Sibling Rivalry? The Intersection of Archeology and History
Author(s): Peter Robertshaw
Source: History in Africa, Vol. 27 (2000), pp. 261-286
Published by: African Studies Association
Stable 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 unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may 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 printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of 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 in
Africa.
http://www.jstor.org
SIBLINGRIVALRY?THE INTERSECTIONOF
ARCHEOLOGYAND HISTORY
PETERROBERTSHAW
BERNARDINO
STATEUNIVERSITY-SAN
CALIFORNIA
Communicationbetween the practitionersof the two disciplines[historyand archeology]is stilloften 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 archaeologists 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."4Since 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
perhapsmanyarcheologicalpractitionersmissedVansina'sarticlebecauseit was publishedin an historical,not an archeological,journal.I
acrossthearticlea coupleof yearsagoandplungedin with
stumbled
both anticipationand trepidation.Whicharchaeologistcould resist
readinga critiqueof his disciplineby a respectedhistorian?My feelings turnedout to be justified.I was both excited and a little dismayedby what I read,thoughI was relievedto find that my own archeologicaleffortsin Ugandawere favorablyviewedby the eminence
grise.
'JanVansina,"ThePowerof SystematicDoubtin HistoricalEnquiry,"HA 1 (1974),
120.
yourSiblings?"HA 22 (1995),369-408.
'JanVansina,"Historians,AreArcheologists
Ibid.,399.
41bid.,370. Whata reliefforarcheologists!
Historyin 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
Therefore, when I was asked by the editors of the H-Afby
ricaVansina.listserv to initiate a discussion, I chose to write what I consider to
be a companion piece to, rather than a critique of, Vansina'spaper.tI
was at first disappointed by the meager amount of online discussion
that was generated;however,several colleagues later wrote to me privately expressing a varietyof 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 correspondents.' Let me state at the outset that, though mnydegrees 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 definition 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 recover history from oral traditions. Because of my work in Uganda, I
am particularlyinterested 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.
"Ithank KathrynGreen, one of the H-Africa listserv'seditors, for suckeringme 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 attemptingto do decent archeology.
"Vansina,"Historians,"399.
'"Arehistoriansarcheologists?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, Vansinamakes this
poiIntat 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 mllyopinioll 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 thleinteresting ideas
expressed in those sections. Sections IV and V present a synopsis of some recent archceologicalresearchof interest to historians, and might, therefore,be deenied less colntroversial. Although I hope that it is not necessary to read Vansina'sarticle in order to
comprehendthis paper,I reconunenddoing so.
The Intersectionof Archeologyand History
263
viewof theepistemology
Africanhistory,
andmethodsof precolonial
butthereis alreadya substantial
andgrowingbodyof literature
on
thatportionof historical
thathasbeentermed"text-aided
archeology
archeology."'"
In spite of all the declarationsof principle,most historiansare simply
notinterested
in the resultsof archeology."
Why this sad state of affairs?"The foremostproblemmay well be
that historianshavetoo touchinga faithin archeologyas a 'scientific'
some basicrealitiesabout it."'4
discipline,and hencemisunderstand
Yes,indeed!I suspectarcheologistshave beenboth flatteredand bemusedby historians'conceptionof archeologyas science,founded
on theobservation
thatarcheologists
presumably
diguprealstuffand
get it radiocarbon-dated
by the white-coatedhighpriestsof science.I
suspecttoo that archeologistshavealso beenannoyedby the implicit
elisionin meaningbetweenarcheologists
as scientistsandarcheolo-
gists as techniciansprovidingdatingservicesfor historians."
Vansinarightlypointsout thefallaciesin regarding
as
archeology
simply"scientific,"and urgesus to considerarcheologicalepistemology and its paradigmaticunderpinnings.Thus, his first and major
criticismof Africanarcheology
is its "nearlytotaladherence
to neo-
'"Forexample,BarbaraJ. Little,ed., Text-AidedArchaeology(BocaRaton, 1992);
CharlesE. Orser,Jr., A HistoricalArchaeologyof the ModernWorld(New York,
R.
1995). Fortext-aidedarcheologyin Africa,see MerrickPosnanskyandChristopher
DeCorse,"HistoricalArchaeologyin sub-SaharanAfrica:a Review,"HistoricalArchaeology20(1986), 1-14. Forexamplesof research,see publicationson mostof the
regionsdiscussedin GrahamConnah,AfricanCivilizations(Cambridge,1987);also
GrahamConnah,ed., Transformations
in Africa:Essayson Africa'sLaterPast(London, 1998).
369.
"'Vansina,
"Historians,"
"Ibid.,370.
"I for one alwayshad ambivalentfeelingsaboutthe long-running(but now defunct)
seriesof commissionedarticleson archeologyin theJournalof AfricanHistorythat
datesto be minedby
seemto havebeenconceivedof as annotatedlistsof radiocarbon
historians.Of course,it was hardto refusewhenaskedto prepareone of thesearticles
sincethe invitationcarriedthe aurathatone hadfinallyachieveda certainprofessional
triedto subvertthe formatof these
standing.However,thewaysin whicharcheologists
articlespresumably
contributedto the demiseof the series.Of course,now thatthe serieshasended,it wouldbegood to see morearcheologists
substantivepacontributing
persto thejournal.My impressionhereis thatthepaucityof suchpapersshouldnot be
chargedto theeditorsof the journal,but ratherto archeologistsandto the riseof the
Review.Of course,one differencebetweenarcheologists
andhisAfricanArcheological
torians,whichis perhapsnot as trivialas it appears,is that historiansuse thesedamn
footnotesall the time.
264
PeterRobertsbaw
Of course,some archeologistsmightsee this
evolutionarytheory."'"
as its majorstrength!
Sidesteppingthis debate for the moment,we note that Vansina
mountshis attackon the use of neo-evolutionary
theoryin Africaarcheology,and in particularthe adherenceto an adaptationistperspecThis is a
tive,by examiningDavidPhillipson'sAfricanArchaeology.'7
logical but perhapsunfortunatetarget.As Vansinapoints out, this
bookis the usualpointof entryinto Africanarcheologyfor historians
andotherneophytes,sinceit is writtenbya respectedauthorityand is
the only recentsynthesisof all of the field.'"Yes, Phillipson'sbook
does profoundlyembraceneo-evolutionary
theory,even whilesometimesdisclaimingit."'Thus, it is a reflectionof the work of African
archeologists,but it is one from which muchof the color has been
washedout. Therefore,Vansina'scontrastof Phillipson'ssynthesis
with Devisse'sdirecthistoricalapproachturnsthe formerinto somethingof a strawman.2"
AfricanArchaeologymustbe understoodin context.Itsauthorhas
carefullyexcised the debates that underlie his interpretationsbecause
I believe(and here I imputemotivesthat might be incorrect)that
Phillipsonwishedto writea book that was a briefyet authoritative
introductionto the field.The resultis a book that is breathtakingin
its masteryof the literature,but one that is shornof the debatesthat
makearcheologyexcitingfor mostof its practitioners
and for readers
likeVansina.2"
Moreover,Phillipsonmostlyeschewsanydiscussionof
theoryin his work,so it is perhapsunfortunatethat VansinausesAfricanArchaeologyas the bellwetherof currenttheory.'2
It is also far fromcertainthat the neo-evolutionism
of AfricanArchaeology is a paradigm embraced wholeheartedly by many practic-
ing archeologists,at least in the last decade.Much of the recentarAfrica,for example,discussedin
cheologicalresearchin sub-Saharan
sections IV and V of Vansina'sarticle can be labeled "neo-evolution-
ary"only if the termis definedin an impossiblybroadmanneras 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, AfricanArcbaeolog),(2d ed.: Cambridge, 1993).
""Jeanl)evisse, ed., Valles du Niger (Paris, 1993); idem., "La recherchearchitologicquc
et sa contribution ii I'histoire de I'Afrique," Recherche d(IepItagogie et culture 55
(1981), 2-8.
'"Iiideed, lly own students find the 1ook very hard going; it certainly takes a dogged
readerto plow through the chapter on the Middle and l.ate Stone Ages.
""Thiscomment is applicable to much, if not most, of Phillipson's work, not just African Archaeology.
The Intersectionof Archeologyand History
265
ferringto changethroughtime. Furthermore,
Phillipson'sAfricanArchaeologyignoresalmostall of the substantialbody of researchundertakenwithinpost-processualist
paradigms,presumablybecauseit
is difficultto reconfigurethe resultsof this researchwithina neo-evolutionaryframework.'
Theworksof Rod andSusanMcIntoshwouldbe moresuitablefor
theoreticalanalysis.24
Vansina'sviews appearso antitheticalto ideas
of models and theories of culture process, however, that the
McIntoshs'endeavorsare subjectedalmostto caricatureratherthan
analysis."Throughouttheir work, the McIntoshsemploy models,
primarilyderivedfromgeographyand anthropology,in orderto reveal and explain the patternshiddenin the massesof archeological
data that they haverecovered.The resultsof theirendeavorsprovide
readerswith explanationsof the pastthatreaderscan eitheracceptor
challengeby consultingthe meticulouslypublishedreportsof the archeologicaldata and suggestingalternativehypotheses.2'The use of
itSee below for more information and some examples. Admittedly the pace of postprocessual 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.
"Forexample,
ThePeoples
R.J.Mcintosh,
of theMiddleNiger(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 siiBclesobscurs to Revolutionary Centuries on the Middle
Niger," WorldArchaeology 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 Conmplexity in Africa (Cambridge, 1999); S.K. Mcintosh and R.J. McIntosh, "Cities Without 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 Prehistoryof West Africa,"Journal of World Prehistory2(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. Vansinaalso 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 connections between phenomena, but they are also the best means of evolving material to
bridge gaps in information;"Vansina, "Power,"119. Some of Vansina'schange of heart
may have come from reading Devisse's critique of what he considers to have been overhasty, 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 Kanianain the Inland Niger Delta (Mali). The 1981 Season (Berke-
266
PeterRobertshaw
modelsalso helps to place WestAfricanresearchwithin the frameworkof globaldebateswithinanthropologyand archeologyconcerning the rise of sociopoliticalcomplexity.By meansof this approach,
the Mclntoshs demonstrate the relevance of Africa to the interests of
specialistsin otherpartsof the globe.If nothingelse, this providesan
famousbarbconcerningthe "the
impressiverebukeof Trevor-Roper's
barbarous
of
tribesin picturesquebut irrelunrewardinggyrations
evantcornersof 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
strengthsand weaknessesof archeology.Vansinacontraststhe evidenceof archeology-"mute" artifacts-with that of history-written or oral "messages";the formerserve to elucidate"situations,"
while the latterare used to reconstruct"events."2n
Thus the differencesbetweenarcheologyand historyaremoreprofoundthansimply
the differencesbetweenthe typesof evidencethat each disciplineexamines.
Vansinaidentifiesthe strengthsof archeologyas the recoveryof
of "situations"and the lives
materialevidence,andthe reconstruction
of ordinaryfolk." He also praisesarcheologistsfor their ability to
harnessevidencefrom other disciplines,particularlythe sciences.-"
Archeology'sweaknessesare deemedto be "a nearlytotal adherence
to neo-evolutionary
theory";"therefusalto recognizefullythe roleof
contingencyby stickingto the use of theoreticalmodels";"the exand "thelackof contemporarytestitravagantuseof extrapolation";
monyto limitthe freerangeof the imagination.""Archeologistscan
scarcelybe heldaccountablefor the lastof theseweaknesses.The first
two "weaknesses"raiseimportanttheoreticalissuesabout the goals
of archeologyand the natureof explanation,while the third "weakness"also meritsbriefdiscussion.
Vansinacontendsthat mostAfricanarcheologists,eitherimplicitly
or explicitly,employ an epistemologicalfoundationof multilinear
an approachthat "strikeshistoriansas profoundly
neo-evolutionism,
He rightlyequatesthis parateleologicaland henceantihistorical."'2
digmaticorientationwith Anglophonearcheologists,who tend to
in the Region
icy, 1995);S.K.Mcintoshand R.J.Mcintosh,PrehistoricInvestigations
of Jenne,Mali(Oxford,1980).
"TheRiseof ChristianEurope,"Thelistener 70(1963),871-75,
2"HughTrevor-Roper,
915-19, 975-79, 1019-23,1061-65.
2"Vansina,
"Historians,"370. He clearlyhas the Annalesschool of historyin mind
here,as indeedhe makesclearlater;ibid.,375.
396.
'11Ibid.,
399.
1"lbid.,
396.
31"Jbid.,
note24.
3-lbid.,371; see also Devisse,"Recherche,"
The Intersectionof Arcbeologyand History
267
searchfor evidencethat will allow them to developtheoriesto exin human
plainthe originsanddevelopmentof majortransformations
historysuchas the beginningsof agricultureand the riseof the state.
The neo-evolutionaryparadigmis largelyequatedwith American
or
archeologistswho eitherconsiderthemselvesto be anthropologists
at leastbelievethat theirdisciplineis linkedfirstand foremostto anthropologyratherthan to history.Theseviews, I suspect,are largely
sharedby Britisharcheologistseven thoughthey mayshy away from
archethe moreprogramaticstatementsof Americananthropological
ology. In contrast,accordingto Vansina,"manyfrancophonesand
mostotherEuropeanscholars"do not considerarcheologyto be part
of anthropology.-'
The reasonsfor this apparentdividelie in the disciplinaryorigins
of archeology:in Americaprofessionalarcheologybeganas a study
by archeologistsof Europeanancestryof the past of the "other,"in
this case Native Americans,whereasin Europearcheologistsused
their disciplineto push the study of their own history back into
preliteratetimes."4Thus Americanistarcheologyfound its home in
the anthropologydepartmentsof museumsand universities,while
theirEuropeancounterpartsresidedwithinhistorydepartments.The
gradualshift towardsanthropologicalarcheologyin Britainover the
last twentyor thirtyyears presumablyreflectsthe influenceof our
AmericanAnglophone"cousins."The rejection,or at leastthe avoidance, of anthropologyby continentalEuropeanarcheologistsis a
great mysteryfor my Americancolleagueswho cannotconceiveof
studyinghumanity'spast withoutembracingthe disciplinethat studies humanity.One suspectsthat at least some of the rejectionof anthropologyis no morethan chauvinisticposturing,as it is beliedby
the anthropologicalinsightsthat are to be discoveredin European
writings.
It is importantto realizeherethat the neo-evolutionary
paradigm
and anthropologicalarcheologyare not the same thing:the latter
comesin manyguises.Indeed,it is unfortunatethatVansinaseemsto
equateneo-evolutionismwith both the "New Archeology"and with
the useof models.Whatwas the "NewArcheology"of the 1960sand
1970s is now usuallytermed"processualarcheology,"since thirty
years on it is no longer "new."At the risk of oversimplification,
processualarcheologyattemptsto explain the past in termsof the
variedinteractionsbetweenaspectsof cultureand the ecosystem.Adherentsof this approachtendto preferexplanationsthat focuson internaldevelopmentswithinsocietyoverthosethatattributechangeto
migrationor the deedsof greatpeople.Theyalso emphasizethe use
3Ibid.,377.
and the Imageof the AmericanIndian,"American
"BruceG. Trigger,"Archaeology
Antiquity45(1980),662-76.
268
PeterRobertshaw
of explicit methodologies allied to a penchant for the epistemologies
of science, as well as statistics and sometimes systems theory. None of
this requiresadherenceto a neo-evolutionary
paradigmor to the use
of models,thoughadmittedlybothof thesewereandareembracedby
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 varietyof differenttheoreticalorientationsin archeologythatshare
littleor nothingin commonotherthanthe fact thattheyare not
processual.Post-processualarchaeologiesincorporate,but are not
limitedto, researchinterestsin cognitivearcheology,symbolicand
structural
criticaltheoryandstudiesof gender,cultural
archeology,
materialismand Marxism."Forexample,ThomasHuffman'sefforts
to identifythe cognitiveand cosmologicalsystemsexpressedin the
layout of Iron Age settlementsin southernAfricais an exampleof
Other examples of postpost-processualcognitive archeology."7
31Forexample,SusanMcintosh,whose enthusiasmfor modelsis noted by Vansina,
see Susan
"Historians,"374, has explicitlystatedher rejectionof neo-cvolutionism;
KecchMcintosh,"Pathways
to Complexity:
An AfricanPerspective"
ill S.K.Mcintosh,
ed., BeyondCbiefdoms:Pathwaysto Complexityin Africa(Cambridge,1999), 1-30;
with neo-evolutionism
was alreadyevidentin 1994 in
moreover,her disillusionment
Mcintoshalso drawson bothprocessualandpostMcintosh,"Changing
Perceptions."
processualapproachesin herwork.
a primerin post-processual
see IanHodder,Readingthe Past(2d ed.:
"'For
archeology,
Cambridge1991).
N. Huffman,"Archaeology
3"Thomas
and Ethnohistory
of the AfricanIronAge,"AnEvidenceand
nal Reviewof Anthropology11 (1982), 133-50;idem.,"Archaeological
Conventional
of SouthernBantuSettlementPatterns,"Africa56 (1986),
Explanations
andthe CentralCattlePattern,"SouthAfricanJournal
280-98;idemi.,"Broederstroom
in
of Science89 (1993),220-26;idem.,Snakesand Crocodiles:I'owerandSyiambolism
AncientZimbabwe(Johannesburg,
1996).It is indeedstrangethat Vansina,"Historians,"374, cites thisresearchas exemplaryof the New Archeology;
Huffman'sworkis
farremovedfromprocessualism
In fact,a common
and,particularly,
neo-evolutionism.
criticismof Huffman'sendeavorsis that he imposesthe ethnographicrecordonto the
past and does not allow for evolutionarychangein settlementpatterns;see Vansina,
in theStudyof
note70; PaulLane,"TheUseand Abuseof Ethnography
"Historians,"
the SouthernAfricanIronAge,"Azania29 (1996), 51-64. Farbetterexamplesof the
impactof New Archeologycan he found in the southernAfricaniliterature;the researchesof HilaryDeaconandJohnParkington,amongothers,in the late 1960s and
early1970swereto inspirea generationof SouthAfricanarcheologiststo pursueecologicalapproaches:
H.J.Deacon,WhereHuntersGathered:A Studyof HoloceneStone
Age Peoplein the EasternCape(Claremon,t,
1976);J.E.Parkington,"SeasonalMobility in the LateStoneAge,"AfricanStudies31 (1972), 223-43, areperhapsthe seminal
the Fabricof Stone
publications.ForfurtherdiscussionseeJanettei)eacon,"Weaving
ed., A Historyof AfricanArAge Researchin SouthernAfrica"in PeterRobertshaw,
(London,1990),39-58.
chbaeology
TheIntersection
andHistory
of Archeology
269
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 foragers,3sshamanic interpretations of rock art,"' studies of the social
and symbolic contexts of iron-working,4•Marxist approaches to the
Zimbabwe state,41 structuralistanalyses of colonial settlements,41and
critical studies in (historical)
Even more recently studies
have been promiof gender44and of power andarcheology.4formations
political
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 researchquestions in archeology of interest to Vansina, their existence firmly negates the charge that neo-evolutionary theory enjoys almost total loyalty among African archeologists. If historians want to get acquainted
with their siblings, they should look well beyond processualarcheologists.
"LaterStoneAgeBurialVariability
in
'"Forexample,SimonL. Hall andJ. Binnemnan,
the EasternCape:A SocialInterpretation,"
SouthAfricanArchaeological
Bulletin42
So(1987), 140-52;LynWadley,LaterStoneAge Huntersof the SouthernTransvaal:
cial andEcologicalInterpretation
P.Nilssen,C. Reeler
(Oxford,1987);J. Parkington,
andC. Henshilwood,"MakingSenseof Spaceat DunefieldMiddenCampsite,Western
Cape,SouthAfrica,"Sotuthern
AfricanFieldArchaeology1 (1992),63-70.
The Rock Art of SouthernAfrica(Cambridge,
"3Forexample,J.D. Lewis-Williams,
andT.A.Dowson,Imagesof Power(Johannesburg,
1983);J.D. Lewis-Williams
1989);
T.A.Dowson,RockEngravings
1992).
of SouthernAfrica(Johannesburg,
4"Forexample,S. TerryChilds, "Style,Technologyand Iron SmeltingFurnacesin
Africa,"Journalof Anthropological
Bantu-Speaking
Archaeology10 (1991), 332-59;
S.T.ChildsandD. Killick,"Indigenous
AfricanMetallurgy:
NatureandCulture,"AnnualReviewof Anthropology
22 (1993),317-37;PeterR. Schmidt,IronProductionin
EastAfrica:Symbolism,Scienceand Archaeology(Bloomington,1997);P.R.Schmidt
and B.B.Mapunda,"Ideologyand the Archaeological
Recordin Africa:Interpreting
Symbolismin IronSmeltingTechnology,"
Journalof Anthropological
Archaeology16
(1997), 128-57.
A Territorial
Space.TimeandSocialFormation:
Approachto theArchaeol4P. Sinclair,
c. 0-1700 AD (Uppsala,1987);
ogy andAnthropology
of ZimbabweandMozainbique
P. Sinclair,I. Pikirayi,G. PwitiandR. Soper,"UrbanTrajectories
on the Zimbabwean
Plateau,"in T. Shaw,P.Sinclair,B. AndahandA. Okpoko,eds., TheArchaeologyof
Africa:Food,Metalsand Towns(London,1993),705-31.
of BritishCulturein the
4"Forexample,M. WinerandJ. Deetz,"TheTransformation
EasternCape,1820-1860,"SocialDynamics16 (1990), 55-75;see also, MartinHall,
"TheArchaeologyof ColonialSettlementin SouthernAfrica,"AnnualReviewof Anthropology22 (1993), 177-200.
"Forexample,CarmelSchrire,DiggingthroughDarkness.Chronicles
ofan Archaeolo1995);MartinHall, "TheLegendof the LostCity;or, The Man
gist (Charlottesville,
withtheGoldenBalls,"Journalof SouthernAfricanStudies21 (1995), 179-99.
"SusanKent,ed., Genderin AfricanPrehistory
(WalnutCreek,1998);LynWadley,ed.,
Our Gendered Past: Archeological Studies of Gender in Southern Africa
1998).
(Johannesburg,
4"Mcintosh,
BeyondChiefdoms.
270
PeterRobertsbaw
Vansinahimselfsharesa penchantfor the "directhistoricalapproach"favoredby manyof his continentalEuropeanarcheological
colleagues,an approachwhichhe considersto embraceassumptions
held by historians,such as the importanceof contingencyand the
Somearcheologists,however,mightlabelsuch
specificityof change.4"
an approachas particularistic,
provincial,and lackingin explanatory
value;they would be wrong, but so would those who mightclaim
thatcontingencyand specificityhave no placein processualarcheology or evenin neo-evolutionary
theory.Vansina'suseof the term"direct historicalapproach"is potentiallymisleading,for as it is most
commonlyemployedin Anglophonearcheologyit refersnot to a concernwith historyand contingencyper se. Ratherit refersto one type
of analogyusedin archeologicalreasoning.This is the use of ethnographicor historicalaccountsto flesh out archeologicalreconstructions wherecultural,geographicand/ortemporalcontinuitycould be
betweenthe ethnographicor historic"present"and the
demonstrated
moredistantpast uncoveredby archeology.47
Clearly,thereis considerableoverlapbetweenthe two uses of the term, but it seemsclear
that what Devisseand Vansinahave in mindis not solely the use of
analogy,but ratheran approachsharedby some post-processualarcheologistswho view archeologyas "long-termhistory.""
III
are hardlylikelyto disappear,buta brief
Paradigmatic
disagreements
excursionintothe realmof whatconstitutes"explanation"maydemonstratethat Africanhistorians,anthropologicalarcheologists,and
archeologistswho subscribeto the "directhistoricalapproach"hold
views that are not as incompatibleas they mightat first appearto
all protagonistsrecognizethe roleof contingency.
be."'Specifically,
Archeologistsand historiansboth studyprocessesand eventsthat
of the temporaleleare situatedin timeand space.Acknowledgment
"Historians,"
375; Vansinaoffersthe workof JeanDevisseas exemplaryin
4"Vansina,
this approach;see Dcvisse,Valldes
du Niger;"Recherche".
in analogicalreasoninghasa longhistoryin archcol47The"directhistoricalapproach"
ogy,especiallyin the AmericanSouthwest.Thetermwas probablycoinedby WaldoR.
Wedcl,The DirectHistoricalApproachin PawneeArcheology(Washington,1938),
whilethe mostfamousstatcmentof the underlyingprinciplesis RobertAscher,"Analogy in ArchaeologicalInterpretation,"
Journalof Antbropology17
Southbwestern
(1961), 317-25; for recentdiscussions,see AlisonWylie,"'Simplic'
Analogyand the
Role of RelevanceAssumptions:Implicationsof ArchaeologicalPractice,"InternationalStudiesin the Philosophyof Science2 (1988), 134-50;andfor Africa,see AnnB.
Stahl,"Changeand Continuityin the BIanda
Area,Ghana:The DirectHistoricalAp21 (1994), 181-203.
proach,"J
of FieldArchaeology
s Long-Term
"Forexample,
lan Hodder,ed., Archaeoklogy
1989).
History(Cambridge,
.ournal
4"Asiunderstood
by Vansina.
The Intersectionof Archeologyand History
271
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 component.
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 eventsmatters 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, following 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 resolution of archeological and historical data are generally dissimilar.
What about Vansina'sclaim 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 "subjectivecomponent.""1Yet the "relentlessexpose 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
in A.B.
5"R.Fletcher,"TimePerspectivism,
Annales,andthe Potentialof Archaeology"
1992),35.
Knapp,ed., ArchaeologyAnnales,and Ethnohistory
(Cambridge,
-"Ibid.
396.
-'Vansina,
"Historians,"
"Seeespeciallyibid.,379; cf. ibid.,381-82.
272
PecterRobertsbaw
and paradigmaticorientations 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 researchpriorities?
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
One suspects too that historians are as equally guilty here as
science."Perhaps archeologists (and historians) should follow
archeologists.-'
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 integraTypical of this impasse is Connah's comment that "[t]wo
tion.-"
tonnes of excavated potsherds [arel unlikely to tell us anything ...
[about] the semi-mythical Bacwezi.""'Elsewhere the same author bemoans the fact that while archeologists and anthropologists "have
sought to understandchange 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 personalitiesand their deeds ("actors and events"), they may
indeed refer to process. Therefore, we should beware of the danger of
confusing style with substance.
The beginningsof historical study of oral traditions in sub-Saharan
384.
'4Ibid.,
"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 furtherthan my own site reports.
"Historic;allinguistics seems to me to be a field of study, like archeology, vwhereextravagantextrapolation may be easily concealed in technical appendices.
"Mcintosh, Peoplcs.
'"DavidHenige, Oral Historiography(New York, 1982), 2.
"'GrahanConnah, "The Salt of Bunyoro:Seeking the Origins of an African Kingdom,"
Antiquity 65(199 I), 480.
'"Graham
Civilizations:
CitiesandStatesin Tropical
Connah,
African
Af'recolonial
I
rica: An Archaeological Perspective(Cambridge, 1987), 13.
The Intersectionof Archeologyand History
273
Africaare closelytied to the Africanindependencemovementsof the
1950sand 1960s. The firstgenerationof Africanhistorianstendedto
assumethatoral traditionswererelativelyuncomplicated
accountsof
what had happenedthe past." The historian'sjob was to go out into
the field, interview knowledgeable,often elderly, informantsand
therebycollectthe traditions.On returnto the office,thesetraditions
weretranscribed,translatedand woven togetherinto a narrativeaccountof the pastof the particularethnicgroupstudied.The resulting
historiesbeganwith accountsof origins,sometimesdeemedto be creationmyths,andendedwith the establishmentof colonialism."2
Thus historianssoughtto compilea definitivehistoryof each ethnic group, an endeavorthat was well suited to the politicalclimate
surroundingindependence.These historieswere in manyways the
logical progressionfrom the ethnographiesproducedprimarilyby
Britishanthropologistsworkingunderthe aegis of colonial governmentsseekingto refinethe methodsof indirectrule.'"Of course,the
conceptof territoriallyboundedethnicgroups,eachof whichmerited
its own history,was in largeparta productof Europeancolonialism.
Methodologicalconcerns among historianstended to focus on
chronology,the datingof eventsin the absenceof documentaryreferences; ingenioussolutions involvinggenealogiesand solar eclipses
wereproposed."Fortheirtheoryand methodthesehistoriesalso relied uponVansina'sseminalwork, Oral Tradition,firstpublishedin
Frenchin 1961 and in Englishtranslationfouryearslaterand subsequentlymuchrevised."
For Vansinain the 1960s, oral traditionswere "messages"from
the past that could be decipheredby carefulanalysisof theircontent
and of the contexts in which they were recitedand passed down
throughgenerations.Thus Vansinatook a positivistand empiricist
position in which history(what happenedin the past) could be revealed by patient applicationto oral traditionsof the appropriate
analyticalmethods.An oral traditioncould in a sensebe unwrapped
to revealthe historyat its core. However,Vansinaalso averredthat
the history thus reconstructedconstituteda hypothesisto be confirmedby independentevidencesuch as writtendocumentsand the
findingsof archeology."Therefore,archeologywas perceivedby his"In the interestsof both brevityand debate,allow me to indulgein a few somewhat
sweepinggeneralizations.
("Historians
maysupplytheirown examples.
"'Seepreviousnote.
"4Forcriticaldiscussionof thesedatingefforts,see DavidHenige,The Chronologyof
OralTradition:Questfor a Chimera(Oxford,1974);idem,"Reflectionson EarlyInterlacustrine
Chronology:An Essayin SourceCriticism,"
JAH 15(1974),27-46.
'"JanVansina,Oral Tradition(Harmondsworth,
1965); idem.,OralTraditionas History(Madison,1985).
"'Seealso 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 African Past Speaks."'These misgivings were prompted primarilyby anthropologists who treatedoral traditions as "myths," which they then
subjected to structuralistor functionalist analysis.7"While Vansina in
particularobjected strongly to the denial of the historicityof 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-searchingwas a retreatfrom positivism and,
indeed, a new skepticism about the historical value of the narrative
content of most oral traditions.72Joseph Miller even felt threatened
enough to complain that anthropologists "see history in a much more
positivistic sense than do most historians.""71Indeed, he continued, for
historians,
historyis the study of the remnantsof the past that happen to survive into the present,which[historians]then use as basesfordrawing
probabilisticinferencesabout what the past may have been like.
Theymakeno pretenseat comprehensiveness. . . . Theyaccept as
'history'the selectiveand tenuousreconstructionsthey can achieve,
"'MerrickPosnansky, "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
PreterhumanAncestors:A Devil's Advocacy," Paideuma23 (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, adherentsof New Archeology
proclaimedthat archeology could reconstructall 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 Perspectivesin Archeology (Chicago, 1968). Most processual archeologists soon
turned away from this ambitious agenda; see discussion above.
""JosephC. Miller, ed., The African Past Speaks:Essays on Oral Traditionand History
(Folkestone, 1980).
'"JosephC. Miller, "Listeningfor the African Past," in ibid., 3.
71Jan Vansina, "Is Elegance Proof?" HA 10(1983), 307-48.
7"Henige,Oral Historingraphy;idem, "TruthsYet Unborn? Oral Tradition as a Casualty of Cultural Contact," JAH 23(1982), 395-412; Miller, "Listening,"45.
"Ibid., 46.
The Intersectionof Archeologyand History
275
however'mythical'these may appearby the standardsof others....
Most historianstoday would limitthemselvesto the examinationof
evidencefromthe past, examinedin the presentas signifyingsomething 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,recordingand context of oral traditions.
The results of this exercise are evident in the revised version of
Vansina'sclassic text, boldly retitled Oral Tradition as History.70
Nevertheless, historians themselves seemed to remain deeply divided as to the historicity of oral traditions, particularlythose 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 understandingand 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
skepticismof the historicalvalue of oral traditions.7t Tonkininsiststhat
historianswho use the recollectionsof otherscannot justscan them
for usefulfacts to pickout, likecurrantsfroma cake. Anysuch facts
are so embedded in the representationthat it directsan interpretation of them, and its very ordering,its plotting and its metaphors
bearmeaningtoo.79
Theoretically well-informed Africanists are hardly likely to consider such remarks revolutionary, but Tonkin goes on to construct a
74Ibid., 47.
andrecentdiscussion
7'Ibid.,49. Fora thorough
by thesameauthor,seeJosephC.
and History,"AmericanHistoricalReview
Miller,"Historyand Africa/Africa
104(1999),1-32.
OralTradition
as History.
71Vausina,
41-43.
"Listening,"
"Miller,
"'Elizabeth
OurPasts:TheSocialConstruction
Tonkin,Narrating
of OralHistory
1992).
(Cambridge,
6.
7"Ibid.,
276
PeterRobertsbaw
detailedargumentconcerninghow variouselements-includingthe
individual, society, history, memory, and cognition-combine in the
creation of oral narratives,which can themselves be presented in several differentgenres.
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 'representationof
It is easy to slip fromone meaningto
pastness',history-as-recorded.
another because of the differentways that the past lives in the
presentand judgmentsabout eventswhichare themselvesrepresen-
tationsof pastnesscanalsobe a formof 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-aslived" 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 presumablynot 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 transactions."'Perhapshistory is wherever historians can find it.
One major area of historical inquiry with its own epistemological
and methodological debates is comparative linguistics."2The histories
of wordsand theirattachedmeanings(semantics)haveproveda par-
ticularly fertile area for historians."•Indeed, Vansina'srecent monumental history of equatorial Africa is founded upon the study of
"words and things," a combination of linguistic and ethnographic
data emphasizing semantics.84Oral traditions play only a very minor
role, whichsuggeststhat perhapsVansinais distancinghimselffrom
the problems that have been identified as being inherent in recon"Ibid.,2.
"'D.W.Cohen, Wonmunafu'sBunafu:A Study of Authority in a Nineteenth-CenturyAfrican Cornntunity(Princeton, 1977).
''Forthe interrelationship
betweenthisfieldandarcheologysee, for cxample,Christopher Ehret, "LinguisticEvidenceand its Correlationwith Archaeology," WorldArchacology 8(1976), 5-18; idem, "Language Change and the Material Correlates of Language and Ethnic Shift," Antiquity 61(1988), 366-74; idcm and Merrick Posnansky,
and LinguisticReconstruction
eds., TheArchaeological
of AfricanHistory(Berkeley,
1982).
"'DerekNurse, "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
EquatorialAfrica, (London, 1990), see esp. 11-12.
The Intersectionof Archeologyand History
277
structinghistoryfromsuch sources.This, however,is speculationon
my part.The reasonsbehindthe infrequentuse of oral traditionsin
this case may be moremundaneand practical,given the logisticsof
conductingresearchin the rainforestsof Congoand its neighbors.
Linguistichistorians(or historicallinguists)have forgedrelatively
close linkswith archeologists,even publishingtheirwork in archeological journals."Nevertheless,some archeologistshave remained
skepticalof the historians'conclusions.8'
V
Whatdo historiansthinkof Africanarcheologyand its practitioners?
Perceptionshavechangedover time in accordancewith paradigmatic
shiftsin bothdisciplines,buthistorianshaveremainedfairlysteadfast
in theirbeliefthat archeologyprovidesa set of methodswherebythe
validityof history reconstructedfrom oral traditionscan be tested
with independentdata.An earlyand rathersuccessfulexampleof the
use of archeology as verification was provided by Merrick
Posnansky'sexcavationsat Bweyorere;evidencewas unearthedof
events that were mentionedin traditionswhile radiocarbondating
bolsteredthe chronologyreconstructed
by genealogicalmethods."
In the 1960s, archeology'scontributionto Africanhistory was
thoughtto be primarilythe provisionof datingevidenceand the elucidationof past migrationroutes.Thus,in a seminalarticleon Bantu
expansion,the historianRoland Oliver rhetoricallyasked: "What,
now, can archaeologyadd to this picture?"His answer,"dates."xx
Similarsentimentswere echoed by Vansinain Oral Tradition,but
with a caveat:
Archeologycan throwlight on certainaspectsof the past, especially
on migrationsand on materialculture.It is, however,often impossible to linkthe informationobtainedfrom oraltraditionswith definite archeologicalfinds.89
A concernwith migrationroutesand the identificationof the geographicaloriginsof variousinnovations,suchas metalwork,pottery,
"'Forexample,Ehret,"LinguisticEvidence,"idem., "LanguageChange;"David L.
Schoenbrun,"CattleHerdsand BananaGardens:The HistoricalGeographyof the
WesternGreatLakesRegion,ca. AD 800-1500,"AfricanArchaeologicalReview11
(1993), 39-72.
""For
fortheStudy
example,PeterRobertshawandDavidCollett,"ANew Framework
in EastAfrica,"JAH24 (1983),289-301.
of EarlyPastoralCommunities
"'MerrickPosnansky,"The Excavationof an Ankole CapitalSite at Bweyorere,"
UgandaJournal32 (1968), 165-82.
""Roland
Oliver,"TheProblemof the BantuExpansion,"
JAH7 (1966), 361-76;quote
from371. Seealso Miller,"HistoryandAfrica,"13.
OralTradition,174.
""Vansina,
278
Peter Robcrtsbaw
andagricultural
crops,pervadedAfricanarcheologyin the 1960s and
muchof the 1970s. This was perhapsa lingeringlegacyof the colonial periodwhen it was widely assumedthat culturalinnovations,
andsometimespeoplethemselves,musthaveexotic ratherthanindigenousorigins.
Animateddebatesovertheexpansionof Bantulanguagesandtheir
correlatesin the potteryof the EarlyIronAge fueledthe
archeological
interestin migrations."However,the rapiditywith which new data,
emanating particularlyfrom linguistics but also from archeology, led
to the speedyabandonmentof whathadseemedto be excellentinterto throw
provokedsomearcheologists92
disciplinaryreconstructions"
out the linguisticbabywith the
Indeed,what are archebathwater."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 pioneeringeffort at the integrationof archeology and oral traditions was PeterSchmidt'sresearchin Buhaya (northwesternTanzania)
in the
Schmidt is still one of the few African archeologists
1970s."'who have
also received graduate training in oral historiography. He is
also one of the few archeologists who possessed the time and inclination to collect oral traditions as a prelude to his archeological investi-
gations."9Schmidtwas fortunate to discover that the Bahaya used ob""For
reviewssee Jan Vansina,"Bantuin the CrystalBalli," HA 6 (1979), 287-333;
idem,"Bantuin theCrystalBall1I,"HA 7 (1980),293-325;MartinEggert,"Historical
Linguisticsand PrehistoricArchaeology:Trendsand Patternsin EarlyIron Age Research in Sub-Saharan Africa," Beitriige zur Allgemeine and Vergleicbenden
Archiiologie3 (1981), 277-324.
"9Forexample, David W. Phillipson, "The Spread of the BantuiLanguages," Scientific
American236 (1976), 106-14.
"'Forexample, Eggert, "Historical Linguistics";Robcrtshaw and Collett, "New Frame-
work".
"'CompareRanger'sdismissal of archeology quoted by Vansina at the beginning of his
paper; T.O. Ranger,"Towardsa Usable Past" in Christopher Fyfe, ed., African Studies
Since 1945 (Edinburgh,1976), 21.
"4JanVansina, "New .inguistic Evidcnceand 'The Bantu Expansion',"JAH 36 (1995),
173-95. The archeologist who ventures into this particularbath had bettcr wear a protective diving suit!
"'PeterR. Schmidt, Historical Archaeology: A StructuralApproach in an African Culture (WestportCT, 1978).
1. Stahl;
""Anotherarchaeologist who has pursued this approach more recently is Atnn
see Stahl, "Change and Continuity;" and also idem., "Ethnic Style and Ethnic Boundaries: 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
mieansto undertakeinterdisciplinaryresearchis 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 BritishInstitute in EasternAfrica, that worked in the
Southern Sudan nearly twenty years ago (see J. Mack and P. Robertshaw,eds., Culture
The Intersectionof Archeologyand History
279
jects and placesas mnemonicdevicesfor theiroral traditions;thus,
siteswereidentifiedfromoraltraditions."
However,
archeological
Schmidtdid not considerhis archeologicalresearchto be a test of the
validityof the oral traditionshe had recorded,arguingthat
The simpleconjunctionof archeologicalevidencewith ethnohistoric
evidence in specificcases does not ipsofactoconstituteproofof the
oraltradition,nor does it mean verificationof interpretiveideasthat
might be held in an oral tradition,such as a discussionabout the
functionof an earthworksor a technologicalarea.9"
Instead,he suggestedthat togetherarcheologicaland historicalevidencemightbe employedto formulatehypothesesfor subsequentarcheologicaltesting."9
In hindsight,Schmidt'sappealsfor the developmentof methodology and rigoroustestingowes muchto his philosophicalattachment
to the hypothetico-deductive
approachesembracedby American
thispositivism
didnot
of thetime.However,
processual
archeologists
offeredbyoraltraditions
sit wellwiththenarrative
and
explanations
the structuralistand symbolicapproachesthat Schmidtwas himself
attemptingto apply.Schmidt'swork was criticizedby some historians;RolandOliver,for example,was skepticalof the claimthat oral
traditions
of EarlyIronAgearcheological
sites.""'
keptalivememories
the Bacweziand
However,Schmidt'scontributionsto understanding
the historyof the GreatLakesregionare acknowledgedby almostall
later historians.""Most archeologiststended to ignore Schmidt's
work, confiningtheirdiscussionsto the earlydatingevidencethat he
hadobtainedformetallurgy
andEarlyIronAgeceramics.""2
Schmidt,
Historyin the SouthernSudan[Nairobi,1982]). Althoughthe experiencewas enjoysuccessfulsincethe historiansandculturalanable,it was in my viewnot particularly
thropologistsboth neededlongerperiodsthan that of the normalarcheologicalfield
seasonin whichto conducttheirwork.Moreover,they had differentrequirements
in
the field;if anything,the presenceof an archeologist,
whosometimesemploysmanylocal peopleandgenerallydisruptsthe localeconomy,mightbe a hindranceto othersolet memakeit clearthatI believethat
cial scienceresearchers.
LestI be misunderstood,
archeologicalresearchgenerallybenefitsfromthe presenceof teamsof archeological
withnaturalscienspecialistsin the field,who mayalsoworkcloselyandproductively
tists.
"Schmidt,HistoricalArchaeology,111.
S.
""Ibid.,
Y"Ibid.
""'R.Oliver,"Reviewof P.R.Schmidt,HistoricalArchaeology,"
JAH20 (1979), 28990.
"'Forcxample,ReneeL. Tantala,"TheEarlyHistoryof Kitarain WesternUganda:
ProcessModelsof Religiousand PoliticalChange"( PhD, Universityof WisconsinMadison,1989),27-28.
"'2See,for example,Phillipson,AfricanArchaeology,188. Despitethe positivismhe
claimedto espouse,Schmidtwas reallypioneeringpost-processual
archeologyin Africa
at a timewhenprocessualism
and,to a largeextent,neo-evolutionism
reignedsupreme.
280
Peter Robertshaw
it seems,was espousingresearchtopics and methodsthat were outside the mainstreamof Africanarcheologyeven at the end of the
1970s.
By the timeJan Vansinarevisedhis classictext on oral tradition,
his views on "theAfricanpast"had evolvedto the extentthat 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 evi-
dencegleanedfromoraltraditionsand in the provisionof chronometHe also warnedagainstthe dangersof simplisticinterprericdates.'""
tations of traditions linked to particular archeological sites, pointing
out thatspurioustraditionsmaybe inventedto explainthe presence
of archeologicalfeatureson the landscape,a phenomenonknownas
iconatrophy.
'"4
Otheracademicswho wroteaboutoral traditions,however,apparentlyremainednaiveaboutthe pitfallsof archeology.Tonkin,for example,eulogizeswhatshe calls "traces,"i.e., materialremainsof past
For
times,suchas ancientearthworksrevealedby aerialphotography.
herthese"traces"are "smalllightedwindowsin the darknessof time,
andtheglancestheypermitseemmiraculouslyto overridethe natural
law by whichwe cannotre-playthe past."'""
However,no such illusions befuddledVansinain the articlethat promptedthis paper.
V
How then can we go about buildinga new relationshipbetweenarcheologyand historythatbothpromotesarcheologyto a full partnership and grapplessuccessfullywith the differentsorts of data to
whicheachdisciplinehasaccess?It is temptingto end this paperhere
andlet otherstry to answerthisquestion.However,I feelduty-bound
to suggestone usefulavenueof inquiry.This emanatesfrommy own
recentresearch.I thinkof it as exemplaryratherthan prescriptive.
The studyof politicaleconomyhas the potentialto combinethe
politicsrevealedby historianswith the economicevidenceunearthed
by archeologists.Moreover,the studyof powerfitscomfortablywith
the methodsandvocabulariesof both historyand archeology.On the
one hand,discussionof powerstrategiesmaybe expressedin termsof
the motivesandactionsof individuals,justas occursin the oraltraditions.On the otherhand,powerstrategiesareexpressedmateriallyin
the archeological record in guises such as trade goods and
nmonuments.Moreover,the cultsand religionsfoundin oral traditions
may
OralTradition
as History,160, 185.
""Vansimn,
10.
'"14Ibid.,
Narrating,84.
""Tonkign,
TheIntersection
andHistory
of Archeology
281
be mirroredarcheologicallyin shrinesand materialsymbolsof ideology. Thus might archeologyand the study of oral traditionbe harnessedtogether.At least threehurdlesremainto be overcome:first,
how to deal with the vexed issueof dating;second,how to establish
ethnicidentityin the past;and third,how to avoid the moreepistemologicalproblemof prematureintegrationof archeologicaland historical resultsand thus the conversionof discipline-basedspeculations into spuriousinterdisciplinary
of the past,as inreconstructions
deedhas happenedtoo often with studiesof the spreadof Bantulanguagesand the EarlyIronAge.""
Historiansof oral traditionhavelong struggledwith the problem
of chronology.DavidHenigedevoteda whole book to this topic,the
subtitleof which,"Questfor a Chimera,"neatlysumsup the frustrations which historiansoften feel when tryingto assigndates to the
events and processesdescribedin oral traditions.""7
Severaldating
methodsareavailableto historiansbut none of themareparticularly
satisfactory,with the exceptionperhapsof tie-inswith documentary
sources.Wherethereare referencesin an oral traditionto an event
whose occurrenceis recordedin a documentarysourceor, of course,
vice versa,thendatingis generallyfeasible.Otherdatingmethodsincludethe useof referencesin oraltraditionsto astronomicalphenomena, notably solar eclipses, which are theoreticallyidentifiable."*'
However,the identificationof suchphenomenain the oral traditions
is oftenlittlemorethana speculativeleapof faith;forexample,if it is
said that the sky turneddark in the middleof the day, is this a descriptionof a solar eclipse, a suddenrainstorm,or a metaphorof
troubleor somethingelse?
In many parts of sub-SaharanAfrica,the most commonlyused
methodfor datingtraditionshas beenthe constructionof genealogies
and kinglists.Wherethe principlesof successionare knownor can
reasonablybe assumedto be fromfatherto son, one mayassigneach
generationan averagelengthexpressedin years.Theaccuracyof a reconstructedgenealogyand its datingmay also receivesupportfrom
tie-inswith the genealogiesof neighboringsocieties,such as may be
provided,for example,by accountsof warsbetweenparticularrulers.
However,kinglistsmay be shortened(telescoped)in the course of
transmissionby suchpracticesas the expungingof "usurpers,"
interregna,and periodsof foreignrulefromthe traditions."'Moreover,a
singlearchetypalfigure,a CultureHero, maybe usedin traditionsto
personifyan earlyepochor dynastyof unknownlength.""
maythinkof others.
'"'Readers
Chronologyof OralTradition.
'"7Hcnige,
'"Ibid.,18.
28.
"'"Ibid.,
'"'Ibid.,34.
282
Peter Robertshaw
However, genealogies and kinglists may be lengthened as easily as
they are telescoped. Rationales for the artificiallengthening of lists include the use of traditions to claim ownership of land through proof
of having settled it before anyone else, as well as reverenceof the past
for its own sake."' The latter is perhaps a peculiar Britishdisease but
one that Africans were quick to diagnose and exploit to their own advantage. 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 shortening 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 English 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.
'"PeterRocertshaw, "Archaecological
Survey,Ceramic Aiinalysisand State Formation in
WesternUganda,"African Archaeological Review 12 (1994), 108
Historical Archaeology, 274.
"4SchmIidt,
'"Ibid.; RI.Oliver, "Review of Schmidt, Historical Archaeology."
andHistory
of Archeology
TiheIntersection
283
must be evaluated on its own merits; some of that which glitters
mightindeedbe gold.'•'
Even at sites where iconatrophy is absent, dating is not necessarily
a simple task, since archeological dating has problems of its own. Archeologists 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 stratigraphicunits 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'sterm) 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 conceptions of time. This observation may be particularlyapplicable to nonliterate societies, many of which may conceive of time as cyclic rather
than linear."'2 While Western societies generally perceive time as promy own opinionis that a correlationdoes exist betweenthe archeological
"^Ilndeed,
site at MubendeHill and the Cwczishrine.For an exampleof a verymodernCwezi
shrineattachedto an ancientarcheologicalsite, see PeterRobertshawand Ephraim
"ThePresentin the Past:Archaeological
Sites,OralTraditions,Shrines
Kamuhangire,
andPoliticsin Uganda"in G. PwitiandR. Soper,eds.,Aspectsof AfricanArchaeology:
Associationfor Prehistoryand RePapersfrom the 10•'Congressof the Pan-African
latedStudies(Harare,1996),739-43.
"117do not discussthe variedproblemswithradiometric,
datradiocarbon,
particularly
ing methodshere,sincetheseare well rehearsedin the literatureand areprobablyfamiliarto mosthistorians;see, forexample,ColinRenfrewandPaulBahn,Archaeology
(2d ed. London,1996), 132-38.
370.
"Historians,"
""'Vansina,
""LewisR. Binford,"BehavioralArchaeologyand the 'PompeiiPremise',"
Journalof
Research37 (1981), 195-208.
Anthropological
370.
"Historians,"
"21Vansina,
"'•A.B.Knapp,"Archaeologyand Annales:Time,Space,and Change"In Knapp,Ar-
284
Peter Robertshaw
gressingin a unilineardirection,others may think of it in termsof
cycles,suchas the annualcycleof agriculturalactivities
never-ending
or the longer-termcyclesof orderand chaos that correlatewith the
reigns of kings and the wars of successionthat occur after their
deaths. For these lattersocieties, kinglistsand other linearchronologicaldevicesmaybe alienconceptsadoptedas partof the paraphernaliaof literacy.If nothingelse, recognitionof variedconceptsof time
should caution us even more of the dangers of attempting to date
eventsdescribedin oral traditions.The implicationsfor archeology
are less obvious, though Peter Schmidt has suggested that the cyclical
natureof somesocietalprocesses,such as the life and deathof kings,
maybe discerniblein the archeologicalrecordif archeologistsareattunedto the possibility.'22
If the dating of events and processes recounted in oral traditions
remainsa challengeto both historiansand archeologists,establishing
ethnic identitiesand correlatingsuch identitieswith archeological
constructsis equallyproblematic.Perhapsto a greaterextent than
any otheraspectof oral traditions,ethnicidentitiesare subjectto distortionand redefinitionin the recountingof traditions.Forethnicity
is one of the primarymeansby whichindividualsand groupscan assert rightsto land and other resources.Recourseto the authorityof
oral traditionsmay be a powerfultool in convincingoneselfand othof ethers of yourown and theiridentity."'2
Academicunderstanding
nic identityhasalso changedover time.The commonperceptionthat
the ethnicgroupsencounteredat the time of Europeancontact had
formedat someremotetime has beenreplacedby a widespreadrealizationthatethnicidentitieshavebeenfluidand negotiable,and that
manyso-called"tribalnames"wereeitherproductsof colonialismor
had a historythat extendedback only barelyinto the precolonial
past.
The oldertendencyto assumethat "tribes"werecohesivegroups
that had formedin the remotepastalso encouragedhistoriansto explaindemographicchangesin termsof migrations;historiansviewed
tribes "as capable of driftinglong distancesover the map of Africa."'24Supportfor theoriesof migrationwere often bolsteredby
oral traditionssince populationmovementsare often mentioned.Indeed, David Henige suggests that, "there is little glamour in
autochthony,perhapsbecauseit often seemsdesirableto distinguish
the rulingclassesfromthe restof the population."'2'
Thus, traditions
Timeand its
12; PeterR. Schmidt,"Rhythmed
chaeology.Annales,and Ethnuhistory,
Archacological Implications"in PwirilSoper,Aspects of African Archaeology, 655-62.
"'Schmidt, ibid., offers a couple of possible examples.
U'Tonkil,Narrating,130.
34.
"'2Miller,
"Listening,"
'2"Henige,Chronology, 96.
The Intersectionof Archeologyand History
285
of migration
oftenservepoliticalagenda.Nowadays,bothhistorians
and archeologists are far more skeptical about the historical veracity
of migration
traditions.
It is, of course,possibleto studyoraltraditionswithoutpaying
particularattention to ethnic labels; one might, for example, focus on
the traditions linked to a particulargeographical region. Thus it may
be sufficient simply to recognize the existence of cultural continuity of
some sort, but not necessarilyat 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 particularregion and dating to a single period of time.
Each archeological tradition, often referredto in older literatureas
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-Sapirhypothesis, 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-languageand secondly 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-
R. Mcintosh,"Middle
'2'Seealso the interestingdiscussionof "symbolicreservoirs;"
NigerTerracottasBeforethe SymplegadesGateway,"AfricanArts22 (1989), 74-83,
103-04;J. Sterner,"SacredPotsand 'SymbolicReservoirs'in the MandaraHighlands
of NorthernCameroon"in J. SternerandN. David,eds.,An AfricanCommitment:
Papersin Honourof PeterLewisShinnie(Calgary,1992), 171-79;S. MacEachern,
"'Symbolic Reservoirs'and Inter-GroupRelations:West AfricanExamples,"AfricanArchaeologicalReview12 (1994), 205-24.
383.
'2'Vansina,
"Historians,"
'2"M.E.Smith, "Rhythmsof Changein PostclassicCentralMexico: Archaeology,
Ethnohistory,and the BraudelianModel" in Knapp,Archaeology,Annales,and
52.
Etbnohistory,
286
PeterRobertshaw
ily identifiablematerialcorrelatesfor such historicentities 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 ethnographersmay be able to identify are most
unlikely to correspond in any straightforwardmanner 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 integratethe two disciplinary perspectives.
The problems of prematureintegrationof results are not unique to
Africa. Smith, writing about Postclassic Mexico, has complained that
the data of archeology and history have been "juxtaposed prematurely 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 primarilya 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 interpretationsof historians is nonsense. In designing our research and preparingour grant proposals we have all read
the theories and interpretationsoffered 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 researchdesign is probably inevitable. Therefore, rather than aspiring to disciplinary aloofness, archeologists
might be better advised to enter into a dialogue with historians as
equal partnersrather 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 unwarrantedattachment to neo-evolutionary theory.
''M.E. Siitch, "Braudcl'sTemporalRhythis and Chronology Theory in Archaeology,"
in Knapp,Archacology)Annales, and Ethnohistory,23-34.
'"'Forexample, Connah, "Saltof Bunyoro,"480.
"'I thank Jan Vansina for inspiring this paper and for not giving up oil archcelogy. I
can only wish that my conmmand
his command
discipline would even
of.Jan's
:approach
of minc.