Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-42gr6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-20T04:11:08.609Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A New Look at Interpretations of the Early Iron Age in East Africa

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 May 2014

Peter R. Schmidt
Peter R. Schmidt*
Affiliation:
Brown University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Since the publication in English in 1965 of Jan Vansina's Oral Tradition, historians of Africa have been increasingly concerned with developing methods which confirm the historical value of oral traditions. Independent proof for the historicity of oral traditions is often lacking; consequently the historian is usually left with comparative analysis as his primary analytical method. Archeologists such as Merrick Posnansky, Frank Willett, and John Sutton have in part attempted to show linkages between oral traditions and archeological evidence.

Posnansky, especially, has contributed much to the idea that it is possible to combine the two sources to obtain a more comprehensive view of Hfeways usually referred to as ‘prehistoric’ Recent research, though, now suggests that the concept ‘prehistoric’ must be questioned, particularly in cases where there is a demonstrated tie between archeological evidence and oral traditions. When archeology affirms the accuracy of oral traditions which explain, comment on, interpret, or locate activities and sites which predate a literate tradition, then the germaneness of the concept must be critically questioned. It is my position here that when archeological evidence confirms the historical value of oral traditions about preliterate life, then those cultural phenomena in that time period should be considered historic rather than prehistoric. To retain ‘prehistory’ as a concept in this context ignores and even militates against the historiographies and historical concepts of other cultures. The ramifications of this relativist perspective are considerable both for the study of history and of prehistory. Given this logic, historians must begin to reassess and expand their concepts of what history is and prehistorians must prepare to forfeit part of the temporal domain previously considered as prehistory.

Type
Research Article
Information
History in Africa , Volume 2 , 1975 , pp. 127 - 136
Copyright
Copyright © African Studies Association 1975

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Posnansky, M., “Kingship, Archeology, and Historical Myth,” UJ, 30 (1966), pp. 1–12Google Scholar; idem, “Bantu Genesis: Archaeological Reflexions,” JAH, 9 (1968), pp. 1-11; idem, “Bigo bya Mugenyi,” UJ, 33 (1969), pp. 125-50; Willett, Frank, “Archaeology,” in Biobaku, S.O. (ed.), Sources of Yoruba History (Oxford, 1973), pp. 111–39Google Scholar; Sutton, J.E.G., The Archaeology of the Western Highlands of Kenya (Nairobi, 1973).Google Scholar

2. Vansina, Jan, Oral Tradition (Chicago, 1965), p. 174.Google Scholar

3. Research in Buhaya was sponsored by the Program of African Studies, Northwestern University, and by the National Science Foundation. Detailed oral traditional and archeological evidence is supplied in my Historical Archeology in an African Culture, forthcoming.

4. In this paper Kiamtwara refers to the ancient kingdom composed of Bugabo, Maruku, Kianja, and Kiamtwara.

5. Forthcoming as Oral Tradition and Archeology.

6. Ibid.

7. Huffman, T.N., “The Early Iron Age and the Spread of the Bantu,” South African Archaeological Bulletin, 25 (1970), pp. 3–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

8. Collingwood, R.C., The Idea of History (New York, 1956), pp. 222–223.Google Scholar

9. Oliver, R., “The Problem of Bantu Expansion,” JAH, 7 (1966), pp. 361–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

10. Ibid., p. 375.

11. E.g., Posnansky, “Bantu Genesis.”

12. Ibid.

13. Ibid., p. 9, with emphasis added.

14. Ibid.

15. Oliver, “Bantu Expansion.”

16. Ibid., p. 375. See also Huffman, , “Early Iron Age,” pp. 3–21.Google Scholar

17. Posnansky, “Bantu Genesis.”

18. Fagan, Brian, Iron Age Cultures in Zambia (London, 1967).Google Scholar

19. Soper, R.C., “Radiocarbon Dating of ‘Dimple-Based Ware’ in Western Kenya,” Azania, 4 (1969), pp. 148–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar; idem, “Iron Age Sites in Chobi Sector, Murchison Falls National Park, Uganda,” Azania, 6 (1971), pp. 53-88.

20. N—890 and RL—406 come from the same feature, while N—895 and RL—405 come from closely-related features.

21. Sutton, Western Highlands.

22. Oliver, , “Bantu Expansion,” p. 369.Google Scholar

23. These dates, it must be cautioned, are subject to further tests for dating evidence. Although retesting the charcoal has shown the same results it is certainly possible that very old wood was used as charcoal for iron production, thus resulting in an earlier C 14 date. Investigation of tree species may be enlightening in this regard.

24. Oliver, , “Bantu Expansion,” p. 369Google Scholar, with emphasis added.

25. Ibid.; Posnansky, “Bantu Genesis.” See also the various works of Basil Davidson.

26. McMaster, D.N., “Change of Regional Balance in the Bukoba District of Tanganyika,” Geographical Review, 50 (1960), pp. 73–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

27. Posnansky, “Kingship.”

28. Willett, F., “Survey of Recent Results in the Radiocarbon Chronology of Western and Northern Africa,” JAH, 12 (1971), pp. 339–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Peter Shinnie, personal communication; Posnansky, “Bantu Genesis.”

29. de Heusch, Luc, Le Rwanda et la Civilisation interlacustre (Brussels, 1966).Google Scholar