sibling rivalry? the intersection of archeology and...

Sibling Rivalry? The Intersection of Archeology and HistoryAuthor(s): Peter RobertshawSource: History in Africa, Vol. 27 (2000), pp. 261-286Published by: African Studies AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3172117 .Accessed: 09/03/2011 15:08

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unlessyou have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and youmay use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at .http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=afsta. .

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printedpage of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

African Studies Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to History inAfrica.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=afsta

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3172117?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=afsta

SIBLING RIVALRY? THE INTERSECTION OF ARCHEOLOGY AND HISTORY

PETER ROBERTSHAW CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY-SAN BERNARDINO

Communication between the practitioners of the two disciplines [history and archeology] is still often difficult.'

I

Five years ago Jan Vansina asked historians whether archeologists were their siblings.' The question seems to have been rhetorical, since Vansina himself offered the opinion that, at least "when archaeolo- gists offer specific reconstructions of history, as they often do in their site reports, they are historians."" However, he also admitted that archeology "is a discipline in its own right."4 Since no historians were sufficiently riled by these assertions to offer a response to Vansina's article, we must assume that archeologists are accepted, though not necessarily with open arms, in the family of historians. But what did archeologists say about their adoption? Nothing it appears, though perhaps many archeological practitioners missed Vansina's article because it was published in an historical, not an archeological, journal. I stumbled across the article a couple of years ago and plunged in with both anticipation and trepidation. Which archaeologist could resist reading a critique of his discipline by a respected historian? My feelings turned out to be justified. I was both excited and a little dis- mayed by what I read, though I was relieved to find that my own archeological efforts in Uganda were favorably viewed by the eminence grise.

'Jan Vansina, "The Power of Systematic Doubt in Historical Enquiry," HA 1 (1974), 120. 'Jan Vansina, "Historians, Are Archeologists your Siblings?" HA 22 (1995), 369-408. Ibid., 399.

41bid., 370. What a relief for archeologists!

History in Africa 27 (2000), 261-286.

262 Peter Robertshaw

Subsequently I was surprised to find that no archeologists (to the best of my knowledge) had taken up in print some of the issues raised by

Vansina.- Therefore, when I was asked by the editors of the H-Af-

rica listserv to initiate a discussion, I chose to write what I consider to be a companion piece to, rather than a critique of, Vansina's paper.t I was at first disappointed by the meager amount of online discussion that was generated; however, several colleagues later wrote to me pri- vately expressing a variety of opinions and encouraging me to publish this paper in a more traditional format. In revising the paper, I have made substantial use of various comments raised by these correspon- dents.' Let me state at the outset that, though mny degrees are in archeology, I like to consider myself to be both an archeologist and a historian, as well as an anthropologist.' I agree with Vansina that "anyone of whatever discipline who reconstructs history is by defini- tion a historian."' I might chaff a little, though, at the nomenclatural hegemony that makes archeologists historians rather than vice versa. I"

I begin with some comments upon Vansina's article. Please note that my focus is upon those sections of his article (I, II, VII, and VIII) that focus on theoretical issues." I then shine the mirror back on the historians by offering a historiographical review of attempts to re- cover history from oral traditions. Because of my work in Uganda, I am particularly interested in the challenges of integrating archeology with history gleaned from oral traditions. Therefore, I make this the focus of my discussion. I realize that this is an exceedingly narrow

'I will forego speculation about why archeologists failed to rise to the bait. "I thank Kathryn Green, one of the H-Africa listserv's editors, for suckering me into this effort and for her comments on various drafts. She is not responsible for what follows. The online version of this paper appeared on March 2, 1999 and, I assume, can still be accessed at http://h-net2.msu.edu/-africa/africa forum/Vansina.html. 'My thanks to these colleagues; you know who you are. 'With apologies for my arrogance! Cynics might rightly complain that I have enough trouble attempting to do decent archeology. "Vansina, "Historians," 399. '"Are historians archeologists? Since archeologists attempt to reconstruct the past fronm its material remains, then, reluctantly, I think that historians are not archeologists, since the objects of historians' studies are far from tangible. Indeed, Vansina makes this poiInt at some length. In the words of a colleague, "if you give a historian a trowel, it does not make him or her an archaeologist." Of course, I hasten to add that you don't have to use a trowel to e an archaeologist, though in mlly opinioll it often serves to focus the mind. "Methodology in particular is discussed in Section Ill, while Section VI focuses upon the "Neolithic Revolution"; others may well wish to comment on thle interesting ideas expressed in those sections. Sections IV and V present a synopsis of some recent ar-

chceological research of interest to historians, and might, therefore, be deenied less coln- troversial. Although I hope that it is not necessary to read Vansina's article in order to comprehend this paper, I reconunend doing so.

The Intersection of Archeology and History 263

view of the epistemology and methods of precolonial African history, but there is already a substantial and growing body of literature on that portion of historical archeology that has been termed "text-aided archeology."'"

In spite of all the declarations of principle, most historians are simply not interested in the results of archeology."

Why this sad state of affairs? "The foremost problem may well be that historians have too touching a faith in archeology as a 'scientific' discipline, and hence misunderstand some basic realities about it."'4 Yes, indeed! I suspect archeologists have been both flattered and be- mused by historians' conception of archeology as science, founded presumably on the observation that archeologists dig up real stuff and get it radiocarbon-dated by the white-coated high priests of science. I suspect too that archeologists have also been annoyed by the implicit elision in meaning between archeologists as scientists and archeologists as technicians providing dating services for historians."

Vansina rightly points out the fallacies in regarding archeology as simply "scientific," and urges us to consider archeological epistemology and its paradigmatic underpinnings. Thus, his first and major criticism of African archeology is its "nearly total adherence to neo-

'"For example, Barbara J. Little, ed., Text-Aided Archaeology (Boca Raton, 1992); Charles E. Orser, Jr., A Historical Archaeology of the Modern World (New York, 1995). For text-aided archeology in Africa, see Merrick Posnansky and Christopher R. DeCorse, "Historical Archaeology in sub-Saharan Africa: a Review," Historical Ar- chaeology 20(1986), 1-14. For examples of research, see publications on most of the regions discussed in Graham Connah, African Civilizations (Cambridge, 1987); also Graham Connah, ed., Transformations in Africa: Essays on Africa's Later Past (Lon- don, 1998). "'Vansina, "Historians," 369. "Ibid., 370. "I for one always had ambivalent feelings about the long-running (but now defunct) series of commissioned articles on archeology in the Journal of African History that seem to have been conceived of as annotated lists of radiocarbon dates to be mined by historians. Of course, it was hard to refuse when asked to prepare one of these articles since the invitation carried the aura that one had finally achieved a certain professional standing. However, the ways in which archeologists tried to subvert the format of these articles presumably contributed to the demise of the series. Of course, now that the series has ended, it would be good to see more archeologists contributing substantive papers to the journal. My impression here is that the paucity of such papers should not be charged to the editors of the journal, but rather to archeologists and to the rise of the African Archeological Review. Of course, one difference between archeologists and historians, which is perhaps not as trivial as it appears, is that historians use these damn footnotes all the time.

264 Peter Robertsbaw

evolutionary theory."'" Of course, some archeologists might see this as its major strength!

Sidestepping this debate for the moment, we note that Vansina mounts his attack on the use of neo-evolutionary theory in Africa archeology, and in particular the adherence to an adaptationist perspective, by examining David Phillipson's African Archaeology.'7 This is a logical but perhaps unfortunate target. As Vansina points out, this book is the usual point of entry into African archeology for historians and other neophytes, since it is written by a respected authority and is the only recent synthesis of all of the field.'" Yes, Phillipson's book does profoundly embrace neo-evolutionary theory, even while sometimes disclaiming it."' Thus, it is a reflection of the work of African archeologists, but it is one from which much of the color has been washed out. Therefore, Vansina's contrast of Phillipson's synthesis with Devisse's direct historical approach turns the former into something of a straw man.2"

African Archaeology must be understood in context. Its author has carefully excised the debates that underlie his interpretations because I believe (and here I impute motives that might be incorrect) that Phillipson wished to write a book that was a brief yet authoritative introduction to the field. The result is a book that is breathtaking in its mastery of the literature, but one that is shorn of the debates that make archeology exciting for most of its practitioners and for readers like Vansina.2" Moreover, Phillipson mostly eschews any discussion of theory in his work, so it is perhaps unfortunate that Vansina uses Af- rican Archaeology as the bellwether of current theory.'2

It is also far from certain that the neo-evolutionism of African Ar- chaeology is a paradigm embraced wholeheartedly by many practic- ing archeologists, at least in the last decade. Much of the recent archeological research in sub-Saharan Africa, for example, discussed in sections IV and V of Vansina's article can be labeled "neo-evolutionary" only if the term is defined in an impossibly broad manner as re-

'"Vansina, "Historians," 396. i'lbid., 371-73, 376. "Ibid., 371. Martin Hall's recent Archolog), Africa (London, 1996), while discussing various topics in African prehistory, is aimed more as an introduction to archeological method and theory for an African audience, though historians might well benefit from reading it. '"D.W. Phillipson, African Arcbaeolog), (2d ed.: Cambridge, 1993). ""Jean l)evisse, ed., Valles du Niger (Paris, 1993); idem., "La recherche architologicquc et sa contribution ii I'histoire de I'Afrique," Recherche d(Ie pItagogie et culture 55 (1981), 2-8. '"Iiideed, lly own students find the 1ook very hard going; it certainly takes a dogged reader to plow through the chapter on the Middle and l.ate Stone Ages. ""This comment is applicable to much, if not most, of Phillipson's work, not just Afri- can Archaeology.


ferring to change through time. Furthermore, Phillipson's African Ar- chaeology ignores almost all of the substantial body of research un- dertaken within post-processualist paradigms, presumably because it is difficult to reconfigure the results of this research within a neo-evolutionary framework.'

The works of Rod and Susan McIntosh would be more suitable for theoretical analysis.24 Vansina's views appear so antithetical to ideas of models and theories of culture process, however, that the McIntoshs' endeavors are subjected almost to caricature rather than analysis." Throughout their work, the McIntoshs employ models, primarily derived from geography and anthropology, in order to reveal and explain the patterns hidden in the masses of archeological data that they have recovered. The results of their endeavors provide readers with explanations of the past that readers can either accept or challenge by consulting the meticulously published reports of the archeological data and suggesting alternative hypotheses.2' The use of

itSee below for more information and some examples. Admittedly the pace of post- processual archeological research has quickened remarkably since the publication of African Archaeology, but its absence from the book is nonetheless notable. For an early discussion of some post-processual approaches to African archeology, see Peter R. Schmidt, "An Alternative to a Strictly Materialist Perspective: a Review of Historical Archaeology, Ethnoarchaeology, and Symbolic Approaches in African Archaeology," American Antiquity 48 (1983), 62-79. "For example, R.J. Mcintosh, The Peoples of the Middle Niger (Oxford, 1998); "Early urban clusters in China and Africa: the arbitration of social ambiguity," Journal of Field Archaeology 18(1991), 199-21; "The Pulse Model: Genesis and Accommodation of Specialization in the Middle Niger," JAH 34(1993), 181-212; R.J. Mcintosh and S.K. Mcintosh, "From siiBcles obscurs to Revolutionary Centuries on the Middle Niger," World Archaeology 20(1988), 141-65; S.K. McIntosh, "Changing Perceptions of West Africa's Past: Archaeological Research Since 1988," Journal of Archaeological Research 2(1994), 165-98; S.K. McIntosh, ed., Beyond Chiefdoms: Pathways to Conm- plexity in Africa (Cambridge, 1999); S.K. Mcintosh and R.J. McIntosh, "Cities With- out Citadels: Understanding Urban Origins Along the Middle Niger," in T. Shaw, P. Sinclair, B. Andah, and A. Okpopo, eds.,The Archaeology of Africa: Food, Metals and Towns (London, 1993), 622-41; eadem, "From Stone to Metal: New Perspectives on the Later Prehistory of West Africa," Journal of World Prehistory 2(1988), 89-133. 2' Vansina, "Historians," 374. Vansina seems to be profoundly ambivalent about the work of the Mclntoshs. While deriding their use of models, he nevertheless considers the 1977 Jenne-jeno excavations as the last archeological endeavor to have seized the attention of historians; ibid., 369. He also expends considerable space in a discussion of the results of the McIntoshes' recent work; ibid., 385-87. Vansina also seems to have changed his opinion of the value of models: previously, he wrote that ". . . models are of primary importance. Not only do they raise questions or elucidate possible connec- tions between phenomena, but they are also the best means of evolving material to bridge gaps in information;" Vansina, "Power," 119. Some of Vansina's change of heart may have come from reading Devisse's critique of what he considers to have been over- hasty, model-based generalizations based on inadequate excavated samples; see Devisse, "Recherche," S and note 24. 2?R.J. McIntosh, Peoples; S.K. McIntosh, ed. Excavations at Jenne-jeno, Hamibarketolo, and Kaniana in the Inland Niger Delta (Mali). The 1981 Season (Berke-


models also helps to place West African research within the framework of global debates within anthropology and archeology concerning the rise of sociopolitical complexity. By means of this approach, the Mclntoshs demonstrate the relevance of Africa to the interests of specialists in other parts of the globe. If nothing else, this provides an impressive rebuke of Trevor-Roper's famous barb concerning the "the unrewarding gyrations of barbarous tribes in picturesque but irrelevant corners of the globe.""7

Let us now return to the broader critique offered by Vansina. Vansina's article raises numerous issues concerning both the differences between the disciplines of archeology and history, and the strengths and weaknesses of archeology. Vansina contrasts the evidence of archeology -"mute" artifacts-with that of history-written or oral "messages"; the former serve to elucidate "situations," while the latter are used to reconstruct "events."2n Thus the differences between archeology and history are more profound than simply the differences between the types of evidence that each discipline ex- amines.

Vansina identifies the strengths of archeology as the recovery of material evidence, and the reconstruction of "situations" and the lives of ordinary folk." He also praises archeologists for their ability to harness evidence from other disciplines, particularly the sciences.-" Archeology's weaknesses are deemed to be "a nearly total adherence to neo-evolutionary theory"; "the refusal to recognize fully the role of contingency by sticking to the use of theoretical models"; "the extravagant use of extrapolation"; and "the lack of contemporary testi- mony to limit the free range of the imagination."" Archeologists can scarcely be held accountable for the last of these weaknesses. The first two "weaknesses" raise important theoretical issues about the goals of archeology and the nature of explanation, while the third "weak- ness" also merits brief discussion.

Vansina contends that most African archeologists, either implicitly or explicitly, employ an epistemological foundation of multilinear neo-evolutionism, an approach that "strikes historians as profoundly teleological and hence antihistorical."'2 He rightly equates this paradigmatic orientation with Anglophone archeologists, who tend to

icy, 1995); S.K. Mcintosh and R.J. Mcintosh, Prehistoric Investigations in the Region of Jenne, Mali (Oxford, 1980). 2"Hugh Trevor-Roper, "The Rise of Christian Europe," The listener 70(1963), 871-75, 915-19, 975-79, 1019-23, 1061-65. 2"Vansina, "Historians," 370. He clearly has the Annales school of history in mind here, as indeed he makes clear later; ibid., 375. '11Ibid., 396. 1"lbid., 399. 31"Jbid., 396. 3-lbid., 371; see also Devisse, "Recherche," note 24.

The Intersection of Arcbeology and History 267

search for evidence that will allow them to develop theories to explain the origins and development of major transformations in human history such as the beginnings of agriculture and the rise of the state.

The neo-evolutionary paradigm is largely equated with American archeologists who either consider themselves to be anthropologists or at least believe that their discipline is linked first and foremost to anthropology rather than to history. These views, I suspect, are largely shared by British archeologists even though they may shy away from the more programatic statements of American anthropological archeology. In contrast, according to Vansina, "many francophones and most other European scholars" do not consider archeology to be part of anthropology.-'

The reasons for this apparent divide lie in the disciplinary origins of archeology: in America professional archeology began as a study by archeologists of European ancestry of the past of the "other," in this case Native Americans, whereas in Europe archeologists used their discipline to push the study of their own history back into preliterate times."4 Thus Americanist archeology found its home in the anthropology departments of museums and universities, while their European counterparts resided within history departments. The gradual shift towards anthropological archeology in Britain over the last twenty or thirty years presumably reflects the influence of our American Anglophone "cousins." The rejection, or at least the avoid- ance, of anthropology by continental European archeologists is a great mystery for my American colleagues who cannot conceive of studying humanity's past without embracing the discipline that studies humanity. One suspects that at least some of the rejection of anthropology is no more than chauvinistic posturing, as it is belied by the anthropological insights that are to be discovered in European writings.

It is important to realize here that the neo-evolutionary paradigm and anthropological archeology are not the same thing: the latter comes in many guises. Indeed, it is unfortunate that Vansina seems to equate neo-evolutionism with both the "New Archeology" and with the use of models. What was the "New Archeology" of the 1960s and 1970s is now usually termed "processual archeology," since thirty years on it is no longer "new." At the risk of oversimplification, processual archeology attempts to explain the past in terms of the varied interactions between aspects of culture and the ecosystem. Ad- herents of this approach tend to prefer explanations that focus on in- ternal developments within society over those that attribute change to migration or the deeds of great people. They also emphasize the use

3Ibid., 377. "Bruce G. Trigger, "Archaeology and the Image of the American Indian," American Antiquity 45(1980), 662-76.


of explicit methodologies allied to a penchant for the epistemologies of science, as well as statistics and sometimes systems theory. None of this requires adherence to a neo-evolutionary paradigm or to the use of models, though admittedly both of these were and are embraced by many processualists. By the same token, many post-processual archeologists make use of models, though perhaps few of them subscribe to neo-evolutionism. Of course, it is often difficult to pin labels on individual archeologists."3

It is disappointing that Vansina fails to recognize, or at least to name, post-processual African archeology. This appellation subsumes a variety of different theoretical orientations in archeology that share little or nothing in common other than the fact that they are not processual. Post-processual archaeologies incorporate, but are not limited to, research interests in cognitive archeology, symbolic and structural archeology, critical theory and studies of gender, cultural materialism and Marxism." For example, Thomas Huffman's efforts to identify the cognitive and cosmological systems expressed in the layout of Iron Age settlements in southern Africa is an example of post-processual cognitive archeology."7 Other examples of post-

31For example, Susan Mcintosh, whose enthusiasm for models is noted by Vansina, "Historians," 374, has explicitly stated her rejection of neo-cvolutionism; see Susan Kecch Mcintosh, "Pathways to Complexity: An African Perspective" ill S.K. Mcintosh, ed., Beyond Cbiefdoms: Pathways to Complexity in Africa (Cambridge, 1999), 1-30; moreover, her disillusionment with neo-evolutionism was already evident in 1994 in Mcintosh, "Changing Perceptions." Mcintosh also draws on both processual and post- processual approaches in her work. "'For a primer in post-processual archeology, see Ian Hodder, Reading the Past (2d ed.: Cambridge 1991). 3"Thomas N. Huffman, "Archaeology and Ethnohistory of the African Iron Age," An- na l Review of Anthropology 11 (1982), 133-50; idem., "Archaeological Evidence and

Conventional Explanations of Southern Bantu Settlement Patterns," Africa 56 (1986), 280-98; idemi., "Broederstroom and the Central Cattle Pattern," South African Journal of Science 89 (1993), 220-26; idem., Snakes and Crocodiles: I'ower and Syiambolism in Ancient Zimbabwe (Johannesburg, 1996). It is indeed strange that Vansina, "Histori- ans," 374, cites this research as exemplary of the New Archeology; Huffman's work is far removed from processualism and, particularly, neo-evolutionism. In fact, a common criticism of Huffman's endeavors is that he imposes the ethnographic record onto the past and does not allow for evolutionary change in settlement patterns; see Vansina, "Historians," note 70; Paul Lane, "The Use and Abuse of Ethnography in the Study of the Southern African Iron Age," Azania 29 (1996), 51-64. Far better examples of the impact of New Archeology can he found in the southern Africani literature; the re- searches of Hilary Deacon and John Parkington, among others, in the late 1960s and early 1970s were to inspire a generation of South African archeologists to pursue ecological approaches: H.J. Deacon, Where Hunters Gathered: A Study of Holocene Stone Age People in the Eastern Cape (Claremon,t, 1976); J.E. Parkington, "Seasonal Mobil- ity in the Late Stone Age," African Studies 31 (1972), 223-43, are perhaps the seminal publications. For further discussion see Janette i)eacon, "Weaving the Fabric of Stone Age Research in Southern Africa" in Peter Robertshaw, ed., A History of African Ar- chbaeology (London, 1990), 39-58.


processual research in Africa that have had a tremendous impact on the discipline of archeology, particularly in southern Africa, include studies of social identity and interaction among Later Stone Age for- agers,3s shamanic interpretations of rock art,"' studies of the social and symbolic contexts of iron-working,4• Marxist approaches to the Zimbabwe state,41 structuralist analyses of colonial settlements,41 and critical studies in (historical)

archeology.4- Even more recently studies

of gender44 and of power and political formations have been promi- nent in African archeology.41

Very few of these sorts of post-processual studies are discussed in Vansina's article, despite the fact that many of them were published before 1995. While their omission may well reflect the research questions in archeology of interest to Vansina, their existence firmly ne- gates the charge that neo-evolutionary theory enjoys almost total loy- alty among African archeologists. If historians want to get acquainted with their siblings, they should look well beyond processual archeologists.

'"For example, Simon L. Hall and J. Binnemnan, "Later Stone Age Burial Variability in the Eastern Cape: A Social Interpretation," South African Archaeological Bulletin 42 (1987), 140-52; Lyn Wadley, Later Stone Age Hunters of the Southern Transvaal: So- cial and Ecological Interpretation (Oxford, 1987); J. Parkington, P. Nilssen, C. Reeler and C. Henshilwood, "Making Sense of Space at Dunefield Midden Campsite, Western Cape, South Africa," Sotuthern African Field Archaeology 1 (1992), 63-70. "3For example, J.D. Lewis-Williams, The Rock Art of Southern Africa (Cambridge, 1983); J.D. Lewis-Williams and T.A. Dowson, Images of Power (Johannesburg, 1989); T.A. Dowson, Rock Engravings of Southern Africa (Johannesburg, 1992). 4"For example, S. Terry Childs, "Style, Technology and Iron Smelting Furnaces in Bantu-Speaking Africa," Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 10 (1991), 332-59; S.T. Childs and D. Killick, "Indigenous African Metallurgy: Nature and Culture," An- nual Review of Anthropology 22 (1993), 317-37; Peter R. Schmidt, Iron Production in East Africa: Symbolism, Science and Archaeology (Bloomington, 1997); P.R. Schmidt and B.B. Mapunda, "Ideology and the Archaeological Record in Africa: Interpreting Symbolism in Iron Smelting Technology," Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 16 (1997), 128-57. 4P. Sinclair, Space. Time and Social Formation: A Territorial Approach to the Archaeol- ogy and Anthropology of Zimbabwe and Mozainbique c. 0-1700 AD (Uppsala, 1987); P. Sinclair, I. Pikirayi, G. Pwiti and R. Soper, "Urban Trajectories on the Zimbabwean Plateau," in T. Shaw, P. Sinclair, B. Andah and A. Okpoko, eds., The Archaeology of Africa: Food, Metals and Towns (London, 1993), 705-31. 4"For example, M. Winer and J. Deetz, "The Transformation of British Culture in the Eastern Cape, 1820-1860," Social Dynamics 16 (1990), 55-75; see also, Martin Hall, "The Archaeology of Colonial Settlement in Southern Africa," Annual Review of An- thropology 22 (1993), 177-200. "For example, Carmel Schrire, Digging through Darkness. Chronicles of an Archaeolo- gist (Charlottesville, 1995); Martin Hall, "The Legend of the Lost City; or, The Man with the Golden Balls," Journal of Southern African Studies 21 (1995), 179-99. "Susan Kent, ed., Gender in African Prehistory (Walnut Creek, 1998); Lyn Wadley, ed., Our Gendered Past: Archeological Studies of Gender in Southern Africa (Johannesburg, 1998). 4"Mcintosh, Beyond Chiefdoms.


Vansina himself shares a penchant for the "direct historical approach" favored by many of his continental European archeological colleagues, an approach which he considers to embrace assumptions held by historians, such as the importance of contingency and the specificity of change.4" Some archeologists, however, might label such an approach as particularistic, provincial, and lacking in explanatory value; they would be wrong, but so would those who might claim that contingency and specificity have no place in processual archeology or even in neo-evolutionary theory. Vansina's use of the term "direct historical approach" is potentially misleading, for as it is most commonly employed in Anglophone archeology it refers not to a concern with history and contingency per se. Rather it refers to one type of analogy used in archeological reasoning. This is the use of ethnographic or historical accounts to flesh out archeological reconstructions where cultural, geographic and/or temporal continuity could be demonstrated between the ethnographic or historic "present" and the more distant past uncovered by archeology.47 Clearly, there is considerable overlap between the two uses of the term, but it seems clear that what Devisse and Vansina have in mind is not solely the use of analogy, but rather an approach shared by some post-processual archeologists who view archeology as "long-term history.""

III

Paradigmatic disagreements are hardly likely to disappear, but a brief excursion into the realm of what constitutes "explanation" may demonstrate that African historians, anthropological archeologists, and archeologists who subscribe to the "direct historical approach" hold views that are not as incompatible as they might at first appear to be."' Specifically, all protagonists recognize the role of contingency.

Archeologists and historians both study processes and events that are situated in time and space. Acknowledgment of the temporal ele-

4"Vansina, "Historians," 375; Vansina offers the work of Jean Devisse as exemplary in this approach; see Dcvisse, Valldes du Niger; "Recherche". 47The "direct historical approach" in analogical reasoning has a long history in archcol- ogy, especially in the American Southwest. The term was probably coined by Waldo R. Wedcl, The Direct Historical Approach in Pawnee Archeology (Washington, 1938), while the most famous statcment of the underlying principles is Robert Ascher, "Anal- ogy in Archaeological Interpretation," Southbwestern Journal of Antbropology 17 (1961), 317-25; for recent discussions, see Alison Wylie, "'Simplic' Analogy and the Role of Relevance Assumptions: Implications of Archaeological Practice," Interna- tional Studies in the Philosophy of Science 2 (1988), 134-50; and for Africa, see Ann B. Stahl, "Change and Continuity in the BIanda Area, Ghana: The Direct Historical Ap- proach,"J

.ournal of Field Archaeology 21 (1994), 181-203.

"For example, lan Hodder, ed., Archaeoklogy s Long-Term History (Cambridge, 1989). 4"As iunderstood by Vansina.


ment implies that narrative accounts of what happened in the past embody explanations since they may incorporate information on causes and effects. By the same criteria, explanation of the human past is patently not the same as explanation of phenomena in disciplines such as physics and chemistry that often lack a temporal com- ponent.

Furthermore, we must recognize that historical processes and events occurred over differing spans of time and space. Thus, different sorts of explanations are likely to be required for different cases. To classify one sort of explanation as particularistic (historical) and another as generalist or global (anthropological) ignores the fact that each explanation may be valid for understanding the object of inquiry. Moreover, to label one kind of explanation as "scientific" or "antihistorical" and the other not is not only potentially judgmental but also demonstrably unsound.

As Roland Fletcher has remarked, "[b]iologists have no difficulty in arguing that history--in the sense of successions of unique events- matters in a study of the vast patterns and processes of biological evolution, and is consistent with 'science'.""' Eminent biologists like Stephen Jay Gould have long argued that the course of evolution is charted by the intersection of evolutionary principles (mutation, drift, natural selection, etc) with historical contingency. Therefore, follow- ing Fletcher's lead, we can argue that a hierarchical structure of explanations is required in archeology and probably history as well. Large-scale processes do not determine small-scale processes nor can they be reduced to small-scale ones." Individual archeologists and historians presumably exercise some freedom of choice concerning the level of explanation on which they focus their attention. However, we also need to admit that the temporal and spatial scales and resolu- tion of archeological and historical data are generally dissimilar.

What about Vansina's claim that archeologists indulge in extravagant use of extrapolation?S" This apparent blanket condemnation seems rather harsh, but perhaps not without merit. Thus, Vansina, in Section III of his paper, neatly demonstrates how archeologists may gloss over the exigencies of their data, while also showing that even

apparently prosaic site reports are imbued with a "subjective compo- nent.""1 Yet the "relentless expose of the subjectivities involved in archeological theory and practice,"while informative, may induce the reader to forget that the practitioners of all historical disciplines, indeed perhaps all disciplines, are imbued with particular worldviews

5"R. Fletcher, "Time Perspectivism, Annales, and the Potential of Archaeology" in A.B. Knapp, ed., Archaeology Annales, and Ethnohistory (Cambridge, 1992), 35. -"Ibid. -'Vansina, "Historians," 396. "See especially ibid., 379; cf. ibid., 381-82.

272 Pecter Robertsbaw

and paradigmatic orientations that could be labeled harshly as "subjective biases."'4 Such biases are bound to exist. Indeed, how could one possibly pursue research in any meaningful way without them? How else could one establish research priorities?

Adherence to a particular paradigm does not necessarily lead to the use of "extravagant extrapolation." However, it is not always easy for either historians or indeed archeologists to spot extravagant extrapolation when it is clothed in an aura of technical jargon and

science."- One suspects too that historians are as equally guilty here as

archeologists.-' Perhaps archeologists (and historians) should follow

the recent example of Rod McIntosh who inserts chapters of "historical imagination" into his account of the archeology and history of the Middle Niger.'7

To illustrate and expand on these arguments, I now turn to the promised review of the historiography of oral traditions. Historian, know thyself as an archeologist sees you!

IV

The data of oral traditions ("recollections of the past that are commonly or universally known in a given culture" and "that have been handed down for at least a few generations") and archeology often seem not only entirely unrelated but also totally incapable of integra-

tion.-" Typical of this impasse is Connah's comment that "[t]wo

tonnes of excavated potsherds [arel unlikely to tell us anything ... [about] the semi-mythical Bacwezi.""' Elsewhere the same author be- moans the fact that while archeologists and anthropologists "have sought to understand change in terms of process, historians of Africa have sometimes tended to do so in terms of actors and events."''" Thus, processual theory runs aground on the sandbanks of historical particularism. However, while oral traditions may be presented in the idiom of personalities and their deeds ("actors and events"), they may indeed refer to process. Therefore, we should beware of the danger of confusing style with substance.

The beginnings of historical study of oral traditions in sub-Saharan

'4Ibid., 384. "I hesitate to cite examples of this practice among the work of my colleagues. Vansina mentions examples in his discussion in Section 111. In fact, the critical reader wishing to find examples need look no further than my own site reports. "Historic;al linguistics seems to me to be a field of study, like archeology, vwhere extravagant extrapolation may be easily concealed in technical appendices. "Mcintosh, Peoplcs. '"David Henige, Oral Historiography (New York, 1982), 2. "'Grahan Connah, "The Salt of Bunyoro: Seeking the Origins of an African Kingdom," Antiquity 65(199 I), 480. '"Graham Connah, African Civilizations: 'recolonial Cities and States in Tropical Af-

rica: An Archaeological Perspective (Cambridge, 1987), I 13.


Africa are closely tied to the African independence movements of the 1950s and 1960s. The first generation of African historians tended to assume that oral traditions were relatively uncomplicated accounts of what had happened the past." The historian's job was to go out into the field, interview knowledgeable, often elderly, informants and thereby collect the traditions. On return to the office, these traditions were transcribed, translated and woven together into a narrative account of the past of the particular ethnic group studied. The resulting histories began with accounts of origins, sometimes deemed to be creation myths, and ended with the establishment of colonialism."2

Thus historians sought to compile a definitive history of each ethnic group, an endeavor that was well suited to the political climate surrounding independence. These histories were in many ways the logical progression from the ethnographies produced primarily by British anthropologists working under the aegis of colonial govern- ments seeking to refine the methods of indirect rule.'" Of course, the concept of territorially bounded ethnic groups, each of which merited its own history, was in large part a product of European colonialism.

Methodological concerns among historians tended to focus on chronology, the dating of events in the absence of documentary references; ingenious solutions involving genealogies and solar eclipses were proposed." For their theory and method these histories also re- lied upon Vansina's seminal work, Oral Tradition, first published in French in 1961 and in English translation four years later and subsequently much revised."

For Vansina in the 1960s, oral traditions were "messages" from the past that could be deciphered by careful analysis of their content and of the contexts in which they were recited and passed down through generations. Thus Vansina took a positivist and empiricist position in which history (what happened in the past) could be revealed by patient application to oral traditions of the appropriate analytical methods. An oral tradition could in a sense be unwrapped to reveal the history at its core. However, Vansina also averred that the history thus reconstructed constituted a hypothesis to be confirmed by independent evidence such as written documents and the findings of archeology." Therefore, archeology was perceived by his-

"In the interests of both brevity and debate, allow me to indulge in a few somewhat sweeping generalizations. ("Historians may supply their own examples. "'See previous note. "4For critical discussion of these dating efforts, see David Henige, The Chronology of Oral Tradition: Quest for a Chimera (Oxford, 1974); idem, "Reflections on Early In- terlacustrine Chronology: An Essay in Source Criticism," JAH 15(1974), 27-46. '"Jan Vansina, Oral Tradition (Harmondsworth, 1965); idem.,Oral Tradition as His- tory (Madison, 1985). "'See also Vansina, "Power."

274 Peter Robertshawu

torians as a scientific endeavor to be used as a means of testing the accuracy of history written from oral traditions. For example, Merrick Posnansky excavated at Bigo in Uganda to verify the interpretation of the Cwezi traditions as referring to the existence of an ancient state."'

If the 1960s was a period of tremendous optimism in African history linked to a positivist paradigm, not in fact very different from the outlook that pervaded "New Archeology" in that decade,"" the end of the 1970's saw the emergence of a less confident generation of African historians, whose theoretical misgivings were aired in The Af- rican Past Speaks."' These misgivings were prompted primarily by anthropologists who treated oral traditions as "myths," which they then subjected to structuralist or functionalist analysis.7" While Vansina in particular objected strongly to the denial of the historicity of oral tradition, other historians explored the relationship between myth and history while also building upon Vansina's earlier insights into the contexts in which traditions were recounted.7'

The result of this soul-searching was a retreat from positivism and, indeed, a new skepticism about the historical value of the narrative content of most oral traditions.72 Joseph Miller even felt threatened enough to complain that anthropologists "see history in a much more positivistic sense than do most historians.""71 Indeed, he continued, for historians,

history is the study of the remnants of the past that happen to sur- vive into the present, which [historians] then use as bases for drawing probabilistic inferences about what the past may have been like. They make no pretense at comprehensiveness . . . . They accept as 'history' the selective and tenuous reconstructions they can achieve,

"'Merrick Posnansky, "Kingship, Archaeology and Historical Myth," Uganda Journal 30(1966), 1-12; Roland Oliver, "A Question about the Bachwezi," Uganda jlournal 17(1953), 135-7. For a dissenting view see David Henige, "Royal Tombs and Preterhuman Ancestors: A Devil's Advocacy," Paideuma 23 (1977), 205-19. A"The "New Archeology" that emerged in the 1960's embraced a positivist and explicitly scientific approach to archeology. During its infancy, adherents of New Archeology proclaimed that archeology could reconstruct all aspects of the human past, even topics such as kinship systems which many scholars had previously believed to be beyond the compass of archeological data; see, for example, Lewis Binford and Sally iinford, eds., New Perspectives in Archeology (Chicago, 1968). Most processual archeologists soon turned away from this ambitious agenda; see discussion above. ""Joseph C. Miller, ed., The African Past Speaks: Essays on Oral Tradition and History (Folkestone, 1980). '"Joseph C. Miller, "Listening for the African Past," in ibid., 3. 71Jan Vansina, "Is Elegance Proof?" HA 10(1983), 307-48. 7"Henige, Oral Historingraphy; idem, "Truths Yet Unborn? Oral Tradition as a Casu- alty of Cultural Contact," JAH 23(1982), 395-412; Miller, "Listening," 45. "Ibid., 46.


however 'mythical' these may appear by the standards of others .... Most historians today would limit themselves to the examination of evidence from the past, examined in the present as signifying something about the past.""4

Furthermore, "[h]istories are what historians . . compose to explain their understandings of the past to readers or listeners in the present.""7- Within this context, archeology was still viewed as an independent means whereby the historical content of a tradition could be confirmed.

While admitting the contested nature of history written from oral traditions, African historians sought to bolster their reconstructions by even more careful analysis of all aspects of the construction, memorization, performance, recording and context of oral traditions. The results of this exercise are evident in the revised version of Vansina's classic text, boldly retitled Oral Tradition as History.70

Nevertheless, historians themselves seemed to remain deeply di- vided as to the historicity of oral traditions, particularly those that refer to what Miller termed the "absent past," which he distinguished from the "present past."77 The latter term refers to those traditions which are relevant to the understanding and legitimacy of the current dominant institutions and factions in society. Thus traditions of earlier times that are irrelevant to present circumstances comprise the "absent past."

The historicity of African oral traditions was subjected to further critical scrutiny in Tonkin's widely-cited book, the subtitle of which, "the Social Construction of Oral History," encapsulates her profound skepticism of the historical value of oral traditions.7t Tonkin insists that

historians who use the recollections of others cannot just scan them for useful facts to pick out, like currants from a cake. Any such facts are so embedded in the representation that it directs an interpretation of them, and its very ordering, its plotting and its metaphors bear meaning too.79

Theoretically well-informed Africanists are hardly likely to consider such remarks revolutionary, but Tonkin goes on to construct a

74Ibid., 47. 7'Ibid., 49. For a thorough and recent discussion by the same author, see Joseph C. Miller, "History and Africa/Africa and History," American Historical Review 104(1999), 1-32. 71Vausina, Oral Tradition as History. "Miller, "Listening," 41-43. "'Elizabeth Tonkin, Narrating Our Pasts: The Social Construction of Oral History (Cambridge, 1992). 7"Ibid., 6.


detailed argument concerning how various elements-including the individual, society, history, memory, and cognition-combine in the creation of oral narratives, which can themselves be presented in several different genres.

Tonkin also makes what seems to be a useful distinction in arguing that "history" has more than one meaning: it must

stand both for 'the past', history-as-lived, and 'representation of pastness', history-as-recorded. It is easy to slip from one meaning to another because of the different ways that the past lives in the present and judgments about events which are themselves represen- tations of pastness can also be a form of action.80

Thus the social construction of oral traditions implies that there may be little that is left in such accounts that refers to "history-as- lived" and the historian's self-appointed task of finding this history may well be like searching for the proverbial needle in a haystack. This, of course, is a very pessimistic view of the task facing historians of oral tradition and one that is presumably not shared by many professional historians.

Oral traditions are not the only means by which historians may attempt to reconstruct the past in the absence of contemporary documents. David Cohen, for example, has argued that history may lie hidden in "the intelligence of ordinary life;" in the case of Busoga in eastern Uganda this intelligence was memories of marriage transac- tions."' Perhaps history is wherever historians can find it.

One major area of historical inquiry with its own epistemological and methodological debates is comparative linguistics."2 The histories of words and their attached meanings (semantics) have proved a particularly fertile area for historians."• Indeed, Vansina's recent monu- mental history of equatorial Africa is founded upon the study of "words and things," a combination of linguistic and ethnographic data emphasizing semantics.84 Oral traditions play only a very minor role, which suggests that perhaps Vansina is distancing himself from the problems that have been identified as being inherent in recon-

"Ibid., 2. "'D.W. Cohen, Wonmunafu's Bunafu: A Study of Authority in a Nineteenth-Century Af- rican Cornntunity (Princeton, 1977). ''For the interrelationship between this field and archeology see, for cxample, Christo- pher Ehret, "Linguistic Evidence and its Correlation with Archaeology," World Archac- ology 8(1976), 5-18; idem, "Language Change and the Material Correlates of Lan- guage and Ethnic Shift," Antiquity 61(1988), 366-74; idcm and Merrick Posnansky, eds., The Archaeological and Linguistic Reconstruction of African History (Berkeley, 1982). "'Derek Nurse, "The Contributions of Linguistics to the Study of History in Africa," JAH 38(1997), 359-91. "Jani Vansina, Paths in the Rainforests: Toward a History of Political Tradition in Equatorial Africa, (London, 1990), see esp. 11-12.


structing history from such sources. This, however, is speculation on my part. The reasons behind the infrequent use of oral traditions in this case may be more mundane and practical, given the logistics of conducting research in the rain forests of Congo and its neighbors.

Linguistic historians (or historical linguists) have forged relatively close links with archeologists, even publishing their work in archeological journals." Nevertheless, some archeologists have remained skeptical of the historians' conclusions.8'

V

What do historians think of African archeology and its practitioners? Perceptions have changed over time in accordance with paradigmatic shifts in both disciplines, but historians have remained fairly steadfast in their belief that archeology provides a set of methods whereby the validity of history reconstructed from oral traditions can be tested with independent data. An early and rather successful example of the use of archeology as verification was provided by Merrick Posnansky's excavations at Bweyorere; evidence was unearthed of events that were mentioned in traditions while radiocarbon dating bolstered the chronology reconstructed by genealogical methods."

In the 1960s, archeology's contribution to African history was thought to be primarily the provision of dating evidence and the elu- cidation of past migration routes. Thus, in a seminal article on Bantu expansion, the historian Roland Oliver rhetorically asked: "What, now, can archaeology add to this picture?" His answer, "dates."xx Similar sentiments were echoed by Vansina in Oral Tradition, but with a caveat:

Archeology can throw light on certain aspects of the past, especially on migrations and on material culture. It is, however, often impos- sible to link the information obtained from oral traditions with defi- nite archeological finds.89

A concern with migration routes and the identification of the geographical origins of various innovations, such as metalwork, pottery,

"'For example, Ehret, "Linguistic Evidence," idem., "Language Change;" David L. Schoenbrun, "Cattle Herds and Banana Gardens: The Historical Geography of the Western Great Lakes Region, ca. AD 800-1500," African Archaeological Review 11 (1993), 39-72. ""For example, Peter Robertshaw and David Collett, "A New Framework for the Study of Early Pastoral Communities in East Africa," JAH 24 (1983), 289-301. "'Merrick Posnansky, "The Excavation of an Ankole Capital Site at Bweyorere," Uganda Journal 32 (1968), 165-82. ""Roland Oliver, "The Problem of the Bantu Expansion," JAH 7 (1966), 361-76; quote from 371. See also Miller, "History and Africa," 13. ""Vansina, Oral Tradition, 174.

278 Peter Robcrtsbaw

and agricultural crops, pervaded African archeology in the 1960s and much of the 1970s. This was perhaps a lingering legacy of the colonial period when it was widely assumed that cultural innovations, and sometimes people themselves, must have exotic rather than indigenous origins.

Animated debates over the expansion of Bantu languages and their archeological correlates in the pottery of the Early Iron Age fueled the interest in migrations. " However, the rapidity with which new data, emanating particularly from linguistics but also from archeology, led to the speedy abandonment of what had seemed to be excellent interdisciplinary reconstructions" provoked some archeologists92 to throw out the linguistic baby with the

bathwater."- Indeed, what are arche-

ologists to make of the latest language-based model of Bantu expansion that not only throws out the hallowed migration model but also seems to defy any attempts at correlation with current archeological knowledge?94

A pioneering effort at the integration of archeology and oral traditions was Peter Schmidt's research in Buhaya (northwestern Tanzania) in the

1970s."'- Schmidt is still one of the few African archeologists

who have also received graduate training in oral historiography. He is also one of the few archeologists who possessed the time and inclina- tion to collect oral traditions as a prelude to his archeological investi-

gations."9 Schmidt was fortunate to discover that the Bahaya used ob-

""For reviews see Jan Vansina, "Bantu in the Crystal Ball i," HA 6 (1979), 287-333; idem, "Bantu in the Crystal Ball 1I," HA 7 (1980), 293-325; Martin Eggert, "Historical Linguistics and Prehistoric Archaeology: Trends and Patterns in Early Iron Age Re- search in Sub-Saharan Africa," Beitriige zur Allgemeine and Vergleicbenden Archiiologie 3 (1981), 277-324. "9For example, David W. Phillipson, "The Spread of the Bantui Languages," Scientific American 236 (1976), 106-14. "'For example, Eggert, "Historical Linguistics"; Robcrtshaw and Collett, "New Frame- work ". "'Compare Ranger's dismissal of archeology quoted by Vansina at the beginning of his paper; T.O. Ranger, "Towards a Usable Past" in Christopher Fyfe, ed., African Studies Since 1945 (Edinburgh, 1976), 21. "4Jan Vansina, "New .inguistic Evidcnce and 'The Bantu Expansion'," JAH 36 (1995), 173-95. The archeologist who ventures into this particular bath had bettcr wear a pro- tective diving suit! "'Peter R. Schmidt, Historical Archaeology: A Structural Approach in an African Cul- ture (Westport CT, 1978). ""Another archaeologist who has pursued this approach more recently is Atnn 1. Stahl; see Stahl, "Change and Continuity;" and also idem., "Ethnic Style and Ethnic Bound- aries: A Diachronic Case Study from West Central Ghana," Ethnobistory 38 (1991), 250-75. One sometimes hears it mooted that, in the absence of polymaths, the best mieans to undertake interdisciplinary research is to send teams of specialists to the field, an approach that has been very successful in palcoanthropology. I was a member of two such teams, sponsored by the British Institute in Eastern Africa, that worked in the Southern Sudan nearly twenty years ago (see J. Mack and P. Robertshaw, eds., Culture


jects and places as mnemonic devices for their oral traditions; thus, archeological sites were identified from oral traditions." However, Schmidt did not consider his archeological research to be a test of the validity of the oral traditions he had recorded, arguing that

The simple conjunction of archeological evidence with ethnohistoric evidence in specific cases does not ipso facto constitute proof of the oral tradition, nor does it mean verification of interpretive ideas that might be held in an oral tradition, such as a discussion about the function of an earthworks or a technological area.9"

Instead, he suggested that together archeological and historical evidence might be employed to formulate hypotheses for subsequent archeological testing."9

In hindsight, Schmidt's appeals for the development of methodology and rigorous testing owes much to his philosophical attachment to the hypothetico-deductive approaches embraced by American processual archeologists of the time. However, this positivism did not sit well with the narrative explanations offered by oral traditions and the structuralist and symbolic approaches that Schmidt was himself attempting to apply. Schmidt's work was criticized by some historians; Roland Oliver, for example, was skeptical of the claim that oral traditions kept alive memories of Early Iron Age archeological sites.""' However, Schmidt's contributions to understanding the Bacwezi and the history of the Great Lakes region are acknowledged by almost all later historians."" Most archeologists tended to ignore Schmidt's work, confining their discussions to the early dating evidence that he had obtained for metallurgy and Early Iron Age ceramics.""2 Schmidt,

History in the Southern Sudan [Nairobi, 1982]). Although the experience was enjoy- able, it was in my view not particularly successful since the historians and cultural anthropologists both needed longer periods than that of the normal archeological field season in which to conduct their work. Moreover, they had different requirements in the field; if anything, the presence of an archeologist, who sometimes employs many local people and generally disrupts the local economy, might be a hindrance to other social science researchers. Lest I be misunderstood, let me make it clear that I believe that archeological research generally benefits from the presence of teams of archeological specialists in the field, who may also work closely and productively with natural scientists. "Schmidt, Historical Archaeology, 111. ""Ibid., S. Y"Ibid. ""'R. Oliver, "Review of P.R. Schmidt, Historical Archaeology," JAH 20 (1979), 289- 90. "'For cxample, Renee L. Tantala, "The Early History of Kitara in Western Uganda: Process Models of Religious and Political Change" ( PhD, University of Wisconsin- Madison, 1989), 27-28. "'2See, for example, Phillipson, African Archaeology, 188. Despite the positivism he claimed to espouse, Schmidt was really pioneering post-processual archeology in Africa at a time when processualism and, to a large extent, neo-evolutionism reigned supreme.


it seems, was espousing research topics and methods that were out- side the mainstream of African archeology even at the end of the 1970s.

By the time Jan Vansina revised his classic text on oral tradition, his views on "the African past" had evolved to the extent that he no longer promoted archeology as a means of investigating past migrations. However, he still considered that the major contributions of history's sister discipline were in the confirmation of historical evidence gleaned from oral traditions and in the provision of chronomet- ric dates.'"" He also warned against the dangers of simplistic interpretations of traditions linked to particular archeological sites, pointing out that spurious traditions may be invented to explain the presence of archeological features on the landscape, a phenomenon known as iconatrophy. '"4

Other academics who wrote about oral traditions, however, apparently remained naive about the pitfalls of archeology. Tonkin, for example, eulogizes what she calls "traces," i.e., material remains of past times, such as ancient earthworks revealed by aerial photography. For her these "traces" are "small lighted windows in the darkness of time, and the glances they permit seem miraculously to override the natural law by which we cannot re-play the past."'"" However, no such illu- sions befuddled Vansina in the article that prompted this paper.

V

How then can we go about building a new relationship between archeology and history that both promotes archeology to a full partner- ship and grapples successfully with the different sorts of data to which each discipline has access? It is tempting to end this paper here and let others try to answer this question. However, I feel duty-bound to suggest one useful avenue of inquiry. This emanates from my own recent research. I think of it as exemplary rather than prescriptive.

The study of political economy has the potential to combine the politics revealed by historians with the economic evidence unearthed by archeologists. Moreover, the study of power fits comfortably with the methods and vocabularies of both history and archeology. On the one hand, discussion of power strategies may be expressed in terms of the motives and actions of individuals, just as occurs in the oral traditions. On the other hand, power strategies are expressed materially in the archeological record in guises such as trade goods and

nmonu- ments. Moreover, the cults and religions found in oral traditions may

""Vansimn, Oral Tradition as History, 160, 185. '"14Ibid., 10. ""Tonkign, Narrating, 84.


be mirrored archeologically in shrines and material symbols of ideology. Thus might archeology and the study of oral tradition be har- nessed together. At least three hurdles remain to be overcome: first, how to deal with the vexed issue of dating; second, how to establish ethnic identity in the past; and third, how to avoid the more epistemological problem of premature integration of archeological and historical results and thus the conversion of discipline-based specula- tions into spurious interdisciplinary reconstructions of the past, as indeed has happened too often with studies of the spread of Bantu languages and the Early Iron Age.""

Historians of oral tradition have long struggled with the problem of chronology. David Henige devoted a whole book to this topic, the subtitle of which, "Quest for a Chimera," neatly sums up the frustra- tions which historians often feel when trying to assign dates to the events and processes described in oral traditions.""7 Several dating methods are available to historians but none of them are particularly satisfactory, with the exception perhaps of tie-ins with documentary sources. Where there are references in an oral tradition to an event whose occurrence is recorded in a documentary source or, of course, vice versa, then dating is generally feasible. Other dating methods include the use of references in oral traditions to astronomical phenomena, notably solar eclipses, which are theoretically identifiable."*' However, the identification of such phenomena in the oral traditions is often little more than a speculative leap of faith; for example, if it is said that the sky turned dark in the middle of the day, is this a de- scription of a solar eclipse, a sudden rainstorm, or a metaphor of trouble or something else?

In many parts of sub-Saharan Africa, the most commonly used method for dating traditions has been the construction of genealogies and kinglists. Where the principles of succession are known or can reasonably be assumed to be from father to son, one may assign each generation an average length expressed in years. The accuracy of a reconstructed genealogy and its dating may also receive support from tie-ins with the genealogies of neighboring societies, such as may be provided, for example, by accounts of wars between particular rulers. However, kinglists may be shortened (telescoped) in the course of transmission by such practices as the expunging of "usurpers," inter- regna, and periods of foreign rule from the traditions."' Moreover, a single archetypal figure, a Culture Hero, may be used in traditions to personify an early epoch or dynasty of unknown length.""

'"'Readers may think of others. '"7Hcnige, Chronology of Oral Tradition. '"Ibid., 18. "'"Ibid., 28. '"'Ibid., 34.


However, genealogies and kinglists may be lengthened as easily as they are telescoped. Rationales for the artificial lengthening of lists include the use of traditions to claim ownership of land through proof of having settled it before anyone else, as well as reverence of the past for its own sake."' The latter is perhaps a peculiar British disease but one that Africans were quick to diagnose and exploit to their own ad- vantage. Tie-ins between genealogies of neighboring societies may also be spurious artifacts of recent fabrication."2 Thus kinglists and genalogies may be either lengthened or shortened and there is no a priori reason to assume that lengthening is more likely than shorten- ing or vice versa. Each list must be subjected to careful analysis. Even then it appears that any chronology derived from such a list must be tentative at best.

One other means of dating traditions may be available to historians; this is the use of archeological dating methods on sites identified in oral traditions. For example, the site of Mubende Hill in Uganda is identified in traditions as having been settled by the Cwezi leader named Ndahura. Excavations here have revealed occupation in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries AD."' Thus one might conclude that Ndahura lived at that time. However, the acceptance of such a conclusion might be rash, for the persona Ndahura may be an example of euheinerism, a god made human in the transmission of oral traditions. Moreover, even a general association between the Cwezi and the early settlement at Mubende Hill may be spurious, since it may be an example of iconatrophy. The presence of an impressively tall tree on this hill may have encouraged the consecration of a shrine to a Cwezi spirit, since large trees quite commonly function as shrines in this part of the world, but the archeological evidence surrounding the tree may bear no relationship to either the shrine or the Cwezi."•

Similarly, in Buhaya (northwestern Tanzania), Peter Schmidt has argued in favor of a correlation between Early Iron Age archeological remains some two thousand or more years old and the Bacwezi, for example at the site of Rugamore Mahe, but this identification might be yet another example of iconatrophy."1 Therefore, we may conclude that many, but not necessarily all, correlations between archeological sites and oral traditions are iconatrophic, as in the classic En- glish example of Stonehenge and the Druids. However, each case

I'lIbid., 41ff. "'As, for example, with the Nyoro kinglist and its ties to that of the Bagaida; see ibid., 105-14. '"Peter Rocertshaw, "Archaecological Survey, Ceramic Aiinalysis and State Formation in

Western Uganda," African Archaeological Review 12 (1994), 108 "4SchmIidt, Historical Archaeology, 274. '"Ibid.; RI. Oliver, "Review of Schmidt, Historical Archaeology."

Tihe Intersection of Archeology and History 283

must be evaluated on its own merits; some of that which glitters might indeed be gold.'•'

Even at sites where iconatrophy is absent, dating is not necessarily a simple task, since archeological dating has problems of its own. Ar- cheologists strive mightily for chronological control; thus, close attention is paid to stratigraphy within sites and to the contexts in which artifacts are discovered, while at the regional level sites may be dated relative to each other by stylistic analyses of artifacts, as well as by radiometric methods, such as radiocarbon analysis."7 The degree of chronological control achieved by these methods is not, however, equivalent to the "events" of history."I The behavioral, depositional, and taphonomic processes that result in the formation of a single stratigraphic unit (layer) within a site occur over a timespan that is more likely to be measured in years rather than days. Stratigraphic units are not mini-Pompeiis.,"9

Moreover, in describing their work, archeologists often combine adjacent stratigraphic units to generate larger samples of artifacts and associated materials, such as animal bones, for analytical and comparative purposes. Similarly, when discussing regional settlement patterns, archeologists treat sites as contemporary if they belong to the same "phase," a division of time that almost certainly spans decades, and often several centuries. Therefore, in the Braudelian temporal scheme, the "situations" (to use Vansina's term) that archeologists reconstruct are broadly equivalent to conjunctures.'2"

Thus far I have discussed chronology as if it were a concept about which there is universal agreement. Yet it is clear from numerous ethnographic studies that different societies may have different concep- tions of time. This observation may be particularly applicable to non- literate societies, many of which may conceive of time as cyclic rather than linear."'2 While Western societies generally perceive time as pro-

"^Ilndeed, my own opinion is that a correlation does exist between the archeological site at Mubende Hill and the Cwczi shrine. For an example of a very modern Cwezi shrine attached to an ancient archeological site, see Peter Robertshaw and Ephraim Kamuhangire, "The Present in the Past: Archaeological Sites, Oral Traditions, Shrines and Politics in Uganda" in G. Pwiti and R. Soper, eds., Aspects of African Archaeology: Papers from the 10•' Congress of the Pan-African Association for Prehistory and Re- lated Studies (Harare, 1996), 739-43. "117 do not discuss the varied problems with radiometric, particularly radiocarbon, dating methods here, since these are well rehearsed in the literature and are probably fa- miliar to most historians; see, for example, Colin Renfrew and Paul Bahn, Archaeology (2d ed. London, 1996), 132-38. ""'Vansina, "Historians," 370. ""Lewis R. Binford, "Behavioral Archaeology and the 'Pompeii Premise'," Journal of Anthropological Research 37 (1981), 195-208. "21Vansina, "Historians," 370. "'•A.B. Knapp, "Archaeology and Annales: Time, Space, and Change" In Knapp, Ar-


gressing in a unilinear direction, others may think of it in terms of never-ending cycles, such as the annual cycle of agricultural activities or the longer-term cycles of order and chaos that correlate with the reigns of kings and the wars of succession that occur after their deaths. For these latter societies, kinglists and other linear chronological devices may be alien concepts adopted as part of the parapher- nalia of literacy. If nothing else, recognition of varied concepts of time should caution us even more of the dangers of attempting to date events described in oral traditions. The implications for archeology are less obvious, though Peter Schmidt has suggested that the cyclical nature of some societal processes, such as the life and death of kings, may be discernible in the archeological record if archeologists are at- tuned to the possibility.'22

If the dating of events and processes recounted in oral traditions remains a challenge to both historians and archeologists, establishing ethnic identities and correlating such identities with archeological constructs is equally problematic. Perhaps to a greater extent than any other aspect of oral traditions, ethnic identities are subject to dis- tortion and redefinition in the recounting of traditions. For ethnicity is one of the primary means by which individuals and groups can as- sert rights to land and other resources. Recourse to the authority of oral traditions may be a powerful tool in convincing oneself and others of your own and their identity."'2 Academic understanding of ethnic identity has also changed over time. The common perception that the ethnic groups encountered at the time of European contact had formed at some remote time has been replaced by a widespread real- ization that ethnic identities have been fluid and negotiable, and that many so-called "tribal names" were either products of colonialism or had a history that extended back only barely into the precolonial past.

The older tendency to assume that "tribes" were cohesive groups that had formed in the remote past also encouraged historians to explain demographic changes in terms of migrations; historians viewed tribes "as capable of drifting long distances over the map of Af- rica."'24 Support for theories of migration were often bolstered by oral traditions since population movements are often mentioned. In- deed, David Henige suggests that, "there is little glamour in autochthony, perhaps because it often seems desirable to distinguish the ruling classes from the rest of the population."'2' Thus, traditions

chaeology. Annales, and Ethnuhistory, 12; Peter R. Schmidt, "Rhythmed Time and its Archacological Implications" in PwirilSoper, Aspects of African Archaeology, 655-62. "'Schmidt, ibid., offers a couple of possible examples. U'Tonkil, Narrating, 130. "'2Miller, "Listening," 34. '2"Henige, Chronology, 96.


of migration often serve political agenda. Nowadays, both historians and archeologists are far more skeptical about the historical veracity of migration traditions.

It is, of course, possible to study oral traditions without paying particular attention to ethnic labels; one might, for example, focus on the traditions linked to a particular geographical region. Thus it may be sufficient simply to recognize the existence of cultural continuity of some sort, but not necessarily at the level of named ethnic groups, between the people of the past and the people recounting the oral traditions in the present. However, research becomes more complicated when archeology is added to the agenda. Archeologists identify cultural "traditions" or "industries" based on stylistic features of material culture, often pottery decoration, at sites found in a particular region and dating to a single period of time.

Each archeological tradition, often referred to in older literature as a "culture," is assumed to correlate in an undefined manner with identity; in other words, a tradition might or might not be identical to an ethnic or linguistic identity recognized by either the ancient people themselves or modern ethnographers or linguists."•' However, there has been an unfortunate tendency among archeologists to succumb to the siren call of the Whorf-Sapir hypothesis, despite the fact that it is now discredited. Thus, pottery is used to identify a culture, which is then equated first with a known language or proto-language and sec- ondly with a concomitant worldview, allowing the archeologist to read off an ancient ideology from the identification of a collection of potsherds, a practice vehemently denounced by Vansina."'

Similar reservations concerning this practice have been expressed by an archaeologist, Michael Smith, who points out that in Postclassic central Mexico, a region far more intensively studied than Africa, "a one-to-one association of ceramic types or styles with ethnic groups . . . more often than not has proved to be inaccurate.""' Therefore, archeologists must exercise great caution in extrapolating beyond the relatively simple identification of an archeological tradition. Archeologists must also accept that there are unlikely to be eas-

'2'See also the interesting discussion of "symbolic reservoirs;" R. Mcintosh, "Middle Niger Terracottas Before the Symplegades Gateway," African Arts 22 (1989), 74-83, 103-04; J. Sterner, "Sacred Pots and 'Symbolic Reservoirs' in the Mandara Highlands of Northern Cameroon" in J. Sterner and N. David, eds., An African Commitment: Pa- pers in Honour of Peter Lewis Shinnie (Calgary, 1992), 171-79; S. MacEachern, "'Sym- bolic Reservoirs' and Inter-Group Relations: West African Examples," African Ar- chaeological Review 12 (1994), 205-24. '2'Vansina, "Historians," 383. '2"M.E. Smith, "Rhythms of Change in Postclassic Central Mexico: Archaeology, Ethnohistory, and the Braudelian Model" in Knapp, Archaeology, Annales, and Etbnohistory, 52.


ily identifiable material correlates for such historic entities as the Bacwezi or even the ancestors of the Banyoro.

The complexity of ethnic identity as manifested in both oral traditions and archeology serves to demonstrate that the ethnic groups which historians and ethnographers may be able to identify are most unlikely to correspond in any straightforward manner with the traditions or cultures delineated by archeologists. This conclusion pushes us towards our third problem in combining archeology and oral traditions, how and when to integrate the two disciplinary perspectives.

The problems of premature integration of results are not unique to Africa. Smith, writing about Postclassic Mexico, has complained that the data of archeology and history have been "juxtaposed prema- turely before either has been sufficiently analyzed on its own terms.""9 Similarly, it has been proposed that archeologists need to pursue their research independently of the oral traditions."" Clearly, many archeologists reject the notion, popular though it seems among historians, that archeology is primarily a means of testing hypotheses about the past derived from studies of oral traditions.

It is equally true that the idea that archeologists may work without any regard to the interpretations of historians is nonsense. In design- ing our research and preparing our grant proposals we have all read the theories and interpretations offered by historians and, at the very least, have perused the traditions that the historians have analyzed. Therefore, whether or not we admit it, archeologists will consider the relevance of their results for historical interpretations, not as a final step in the research process but as an ongoing debate throughout their work. Thus some degree of feedback from historical interpretations into archeological research design is probably inevitable. There- fore, rather than aspiring to disciplinary aloofness, archeologists might be better advised to enter into a dialogue with historians as equal partners rather than as glorified technicians.

This paper has tried to continue the dialogue begun by Jan Vansina.'1 Historians, archeologists are indeed your siblings, not wayward servants with an unwarranted attachment to neo-evolutionary theory.

''M.E. Siitch, "Braudcl's Temporal Rhythis and Chronology Theory in Archaeology," in Knapp, Archacology) Annales, and Ethnohistory, 23-34. '"'For example, Connah, "Salt of Bunyoro," 480. "'I thank Jan Vansina for inspiring this paper and for not giving up oil archcelogy. I can only wish that my conmmand of.Jan's

discipline would even :approach

his command of minc.

sibling rivalry? the intersection of archeology and...

Documents