University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Nebraska Anthropologist Anthropology, Department of 1997 On Two Eras of African Archaeology: 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 African Archaeology: 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 Africa. 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 African nationalism. 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 Mali, which was part of during the late 18oos: Britain, Belgium, French West Africa until 1960, one can France, Germany, Italy, Portugal, and see the filter of one archaeologisfs Spain (Figure 1). African response to paradigm in Jean Maes' 1924 the European "scramble for Africa­ interpretation of the megaliths of the ranged from strategic acceptance, such Tondi-Daro site: as Rwanda's acceptance of Belgium over Germany, to armed resistance, For he who knows the psychology of such as Ethiopia'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 Great Zimbabwe 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