-era

54 archaeology in Africa in the following "Precision" and "objectivity" are manner: "... the colonialist attitude of themselves constrained by the denigration of things non-European "received wisdom of [the] times" (Ucko persisted in British academic circles well 1990:xiii). One is left with the Simple, into the 1970s. The sin, as Howells yet Significant, recognition that the (1985:24) phrased it, 'seems to have relationship between archaeology and been mere inattention.'· "Inattention,· the political revolutions in Africa over perhaps, but only so far as one's the last century is complex, influenced paradigm does not allow one to by both extemal forces and intemal perceive "unexpected data" (Barker, filters. 1989). Do shifting paradigms alone explain the change in interpretations of the African archaeological record - or ENDNOTES even the explication of just one site, such as Great Zimbabwe? Or have Iphillipson (1993:231) notes that "The word more rigorous empirical methods zimbabwe in the language of the Shona, means either 'stone houses' or 'venerated houses'.' engendered less biased Southern Rhodesia was named Zimbabwe after interpretations? gaining independence from Britain. Holl (1995:185) cites Thomas 111 Prehistoric Rhodesia, Hall "maintaineD that Kuhn in arguing that new interpretations the 'decadence' of the Bantu is a 'process which do not necessarily refled greater truth: bas been in operation for veIY many centuries [and] is admitted by all authorities', attributing What occurs during a scientific this process to a 'sudden arrest of intelligence' revolution is not fully reducible to a that 'befalls evety member of the Bantu at the reinterpretation of individual and stable age ofpuberty'" (Trigger 1989:134). data ... Given a paradigm, interpretation of data is central to the enterprises that explore it. This enterprise can only REFERENCES CITED articulate a paradigm, not correct it. Paradigms are not corrigible by nonnal Barker, Joel. science at all (Kuhn 1970:121). 1989 Discovering the Future: The Business of Paradigms, ~ ed. Film distributed by Trigger (1990:309) notes that many Chart House Learning Corporation and Infinity Limited. archaeologists adhere to the concept that objectivity is elusive, but are Connah, Graham. concemed by "hyper-relativist" 1987 African Civilization~PrecoIonia/ Cities assertions that "archaeological and States in Tropical Africa: An Archaeological Perspactive. cambridge interpretations are nothing more than a University Press, Cambridge. reflection of subjective factors,· a position that "[undermines] an De Barros, Phillip. independent role for archaeology as a 1990 Changing Paradigms, Goals, and source of insight into history and Methods in the Archaeology of Francophone West Africa. In A History behaviour ...." In keeping with this of African Archaeology, ed. by P. sentiment, Trigger maintains that "the Robertshaw, pp. 155-174. Heinemann, most constructive contribution that Portsmouth. archaeology can make to African Deacon, Janette. development is to determine as 1990 Weaving the Fabric of precisely and objectively as possible Research in . In A what happened in the past" (Trigger History of African Archaeology, ed. by 1990:318). P. Robertshaw, pp. 39-58. Heinemann, Portsmouth.

ss Fagan, Brian. Schmidt, Peter, R. 1997 Archaeology in Africa: Its Influence. In 1995 Using Archaeology to Remake History Encyclopedia of Precolonial Africa, ed. in Africa. In Making Alternative by J. Vogel, pp. 51-54. Alta Mira, Histories: The Practice of Archaeology Walnut Creek. and History in Non-Western Settings, ed. by P. R. Schmidt and T. C. Gawe, stephen and F. Meli. Patterson, pp.149-182. School of 1990 The Missing Past in South African American Research, Santa Fe. History. In The Excluded Past: Archaeology in Education, ed. by P. Sinclair, Paul. stone and R. MacKenzie, pp. 98-108. 1990 The Earth is Our History Book: Unwin Hyman, London. Archaeology in Mozambique. In The Excluded Past: Archaeology in Griffiths, leuan. Education, ed. by P. stone and R. 1995 The African Inheritance. Routledge, MacKenzie, pp. 152-159. Unwin New York. Hyman, London.

HolI, Augustin. Stahl, Ann. 1995 African History: Past, Present, and 1996 Archaeological and Anthropological Future. In Making Alternative Histories: History. In African Archaeological The Practice of Archaeology and Review 13(1):15-18. History in Non-Westem Settings, ed. by P. R. Schmidt and T. C. Patterson, pp. Thomton, John. 183-211. School of American 1997 Historiography in Africa. In Research, Santa Fe. Encyclopedia of Precolonial Africa, ed. 1997 Pan-Africanism, Diffusionism, and the by J. Vogel, pp. 54-58. Alta Mira, Afrocentric Idea. In Encyclopedia of Walnut Creek. Precolonial Africa, ed. by J. Vogel, pp. 58-65. Alta Mira, Walnut Creek. Trigger, Bruce. 1989 A History of Archaeological Thought. Mallows, Wilfrid. Cambridge University Press, 1984 The Mystery of the Great Zimbabwe: A Cambridge. New Solution. W. W. Norton, New 1990 The History of African Archaeology in York. World Perspective. In A History of African Archaeology, ed. by Peter Phillipson, David W. Robertshaw, pp. 309-319. Heinemann, 1993 African Archaeology, 2nd ed. Portsmouth. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Ucko, P. J. 1990 Foreward. In The Excluded Past: Robertshaw, Peter, ed. Archaeology in Education, ed. by P. 1990 A History of African Archaeology. Stone and R. MacKenzie, pp. ix-xxii. Heinemann, Portsmouth. Unwin Hyman, London. 1996 Knowledge and Power. In African Archaeological Review 13(1):7-9.

S6 APPENDIX

Africa under colonial rUle 1924

Figure 1: from Robel1shaw 1990:2.

Independent Africa

Figure 2: from Robertshaw 1990:2

57