The African Archaeological Review, 8 (1990), pp.

3-22
African archaeology:
F RANCI S B. MUS ONDA
looking forward
Abstract
The fut ure of Afri can archaeol ogy has recent l y been a maj or focus of at t ent i on by Afri can
archaeologists. Thi s article looks at ant i ci pat ed maj or advances, and at the expect at i ons
and desires of young Afri can archaeologists in the advancement of the discipline. The
maj or const rai nt s to research are identified and solutions to these probl ems are suggested.
R6sum~
Le fut ur de l' archdologie africaine est devenu rdcemment un sujet de prdoccupat i on maj eur
pour les archdologues africains. Cet article passe en revue les progr~s pr i nci paux que l ' on
peut en at t endr e ainsi que les espoirs et les souhaits des j eunes archdologues africains en ce
qui concerne le ddvel oppement de la discipline. Les pri nci pal es cont rai nt es affect ant la
recherche sont identifi~es et des solutions sont propos~es ~t ces probl~mes.
Introducti on
The Edi t or has request ed me to wri t e a sequel to Thur s t an Shaw' s article ' African archaeo-
logy: looking back and looking forward' whi ch appear ed in vol ume 7 of this j our nal (Shaw
1989). I agreed to under t ake this onerous assi gnment wi t h full awareness of some ver y
serious short comi ngs. Shaw' s (t989:18) insistence t hat a follow-up article shoul d come
from an Afri can archaeol ogi st active in the field has little or no beari ng on my compet ence
to r epr esent my generat i on of young Afri can archaeologists.
Thur s t an Shaw was able to take a har d and critical backwar d look at devel opment s in
African archaeol ogy since the earl y ni net eent h cent ury, because of his close association
wi t h t he discipline and his wide experi ences on the African cont i nent (Eyo t989). However ,
my limited experi ence inhibits me from present i ng in great er detail the st at e of knowledge
and the cur r ent t hi nki ng of the younger African archaeologists who are active in the field.
4 Francis B. Musonda
But every at t empt is made to bri ng to the fore probl ems, frustrations, issues and options
confront i ng young African archaeologists, and to suggest how some of these may be
resolved.
Continental diversity
The African cont i nent is r emar kabl y diverse in t opography, geology, climate, vegetation,
f auna and people. Its large size and its under - devel opment i mpede communi cat i on
bet ween archaeologists. Whilst the few older Africanist archaeologists such as J. Desmond
Clark, Thur s t an Shaw, Merri ck Posnansky and Pet er Shinnie have been able to t raverse
t he cont i nent in search of anci ent cul t ural remai ns, few young Afri can archaeologists have
been able to cross even their own count ri es' borders. Thi s isolation is f ur t her exacerbat ed
by the multiplicity of languages on the cont i nent . Thi s causes difficulties in communi cat i on
and spread of ideas and is also a great obstacle in t he way of creat i ng nat i onal and regional
feeling amongst African peoples. To t ransact official business, African countries have
general l y adopt ed the l anguage of t hei r former i mperi al power. Thi s divides the cont i nent
into English-, French-, Port uguese- and Arabi c-speaki ng zones, maki ng the probl em of
communi cat i on less severe. But what prevails is t hat those conduct i ng t hei r researches in
Angl ophone West, East, Cent ral or sout hern Africa t end to or find it much easier to
communi cat e amongst themselves; and the same is true wi t h Fr ancophone and Port uguese-
speaking scholars, al t hough the l at t er are much less i nhi bi t ed linguistically (Morai s and
Sinclair 1980). The ci rcul at i on of correspondence and l i t erat ure across these linguistic
boundari es is severely limited. Wher e Arabi c has been adopt ed as the official language, as
in the Sudan Republ i c, little or not hi ng is hear d from t here by those of us who cannot read
t he language, ot her t han from ext ernal visitors.
Whi l e this pr obl em of l anguage among African archaeologists remai ns a vexing one,
t here is no reason why it should cont i nue to isolate us. Efforts are being made in some
African count ri es such as the Camer oon Republ i c to make bot h English and Fr ench
compul sory in schools. Unless nat i onal i sm objects too strongly to this ar r angement , as has
been the case in Tanzani a, English and Fr ench are likely to emerge as the mai n languages
of communi cat i on in sub- Sahar an Africa. Ther e is need for consi derat i on of the t i me and
the cost involved in l earni ng and t ransl at i ng archaeological mat eri al bet ween English and
French. The doct orat e pr ogr ammes at the Uni versi t y of Cal i forni a and ot her Amer i can
and British Universities encourage st udent s to gai n proficiency" in a Eur opean l anguage
ot her t han English. The foreign l anguage r equi r ement serves to make cert ai n t hat Ph. D.
candi dat es have the ability to acqui re wide knowledge in t hei r field of study, and to enabl e
t hem to keep up with foreign devel opment s in t he field. Our colleagues in Mozambi que
(Moral s 1976, 1984; Morai s and Sinclair 1980) and some from Fr ancophone West Africa
are overcomi ng this l anguage barri er by publ i shi ng t hei r work in English (e.g. Hol l 1985a,
1985b). Efforts to achi eve exchange of publ i cat i ons on the regional level can also serve to
minimize the probl ems of communi cat i on bet ween institutions and scholars. The format i on
of regional groupi ngs such as the Sout hern African Devel opment Coordi nat i on Conference
(SADCC) of t he sout her n Afri can states has resulted in regional co-operat i on among
museums. The SADCC Museum Association formed in 1988 in Livingstone, Zambi a,
brings t oget her museums in Angola, Bot swana, Zi mbabwe, Zambi a, Mozambi que and
African archaeology: looking forward 5
Malawi. The l anguage probl em continues to dog the Association, but wi t h concerted effort
on the part of scholars, a common ground shoul d be sought. Once contacts are established
and commi t ment reaffirmed there is a good chance t hat communi cat i on can be mai nt ai ned
at a satisfactory level. Co-operation in archaeological research across territorial boundaries
which is still a dream may become possible, and the present trend of archaeologists working
in isolation may be checked. On a personal level, I have established contacts with col-
leagues in Ghana, Nigeria, Malawi, Kenya, Tanzani a, Botswana and Mozambi que, j ust to
ment i on a few. Thr ough such contacts, I regularly receive their published works and they
also receive mine. The t rend is shifting more toward increased co-operation in the exchange
of information.
In 1985, Professor Cyril S. Belshaw of the Uni versi t y of British Col umbi a, Vancouver,
Canada and Professor J ohn Ogbu of the Uni versi t y of California, Berkeley, organized a 10-
day workshop on Int ernat i onal Social Science Wri t i ng in Nairobi, Kenya. Twent y partici-
pants, mostly anthropologists, were drawn from Botswana, Kenya, Malawi, Lesotho,
Somalia, Sudan, Tanzani a and Zambi a. The workshop focused on the writing of articles for
i nt ernat i onal j ournal s. Problems confronting a young scientist such as maki ng a choice
between writing for an i nt ernat i onal review j ournal , a regional or nat i onal j ournal were
dealt with. I f African archaeologists are to make an i mpact on the world of publishing, and
if their research results are not going to end up accumul at i ng dust wi t hout being known to
others, such workshops are essential. Fundi ng agencies should be encouraged to support
workshops for bot h Francophone and Angl ophone Africa to train young archaeologists in
writing research articles. This t rai ni ng will result in improved publication and increased
rate of article acceptance in i nt ernat i onal j ournal s. It is t hrough publishing research results
in j ournal s of i nt ernat i onal st andar d t hat t hndi ng for research activity can more easily be
obtained.
Publishing of research findings among African archaeologists is picking up steadily but
requires much financial support, as the existing i nfrast ruct ure for the publishing sector in
most AtHcan countries is deplorable. Wi t hout the means to propagat e ideas there can be no
real progress in Africa. However, despite increased publication costs and undue delays
affecting indigenous j ournal s, there is a good chance t hat their cont i nued appearance,
t hough irregular, will cont i nue to accommodat e African archaeologists. Locally published
j ournal s such as the Zambia Museums Journal, Kumbuka (a newsletter of archaeology and
related studies in eastern and sout hern Africa first published in 1989 by the Nat i onal
Museum of Tanzani a), West African Journal of Archaeology, and Nsi: Bulletin de Liaison des
ArcMologues du Monde Bantu will continue to compl ement the well established ones such as
the Journal of African History, the African Archaeological Review, South African Archaeological
Bulletin, South African Journal of Science, Azania and Nyame Akuma. Cont ri but i ons from black
African archaeologists are on the increase and this is likely to be so in fut ure as long as these
j ournal s continue to be published. All but one article in Kumbuka (1989) are written by
black African archaeologists. Effectively to disseminate works by scholars who are actively
involved in publishing their research findings, university, museum, and institute libraries
should be supplied with these publications either free of charge or on an exchange basis.
The Livingstone Museum libra, has a st andi ng publications-exchange .programme with
many other libraries, a facility t hat has proved to be a reliable source of mat eri al t hat
cannot be purchased from the meagre tbreign exchange t hat is available. Even this
6 Francis B. Musonda
exchange facility has proved difficult due to irregularity in the appearance of some African
publications. West African and North African j ournal s, for example, are rarely seen in
eastern and sout hern Africa, and vice versa. I have had to send personal copies of the Zambi a
Mus eums ] our nal and the Livingstone Museum Newsl et t er to the University of Ghana library and
the Nat i onal Museums of Ghana, of whose needs I was aware t hrough my personal
association wi t h those institutions.
Research ori entati on
Advances in archaeological t heory of the t960s are cont i nui ng to be developed as more and
more young archaeologists appl y in African archaeology anal yt i cal techniques which have
been borrowed from nat ural sciences (Schick 1984). Ot hers are developing archaeological
theory based on et hnographi c dat a t hat is addi ng new dimensions to our underst andi ng of
the past in relation to the present (Agorsah 1985). Since the late 1970s, the st udy of African
archaeology, especially the late periods, has substantially" shifted direction to blend wi t h
et hnography and history, an approach t hat is placing more emphasis on interdisciplinarity
and t eamwork (Moyo et al. 1986).
Since the advent of radiocarbon dat i ng in the 1950s, African archaeology has gone
t hrough several developmental phases. Africa has made major strides in the application of
radiometric dat i ng met hods which have laid firm foundat i ons for the archaeological suc-
cession. Shaw (1989:figs t -8) has demonst rat ed the contributions t hat radi ocarbon dat i ng
has made in the several regions of the continent. North, West and Cent ral Africa do not
seem to have awakened to this new development until the mid 1970s; whereas East and
sout hern Africa have had a well document ed record of available dates (Sinclair, forth-
coming) since the early 1960s. East African archaeological, geological and palaeontologicaI
researches have combined to utilize the long sequence of volcanic deposits in the dat i ng of
homi noi d and homi ni d fossils. It is here t hat the advancement of the potassium argon
met hod has been a dramat i c success. Young scientists working in East Africa today, such as
Prosper Ndessokia of Tanzani a, have continued to add new knowledge to our present
underst andi ng of Plio/Pleistocene events in the area (Ndessokia 1989:18). The t rai ni ng of
young scientists presently going on in British and Ameri can Universities promises to offer
cont i nui t y in the work t hat was started by Mar y and Louis Leakey in East Africa. The
archaeological and palaeontological researches of these young scholars are likely to be of
great success because of the added advant age of the potassium argon met hod wi t hout
which our knowledge of the time dept h would have been highly suspect.
Anglophone East, West and sout hern Africa have sought the t rai ni ng of African scholars
in Britain and Nort h America to meet challenges in their own countries. The research
designs subsequently prepared by these workers tend to reflect the nat ure and place of
t rai ni ng and to emphasize the biases of the archaeology and ant hropol ogy depart ment s t hat
t hey represent. Take for instance, students of J. Desmond Clark and the late Gl ynn Isaac,
many of whose researches t end to emphasize palaeolithic archaeology with an ecological
orientation. My Berkeley colleagues such as J ean Sept, Nick Tot h, Kat hy Schick of I ndi ana
University, Zefe Kauful u of the University of Malawi, Henr y Bunn, Ellen Kroll of the
University of Wisconsin, and Fi ona Marshal l , all of whom have had stints East of Lake
Tur kana (Bunn et al. 1980) under the direction of the late Gt ynn Isaac, continue to
African archaeology: looking forward 7
emphasize aspects of the ecology of early man in their researches. Jean, for example, has up
to the present continued to orient her studies toward the nature of hominid behavioural
relationships to plants, plant communities and vegetation patterns, an aspect that both
Desmond and Glynn thought was central to our understanding of prehistoric human diet
and exploitation patterns. The same goes for students of Cambridge University,
Birmingham University and the Institute of Archaeology at University College in London
and other European institutions where archaeology is taught. Therefore, lack of research in
some aspects of archaeology is symptomatic of the attitudes of research and training
institutions. At Berkeley, these attitudes have changed: the retirement ofJ. Desmond Clark
in 1986 and the tragic loss of Glynn Isaac who had earlier left for Harvard University have
led to the eventual toss of the Anthropology Department's strong African archaeological
bias which the two developed through many years of hard work. This loss is deeply
regretted ( A. A. R. Editorial 1987:1). Perhaps the new generation of scholars at Berkeley
conceive African archaeology as an unnecessary element in the University's curriculum, so
that undertaking research on the African continent is considered hardly necessary.
However, this trend is being reversed by Cambridge University which, through the effort of
David Phillipson, John Alexander and others, has developed a strong orientation toward
African archaeology. The present generation of archaeologists is therefore not despairing of
the current attitudes of some European and American institutions towards training Afri-
cans and lack of consideration of African archaeology as an essential feature of their
curriculum.
It is widely recognized that a number of British and American Africanist archaeologists
can be identified with the present trend away from studies exclusively concerned with stone
tools and pottery to research that seeks to explain the entire process of human cultural and
behavioural evolution (Clark 1970; Isaac 1984; Phillipson 1985). The work of such people
has, fortunately, emphasized the need to look beyond stone tools in our attempt to under-
stand the lifeways of hunter-gatherers. The study of social organization, environmental
patterns, diet (Speth 1987, 1989) and how such behaviours relate to prehistoric hunter-
gatherers are beginning to gain prominence (Musonda 1989a, 1989b). There is also the
realization that social organization and other adaptive behaviours have developed through
time and that, as we move back in time, they become simpler and less complex (Stiles
1980:28). What therefore should future archaeologists attempt to achieve? Stiles (ibid.)
suggests that we should document when in the course of human evolution certain stages in
social organization first appeared.
A critical examination of the archaeological literature relevant to social organization of
hunter-gatherers reveals enormous gaps. Much of the African continent has virtually
nothing precisely known about its prehistoric settlements, and this creates problems result-
ing in inadequate synthesis and misleading interpretations. South Africa and the newly
independent state of Namibia are perhaps an exception. Archaeologists in that region have
made substantial gains in knowledge and far-reaching results have been achieved in ethno-
archaeological research (Sampson 1984). There is need constantly to redefine archaeo-
logical and environmental interpretations and techniques. The researches of Silberbauer
(1981), Lee and De Vore (1976) and many others that have been undertaken in southern
Africa have contributed to a radical change in our perception of what the future holds for
African archaeology.
8 Francis B. Musonda
While some areas in eastern and southern Africa, the Sahara and some parts of West
Africa have greatly benefited from researches undert aken by expatriate archaeologists,
others - probabl y because of the prevailing inhospitable conditions - have not. Whereas
countries such as Kenya wi t h its long history of archaeological research have cont ri but ed to
the refinement of field met hodol ogy and archaeological i nt erpret at i on of the past, the
position is deplorable in many parts of the continent where there is need to employ well
refined field and l aborat ory techniques and to arrive at sound interpretations.
The work of Fred Wendor f and his associates in Nort h-East Africa which has been
carefully set out in several major volumes and articles (Wendorf 1968; Wendor f and Schild
1974, 1976, 1980) needs to be updat ed and expanded by contributions by indigenous
archaeologists of the region to ensure cont i nui t y in the availability of archaeological dat a
from the Nile Valley. Thi s region is extremely i mpor t ant in our underst andi ng of the
cultural evolution of the continent and the origins of agriculture (Harl an et aI. 1976). Fut ure
archaeological work in the Nile Valley should be oriented toward answering questions on
human adapt i ve behaviour following Wendorf' s interdisciplinary approach. One aspect of
prehistoric st udy t hat has emerged from archaeological studies in the Nile Valley is the
variability in stone tool assemblages duri ng the late Pleistocene-Early Holocene.
Numerous cultural entities have been reported which have been interpreted as representing
distinct ethnic populations, specific activities or seasonal variability in exploitation strate-
gies. Archaeologists wilt need to address themselves fully to questions of variability in stone
tool assemblages and of agricultural origins.
African archaeology continues to suffer from the lack of st andardi zed taxonomic systems
for stone artefacts similar to t hat designed for the Epipalaeolithic of the Maghreb (Tixier
1963). Kl ei ndi enst (1962) had earlier offered a descriptive terminology" for East African
Acheulian assemblages, but this could not be accommodat ed in some parts of the continent
(Nygaard and Tal bot 1976, 1984). Elsewhere, typologies have been based on local assem-
blages (Atherton 1972; Shaw 1965, 1972; Wai -Ogusu 1973; Willett 1962; Cl ark t974).
These regional typologies continue to reflect the prevailing t hought s of the founding t~tthers
who i nt roduced archaeology on the African continent more t han six decades ago. The
Thi rd Panafrican Congress (Clark 1957) and the 1965 Burg Wart enst ei n Symposi um
(Bishop and Clark 1967:687-901) dealt with the problem of terminology in African
archaeology~ and recommendat i ons were made which have not been universally accepted
(Shaw 1967). Today, we see colleagues in West and East Africa still struggling to find a
suitable definition of the t erm ' neolithic' (Robertshaw and Collett 1983). However, we
should not despair at this lack of precise definitions for the broad technological/chronologi-
cal subdivisions in current use. A symposi um should be convened to look critically once
again at the problem of terminology and the cont i nued informal use of terms such as
' Earl y' , ' Mi ddl e' and ' Lat e' Stone Age, ' Neolithic' and ' Iron Age' . The present trend of
ignoring conventional terminology in preference for new terms for the sake of clarity should
furt her be examined. Fut ure archaeologists should be afforded an opport uni t y to look at
this problem of inconsistently defined terms and concepts and to find solutions themselves.
Shaw (1989:18) quoting Bown (1988:633) asks ' to what extent should persons from one
part of the world st udy the problems of anot her part of the world and prescribe their
solutions?' Perhaps the answer can best be found in reports of the Worl d Bank and the
Int ernat i onal Monet ar y Fund (IMF). ' Thi rd Worl d' countries suffering from depressed
African archaeology: looking f o r wa r d 9
economies have been prescribed with some bitter pills which have in most cases failed to
cure their bat t ered economies. For t hem to recover, t hey need to prescribe their own
solutions best suited to local conditions. Independence in many African countries has been
accompani ed by an increased awareness of the i mport ance of st udyi ng the prehistoric past.
As a result, many countries have enact ed taws to protect their relics from pl under and the
dest ruct i on of archaeological sites by unt rai ned excavators whose approach to archaeologi-
cal excavation has t ended to be more romant i c t han scientific in character. The emerging
nations cont i nue to emphasize the need to underst and the political, economic and social life
of the peoples who i nhabi t ed the cont i nent a f~w centuries ago as opposed to the st udy of
the rat her remote Stone Age. Thi s has led to renewed interest in the st udy of the Iron Age
and the historical period. A few scholars have been able successfully to use et hnographi c
data, oral traditions, folklore and linguistics in the st udy of the past ( Anquandah 1982).
Thus approach to the st udy of Africa' s past has led to the shift in emphasis from Stone Age
to later prehistoric periods and from those dealing wi t h the entire continent (Clark 1970;
Phillipson 1985) to those concerned with regions and countries (Hall 1987; Connah 1987).
Fut ure development of archaeology in Africa is likely to be influenced by the prevailing
unfavourabl e economic climate. Thi s unfort unat e situation has come about at the time
when Africans are j ust beginning to appreciate the usefulness of st udyi ng their past and
preserving their cultural heritage. Fundi ng constraints require t hat research proposals be
designed to accommodat e government decisions and nat i onal goals. The present emphasis
on t ouri sm as a means of generat i ng foreign exchange means t hat archaeologists should
at t empt to design projects t hat are geared t oward achieving t hat goal. In Kenya, Tanzani a
and Zi mbabwe, Nat i onal Museums are charged wi t h the responsibility to manage devel-
oped archaeological sites such as Olorgesailie, Ol duvai Gorge and the Great Zi mbabwe
which are i mport ant tourist attractions.
In Zambi a, two archaeological projects designed by this writer aim at cont ri but i ng to the
economic devel opment of the count ry and popularizing the discipline. The research goals
are aimed at establishing field museums at Kas aba Bay Lodge near the Sout hern tip of
Lake Tanganyi ka and at Lochi nvar Lodge near the Gwisho archaeological sites (Fagan and
Van Noten 1971) in order to boost tourism in those areas while at the same time promot i ng
archaeological awareness among the general public. Thi s approach to the popul ari zat i on of
the discipline has al ready received the support of the Zambi an Government and of private
companies. Ini t i al fundi ng for the Kasaba Bay Field Museum project was made in 1988
and archaeological surveys of the area have been completed (Musonda n. d. ).
In my view, archaeological research aimed at maki ng a meaningful cont ri but i on to the
economic devel opment of a nat i on have a better chance of being funded t han those t hat are
purel y academi c in character, especially when the results of such a project are relevant to
the aspirations of the people. Use of the medi a to solicit fundi ng and to advertise maj or
archaeological discoveries should be considered by all those experiencing difficulties in
securing research funds. Those of us who have been fort unat e enough to obt ai n funding
from commercial firms realize t hat these donors require to see practical results if they are to
support an archaeological project. Projects aimed at cont ri but i ng to the economic, political,
social, cultural and scientific development of a nat i on st and a much better chance of being
funded. The involvement of schools t hrough archaeological clubs and the est abl i shment of
archaeology-related projects such as exhibitions in schools and public buildings are the
10 Francis B. Musonda
surest means of popul ari zi ng t he subject. I t is necessary t herefore t hat those wishing to
make a cont ri but i on to t he st udy of Africa' s past should avoid taking a t heoret i cal stance on
finding solutions to our probl ems but should i nst ead critically exami ne the nat ur e of t he
society being studied before prescri bi ng a solution. The t empo of exploring Africa' s past
and the mul t i di sci pl i nary appr oach t hat many African archaeologists have adopt ed in
solving archaeological probl ems ( Anquandah 1982) should continue.
Archaeological research on the African cont i nent duri ng the last five decades has
remai ned uneven, with large areas unexpl ored. For example, some part s of east ern and
sout hern Africa have onl y been expl ored for the purpose of st udyi ng earliest human origins
and society. In some part s of Nor t h and Nor t h- East Africa, research has largely con-
cent rat ed on the st udy of cultures associated with t he appear ance of moder n man and the
Mi ddl e Palaeolithic cultures, whilst West African archaeologists have t ended to con-
cent rat e t hei r efforts on l at er stages of prehi st ori c studies. But each region boasts of flashes
of studies of cul t ural manifestations t ranscendi ng human hi st ory despite t hei r lack of
i mpact on our present under st andi ng of cul t ural and homi ni d evolution. As the pace of
archaeological investigations is increased and the probl ems of i nt erpret i ng finds are solved,
our interest in the st udy of the African past will undoubt edl y be st i mul at ed. To be able to
i mprove t hei r cont ri but i on to the st udy of the past, African institutions should embar k on
t rai ni ng a cohort of young archaeologists with interests in all spheres of the discipline to
replace ageing archaeologists and those whose research interests have shifted to ot her
areas.
We cannot ignore t he cont ri but i ons t hat have been made by foreign experts and the fact
t hat t hei r researches have paved the way for t eam-ori ent ed studies of the African past. Thi s
appr oach tends to cut down on fieldwork cost and to increase t he yield of desired results.
Ther e is therefore great need to pursue recent studies devel oped in pal aeoant hr opol ogy
especially those dealing with the i mpr ovement of field techniques, and with prehi st ori c diet
or the use of fire by early hominids. Studies on the functions of stone tools such as the
replicative experi ment s conduct ed at t he East African homi ni d sites by Nick Tot h of
I ndi ana Uni versi t y should be vigorously pursued.
Field studies conduct ed by Gar t h Sampson (1984) in t he Zeekoe Val l ey have empl oyed a
new set of archaeological met hods t hat promises to be t he fut ure basis for locating arch-
aeological sites. Thi s involves a syst emat i c investigation of a large area to show how anci ent
peoples utilized space in the same way t hat the late Gl ynn Isaac (1975, 1984) studied
homi ni d localities east of Lake Tur kana, a st udy he referred to as ' t he scat t er bet ween the
pat ches' . I f these studies are to benefit fut ure African archaeology, there is need for
researchers to hol d regul ar meetings to compar e field notes. Such meetings would also open
up discussions on new research strategies and priorities. It is therefore essential t hat we
emphasi ze col l aborat i ve research and work t oward exploiting existing opport uni t i es for
mul t i -di sci pl i nary research. I t is only t hr ough the est abl i shment of closer links bet ween
scholars dealing wi t h archaeological issues and with t he compl exi t y of social organi zat i on
and t he emergence and i nt eract i on of states t hat our investigations will become more
meaningful.
African archaeology: looking forward 11
Training and funding
The pauci t y of trained archaeologists working in Africa is perhaps the mai n reason why
large areas of the cont i nent have for long remai ned archaeologically unknown. Before the
exodus of experienced expat ri at e archaeologists in the late 1960s, bot h Francophone and
Angl ophone countries including apartheid South Africa enjoyed the services of a well trained
group of European and Ameri can archaeologists. At the same time, African archaeology
subst ant i al l y advanced in methodolo~7 and techniques. Ol d ideas were relinquished as a
result of the advancement of knowledge in the field duri ng the 1960s and 1970s, there was
now the realization of the i mport ance of t rai ni ng indigenous Africans to st udy their own
past. But the British did little to train indigenous Africans compared to the French, who
pursued a policy t hat did not systematically discriminate against Afidcans. Much of the
early influence to encourage Africans in the st udy of their past was a result of French and
Ameri can efforts. It was also French influence t hat led to the abandonment of the
Eur opean/ Amer i can prejudice t hat local t rai ni ng would not be sut~cient to prepare Afri-
cans for future work. Comparat i vel y, Portuguese colonies of Mozambi que and Angola
suffered some neglect duri ng the colonial period. Angola continues to be so and the earlier
work undert aken by Clark (1963) has not been followed up, whereas Mozambi que has
come completely out of the limbo with the coming of i ndependence (Morals and Sinclair
1980, Cruz e Silva t980; Sinclair 1987). In African universities, museums and institutions
where suitable teaching and research facilities existed, expatriate archaeologists took up the
challenge and made contributions which laid a firm foundat i on of our present knowledge of
the past. But when t hey departed, t hey left no cadre of trained indigenous archaeologists to
continue wi t h their work, onl y to realize later t hat t hey had made a cardinal mistake.
Political t urmoi l t hat followed i ndependence in some countries such as Angol a has made it
impossible for research to be conduct ed or continued.
The influx of i nt ernat i onal research expeditions and the accompanyi ng euphori a t hat
foilowed major fossil discoveries in East Africa obviously heightened awareness among
expatriate archaeologists of the need to train indigenous scholars to st udy their own past.
While research permits and visas were being processed and movement s of scholars across
the African continent became visibly noticeable, these i nt ernat i onal scholars began to co-
opt Africans into their research expeditions.
As more and more i nt ernat i onal research expeditions were made to Africa, a number of
Ameri can and European universities began to take interest in the training of Africans. The
former have an especially well developed interest in the st udy of Africa' s past, and the
maj ori t y of indigenous scholars in sout hern and eastern Africa and Anglophone West
Africa have received their t rai ni ng in Nort h America. But today, the interest in teaching of
archaeology and t rai ni ng of Africans in Ameri can universities seems to be declining. In
British universities, it is difficult even to speculate whet her African archaeology has made
any i mpact on the academi c curriculum. Cambri dge Uni versi t y offers limited t rai ni ng with
the assistance of David Phillipson and others. The Cambri dge Commonweal t h Tr ust offers
scholarships to citizens of Commonweal t h countries wishing to pursue graduat e studies at
Cambri dge University; but unfort unat el y, until recently, the selection process does not
seem to have favoured archaeology, perhaps because many ' t hi rd world' countries them-
selves regard it as a non priority discipline.
12 Francis B. Musonda
Fundi ng of archaeological researches in Africa duri ng the last decade has been very
disappointing. Political turbulence, coupled with the depressed world economy, has played
a major part in the decline of archaeological activity. The ' brai n drai n' syndrome continues
unabat ed. Professionals who are supposed to be undert aki ng archaeological surveys, rescue
archaeological operations and part i ci pat i ng in the enact ment of laws to protect archaeo-
logical sites from destruction by developers are busy crossing borders in pursuit of a better
economic and social life. University depart ment s continue to be starved of lecturers and
t eachi ng materials, while museums cont i nue to suffer from lack of adequat e conservation
and storage facilities, and publication of research findings is often grant ed even less pri-
ority. However, communi cat i on among those actively engaged in archaeological research,
al t hough perhaps the most difficult thing to at t ai n on the continent, is slowly being
improved and therefore co-ordination of research activities among researchers is likely to be
achieved. These problems i f not properly addressed, are bound to domi nat e t he academic
climate on the continent duri ng the next decade. There is therefore need for the academic
and fundi ng institutions of the weahhy ' Nort h' to come to our assistance.
Obt ai ni ng fundi ng for archaeological projects is one of the most frust rat i ng exercises t hat
a young archaeologist has to undertake. A new graduat e is unlikely to enter the mai nst ream
of funded research which is largely dictated by past achievement. This seriously inhibits
advancement of knowledge and the ability to establish oneself in the field. Economic
constraints, rat her t han lack of suitable skills, are responsible for the failure of young
archaeologists in the ' South' to make the necessary contribution to knowledge. More t han
ni net y percent of research funds t hat have been given to African archaeologists have been
disbursed duri ng the course of training. The L. S. B. Leakey Foundat i on in Pasadena,
California, and the Cambri dge Commonweal t h Tr ust are spearheadi ng t rai ni ng of indi-
genous African archaeologists with the assistance of those university depart ment s t hat offer
teaching assistantships. The big foundations such as Wenner Gren, Ford and the Social
Science Research Council have little interest in the t rai ni ng of archaeology students, but
instead show ent husi asm for the African prehistoric past by support i ng researches of the
remai ni ng few ' ancients' whose contribution to knowledge has been out st andi ng. How does
a young scholar benefit from financial resources of sponsoring organizations when the only
experience one can boast of is fieldwork undert aken under the direction of an academi c
supervisor (Bunn et al. 1980)?
It is indeed ironic t hat the topic treated in this paper could have been a subject of
discussion in Nort h Ameri ca at what was unlikely to have been a representative Afi'icanist
occasion. The Society of Africanist Archaeologists (SAFA) formerly known as Society of
Africanist Archaeologists in America (SAAAM) organized its biennial conference on ' what
is the future of archaeology in Africa' at the Uni versi t y of Florida, Gainesville in Mar ch
1990. The burni ng issues affecting archaeological research in Africa t hat formed the basis of
discussion are underdevel opment of archaeology and the fundi ng and training of archaeolo-
gists in Africa. Despite the great need for African archaeologists to have been present at
such a conference, only a few Africans undergoing training in the USA were able to attend:
high travel costs undoubt edl y inhibited our ability to participate in discussions of issues
t hat directly affect our continent.
Once fundi ng constraints are eased and the i mport ance of palaeoanthropological and
palaeontological studies are recognized by African governments, African archaeologists
African archaeoloey : looking f or war d 13
will be bound to design research goals t hat will be of great benefit to the aspi rat i ons of the
Afri can people. Archaeol ogy is j ust begi nni ng to be appreci at ed in most part s of the
cont i nent as a result of fasci nat i ng fossil discoveries and t he emphasi s being pl aced on the
preservat i on of archaeol ogi cal monument s such as the Gr eat Zi mbabwe. But t here is need
to conduct research even in those regions whi ch lack such foci and for financial institutions
to identify themselves wi t h the aspi rat i ons of the emergi ng nations. Many young African
archaeologists are compl ai ni ng t hat the t empo of archaeol ogi cal research on the cont i nent
has sl ackened and t hat t here are fewer research expeditions being made to Afidca t han in
t he 1960s and 1970s. Dur i ng t hat period of enl i ght enment , archaeol ogy benefi t ed from
i nt erdi sci pl i nary researches when British, Fr ench and Ameri can scholars worked t oget her
and exchanged notes. To what ext ent are t hei r former students doi ng the same? Are we
movi ng from a peri od when t he ageing foundi ng fathers who i ni t i at ed i nt erdi sci pl i nary
research worked as a family to a period of isolation? I f we have to at t r act fundi ng from
research organi zat i ons and foundat i ons in the weal t hy ~North', an effort should be made tO
pr omot e i nt erdi sci pl i nary research in whi ch colleagues from west ern count ri es are i nvi t ed
to part i ci pat e. I t is perhaps easier for those of us who received our t rai ni ng in west ern
Eur ope and Nor t h Ameri ca to utilize the services of our former professors and colleagues in
securi ng research funds. Breaki ng new gr ound in research to suppor t a request for funds is
not easy, and not everyone can be as l ucky as the Leakeys who t hr ough pai nst aki ng
searchi ng for remai ns of earl y man were r ewar ded with Zinjanthropus in 1957. Whi l e all
efforts shoul d be made to st rengt hen the existing links t hat were established in the t960s
bet ween African research institutions and those of the ' Nor t h' , the onus is on the young
African archaeologists to establish new ones as well, al t hough many archaeologists com-
plain t hat these take too long to mat ur e.
Bot h Fr ancophone and Angl ophone Africa have benefited from the presence on the
cont i nent of foreign scholars whose trips have been financed from t hei r home countries.
The offers of t rai ni ng have subst ant i al l y st rengt hened existing links bet ween t hem. I f this
kind of gest ure is to cont i nue, the bur den is on the needy Africa to ext end an ar m of
friendship to the weal t hy ' Nor t h' . I n the present ci rcumst ances, the best t hat African
scholars can do to advance t hei r t rai ni ng and research, is to cont i nue to st rengt hen existing
relations wi t h colleagues and i nst i t ut i ons and to open up new areas of co-operat i on.
Facilities for exchange visits exist at many institutions and these can be utilized. Nor di c
countries, for exampl e, otter a pr ogr amme t hat enables scholars from Africa to pursue t hei r
research at the Scandi navi an Inst i t ut e of African Studies for periods of t hree to four
mont hs.
The scarci t y of foreign exchange on the African cont i nent has i nhi bi t ed the i mpor t at i on
of periodicals, books, and ot her publ i shed works, resul t i ng in intellectual st arvat i on. Some
Afri can archaeologists who have kept t hei r lines of communi cat i on open with t hei r col-
leagues in the ' Nor t h' cont i nue to receive books and reprints. Wi t hi n the last couple of
years, we in Zambi a have benefited from colleagues and institutions who have been kind
and consi derat e enough to send us books, periodicals and repri nt s free of charge and at
t hei r own expense. Thi s val ued suppor t is perhaps the surest means of assisting African
archaeologists to keep abreast of moder n ideas and t echni ques in the discipline. Thi s
sent i ment is also expressed by t he Edi t or ( A. A. R. Edi t ori al t985:2) who urged t he Society of
Africanist Archaeologists in Ameri ca and compar abl e organi zat i ons elsewhere to assist
14 Francis B. Musonda
Africans obt ai n books, periodicals and ot her readi ng materials t hat they are unabl e to
obt ai n on t hei r own. But the questions remain: for how long would this form of assistance
continue, and who is likely to benefit from it?
I have always had t he conviction t hat the st udy of Africa' s prehi st ori c past is not onl y the
responsibility of indigenous Africans but of manki nd as a whole. Ther e will not come a time
when Africa will be self-sufficient in professional archaeologists. Ther e is always going to be
r oom for outsiders. Even i f a count r y may be fort unat e enough to possess a cadre of active
indigenous archaeologists like Kenya, Zi mbabwe and Sout h Africa, foreign scholars still
remai n indispensable. Thei r work will always suppl ement t hat of the former. Ther e are
many examples on the cont i nent where local and foreign scholars are working t oget her to
find solutions to archaeological probl ems (Vogel and Kat anekwa 1976; Harri s and Semaw
1989). We shoul d also realize t hat cont ri but i ons made by foreign experts will not go on for
ever, therefore Africans themselves have to develop a mechani sm to facilitate the continu-
ation of work st art ed by t hem.
Besides t he di rect benefits deri ved from such col l aborat i ve research whi ch usually comes
in t he form of equi pment , t he exchange of i nformat i on t hat ensues is most beneficial to bot h
parties. These foreign experts are more likely to derive benefits concomi t ant with t hei r
research goals i f t hey are at t ached to a research i nst i t ut i on such as a museum in the count r y
of research t han i f t hey work alone. Labor at or y space, use of a research vehicle, accom-
modat i on and anci l l ary field research st aff may be ar r anged at a nomi nal fee to ease the
burden. The experi ences gai ned from such col l aborat i ve research are not onl y useful to
archaeological i nt erpret at i on, but enhance under st andi ng and goodwill among nations of
t he world. The Li vi ngst one Museum has made a br eakt hr ough in devel opi ng such part ner-
ships wi t h foreign scholars and institutions.
Mor e i mport ant l y, outside researchers must recognize the need to build up these rela-
tionships and part nershi ps bet ween institutions in order to st i mul at e the t al ent t hat
remai ns unt apped. Expansi on of research will demand provision of adequat e storage and
conservat i on facilities for archaeological collections. Thi s wilt in t ur n necessitate a pr oper
document at i on system. Because of the need for museums to be able to manage and account
for every object t hat enters t hei r doors, museums in Africa are finding it absol ut el y essential
to comput eri ze t hei r document at i on systems. In Sept ember 1989, the I nt er nat i onal Counci l
of Museums ( I COM) dur i ng its 16th Gener al Assembl y in the Hague, the Net herl ands,
r ecommended among ot her things t hat t rai ni ng of museum personnel, document at i on and
exchange of i nformat i on on all aspects of the cul t ural and nat ur al heritage should form the
basis of the devel opment of museums. Why should African museums wi t h t hei r rich
archaeological collections r emai n in many respects less advanced t han, say, those in the
devel oped ' Nor t h' ? At least t here is one area where Africa is qui ckl y cat chi ng up, this is the
area of document at i on. The Museum Document at i on Association (MDA) based in Cam-
bridge, UK, has devel oped a document at i on system t hat is being widely used in AtHcan
museums. The advant age of this system over most others, i ncl udi ng t he Smi t hsoni an one, is
t hat it can be used for ei t her manual or comput eri zed document at i on. Ther e is absolute
need for museum archaeological collections to have a uni form or st andardi zed system of
document at i on so as to facilitate exchange of dat a bet ween museums.
The urgency of i mprovi ng document at i on and classification of archaeological objects in
our museums has opened up Africa to the I nt er nat i onal Cent r e for the Preservat i on and
African archaeology: looking Jbrward 15
Restoration of Cul t ural Propert y ( I CCROM) in Rome, Italy. The Cent re has several
st at ut ory functions i ncl udi ng document at i on (collection, st udy and circulation), research
and training; and currently it is spearheadi ng preservation of cul t ural propert y in African
museums, discouraging illegal t ramc of artefacts, protecting each count ry' s cultural
heritage and t rai ni ng museum personnel. Since 1986, bot h Francophone (t986-87, 1988-
89) and Angl ophone (1987-88) countries have part i ci pat ed in an eleven-month Preventa-
tive Conservat i on (PREMA) Project which focuses on t eachi ng museum professionals
preventative conservation. I CCROM has furt her become involved in conservation prob-
lems in museums, and an intensive t rai ni ng course in the storage and handl i ng of museum
objects was initiated at the Nat i onal Museums of Ghana, Accra, in September 1989. In
1990, the project wilt be l aunched at the Livingstone Museum. There are al armi ng con-
servation problems in African museums, and I CCROM is addressi ng itself to this problen
( I CCROM Newsletter t5, t989).
Whi c h way the Panaf ri can Congress?
Seven years have now gone by since the last Panafri can Congress on Prehistory was held at
Jos, Nigeria but, more significantly, thirteen years have passed since the maj ori t y of African
archaeologists at t ended a Panafri can Congress. Like its predecessor held in 1971 in Addis
Ababa, Ethiopia, the Nairobi Congress of 1977 was organized by indigenous archaeolo-
gists, Ri chard Leakey and J ohn Onyango-Abuj e. At t endance by Africans increased fi~om
j ust about t went y in 1971 to over t hi rt y in 1977. Regret t abl y the maj ori t y (about 75%) of
the African archaeologists at t heJos Congress were Nigerians; the poor at t endance by non-
Nigerians was largely at t ri but abl e to unfort unat e but, I am told, unavoi dabl e postpone-
ments. Most of the Africans who had been present at the Nairobi Congress were by 1983
either undergoi ng t rai ni ng in Ameri can and European universities or could not obt ai n the
funds necessary for t hem to travel t oJos. Fundi ng for some Africans had been promised by
the organizers in the first circular, but subsequent circulars were mut e about this aspect of
the Congress, maki ng it difficult to know our position. Postponements further weakened
our ability to solicit funds from organizations and our governments. The Jos Congress was
sadly missed.
A follow-up congress, the 10th Panafri can Congress, was due to take place in Cairo,
Egypt. Thi s congress is al ready three years overdue or rat her seven years behi nd schedule.
h will be appreciated t hat since the first congress was held in 1947 in Nairobi and
subsequent ones, the longest time-lapse between congresses has taken place between the
last two congresses and it looks as i f this will be the future trend. The foundi ng fathers had
mai nt ai ned, until after 1971, an average period of four years between congresses. Thi s is
indeed a reasonable time to allow organizers and participants to prepare adequat el y for
anot her congress. Al t hough I am not compet ent to comment on let alone underst and the
problems which the preparat ory committee for the 10th Congress has faced, one thing is
definitely clear: the pre-congress publicity is not only poor but non-existent.
The delay in convening the 10th Panafri can Congress is very unfort unat e. There has
been speculation in some quarters t hat perhaps this delay has been a result of the senti-
ments expressed at the 1986 Worl d Archaeological Congress, of a breakdown in
admi ni st rat i ve responsibility, or j ust lack of commi t ment on the part of the organizing
16 Franci s B. Musonda
committee. I t needs to be stressed t hat the cont i nent al organi zat i on is an i mpor t ant one in
t hat it brings t oget her scholars from many areas and diverse disciplines. It at t ract s all
practising archaeologists from the length and br eadt h of the cont i nent and from beyond,
and the range of themes and subject mat t er discussed is wide. Ther e should t herefore be no
di sagreement s on the usefulness of this congress, even t hough its member shi p may be a
mat t er for cont roversy. Unt i l we see accept abl e pract i cal changes in t he political system of
the apartheid republic, Sout h African scholars should cont i nue to practise and st udy
archaeol ogy in isolation. But the t hr eat to excl ude from at t endi ng the 10th Panafri can
Congress scholars who at t ended t he Mai nz UI SPP Congress in West Ger many at whi ch
Sout h Africans were admi t t ed shoul d be re-considered.
Shaw' s (1989) appr oach to probl ems rel at i ng to apartheid and t he distinction he makes
bet ween mai nt ai ni ng personal cont act s wi t h Sout h African archaeologists opposed to the
diabolical system and t he banni ng of Sout h Afri can archaeologists from at t endi ng i nt erna-
tional congresses agrees wi t h the views of most African archaeologists. Most of us have ver y
serious reservations about giving a pl at form to Sout h Afi'ican scholars outside t he Sout h
African borders. Our present cont ent i on is t hat scholars fi'om Sout h Africa irrespective of
their st and on apartheid should not be allowed to step out of t hei r count r y to at t end
i nt ernat i onal conferences: it is here t hat the process of cross-fertilization becomes
irrelevant. What comes into conflict is the image, good image for t hat mat t er, t hat these
scholars creat e on behal f of Sout h Africa when t hey unof~cially represent t hei r count ry. As
Shaw (1989:16) argues, t hei r presence does give a pseudo-respect abi l i t y to the regime
which it does not deserve. Fut ur e links with Sout h African archaeologists and exchange of
ideas on archaeological issues on the cont i nent will largely depend on the out come of
negotiations t hat the present Sout h Afri can gover nment is pursui ng with the black
majority.
To speed up arrangement s for the 10th Congress Davi d Phillipson, Bassey Andah and a
few others who were present at the I badan Conference in November 1989 in honour of
Thur st an Shaw, proposed t hat a new pr epar at or y commi t t ee be const i t ut ed to work out a
t i met abl e t hat will help steer the cont i nent into hol di ng the Panafri can Congress as soon as
possible. Davi d Phillipson put forward the I badan proposal at the first semi nar for archaeo-
logists in the Bant u zone hel d at the Cent r e I nt er nat i onal des Civilisations Bant u
( CI CI BA) in Libreville in December 1989. The proposal was accepted. The hope was
expressed t hat the Gabonese gover nment woul d formally invite t he 10th Panafri can Con-
gress to meet in Libreville in 1991.
The fut ure of the Panafri can Congress of Prehi st ory and Rel at ed Studies largely depends
on t he commi t ment of young Afri can scholars and t he suppor t of t hei r government s. Many
of the foundi ng fathers are no longer wi t h us and some of those t hat are still alive have
slowly begun to lose interest because of the political overt ones t hat t he congress has
assumed. They are not willing to be dr awn into political wrangles and view the trend, I
guess rightly, as a t hreat to t hei r cont i nued membershi p. Therefore, to persuade t he ' Ol d
Guar d' to mai nt ai n their cheri shed member shi p in the Panafri can Congress African
archaeologists must critically exami ne t hei r appr oach to issues t hat are likely to divide us
while they firmly reject apartheid. The fut ure success of the Panafri can Congress depends on
all of us and on unequi vocal suppor t from institutions such as museums, universities,
institutes and our government s.
African archaeology: looking f o r wa r d 17
Equally important are regional conferences and seminars such as the ones held annually
by institutions in Eastern Africa involved in the Project on Urban Origins in Eastern
Africa, by the Southern Africa Association of Archaeologists and by CICIBA. The project
on urban origins is a joint venture linking institutions in Botswana, Comores, Kenya,
Madagascar, Mozambique, Sweden, Tanzania, Zanzibar and Zimbabwe; Zambia's par-
ticipation is being considered. This project is being undertaken in phases, each phase being
carefully executed and the results analysed at a workshop attended by all participating
scholars, before moving on to the next phase. Since its inception in 1986, the programme
has been organized into three phases: Phase I involved formulating a joint research prob-
lem, surveying literature and holding a workshop to evaluate the successes and failures so
far; Phase n currently involves implementation of research proposals, conduct of surveys,
spatial analysis for defining settlement hierarchies, excavation of selected sites, and analysis
and comparison of finds; while Phase m will mark the end of the programme, when a
conference will be held in Nairobi, Kenya, at which the results of the institutional projects
will be discussed and publication of finds finalized. According to the project coordinators,
this conference may be held in 1991.
The programme outlined above is probably the first of its kind in snb-Saharan Africa.
Project proposals address a regional theme across political boundaries and seek solutions to
problems of a regional character. Interest has been expressed in setting up a similar
programme in West Africa. The West African Trade Project directed by Merrick
Posnansky in the early 1970s, although largely concentrating on Ghana, was multidis-
ciplinary in character and comparable in a small way to the Project on Urban Origins in
Eastern Africa. The Swedish approach to the study of the African past should be emulated
by those with deep interest in the study of the past in other regions of the African continent.
The Centre International des Civilisations Bantu held the first seminar of archaeologists
of the Bantu zone in Libreville, Gabon, in December 1989. The seminar evaluated the state
of archaeological research in the region, stressing the need to establish strong networks
among archaeologists working in the region. Funding of archaeological projects is still
sporadic and financial contributions to CICIBA by member states are sometimes behind
schedule. However, despite the teething problems that the organization is going through,
there is a good chance that the bringing together of French- and English-speaking archaeo-
logists working in the Bantu area will find common ground for solving archaeological
problems. Once all countries in Bantu-speaking Africa become members of CICIBA, it will
be possible to find common and acceptable solutions to the present problems. Our diffi-
culties of training future archaeologists and funding of archaeological researches will also
be eased. It will probably even be possible to persuade organizations such as UNESCO to
provide equipment and specialized services for the study of the past.
P r o f e s s i o n a l d e c l i n e o r r e n e wa l ?
A common assumption which unfortunately underlies the thinking of some of our col-
teagues in the developed ~North' is that Africans trained abroad seem to be insufficiently
prepared to be able to cope with the fast increasing knowledge when they return to their
home countries ( A . A . R . Editorial 1985). This problem of lack of proper tools to cope with
new knowledge is not unique to Africa or the developing countries but is an international
18 Francis B. Musonda
phenomenon. The decline in intellectual compet ence t hat follows and the set back t hat some
African archaeologists experi ence after receiving t rai ni ng abr oad may largely be due to a
drift into admi ni st rat i on, especially i f it lures t hem away from the pursui t of their discipline
(Goodwi n and Nacht 1986:3). Al t hough the t rend of losing t rai ned archaeologists to
admi ni st rat i ve j obs is still going on in Africa, the si t uat i on is not as bad as it was at the t i me
when Afri can countries first gai ned t hei r political i ndependence. As mor e admi ni st rat i ve
posts are filled by those t rai ned to do such j obs, fut ure archaeologists will concent rat e on
doing archaeology. Ther e will be a need to expand archaeological research facilities in
museums, universities and ot her research institutions to accommodat e those who want to
make a career in archaeology.
Ther e are of course those who were t rai ned in the 1970s to do archaeol ogy of whom we no
longer hear. These professionals have readj ust ed t hei r careers to serve ei t her personal or
nat i onal interests. Thei r professional decline can perhaps be measur ed in t erms of out put of
scientific papers. For example, in Zambi a, Mal awi and Tanzani a, some of my colleagues
have had t hei r careers redi rect ed to become admi ni st rat ors. But fort unat el y these scholars
have not lost t ouch with the discipline as t hey cont i nue to at t end and deliver papers at
seminars and conferences and, on a limited scale, to publ i sh articles (Masao 1989).
However, these and many ot her scholars in admi ni st rat i ve j obs are slowly drifting t owards
the fringes of archaeology; and by the end of this cent ury t hey may lose t ouch with the latest
i nnovat i ons in the field. To save such scholars from professional decline t here is need to
intensify and encourage professional exchange of ideas and the infusion of ext ernal motiva-
tion and competition. The pauci t y of t rai ned indigenous archaeologists requires t hat those
of us who are active in the field mai nt ai n a respect abl e position on the scientific frontier.
The inability to cope with new knowl edge may also have its origins in language. Clearly,
an average African has an English l anguage probl em especially the l anguage rel at i ng to
technical and theoretical issues. Who expects me, for instance, to spend hours on end t ryi ng
to digest the t hought s and ideas advanced in such publ i cat i ons as Analytical Archaeology
(Clarke 1968) which offer no i mmedi at e solution to my count r y' s problems? Do I need to
engage in unravel l i ng archaeological probl ems t hr ough appl i cat i on of theories t hat are of
little or no i mmedi at e rel evance to solving our pressing cultural, social and scientific
difficulties? The expect at i on of an African gover nment is t hat a citizen who has acqui r ed
t rai ni ng in a discipline such as archaeol ogy shoul d be sufficiently well equi pped to offer
pract i cal solutions to pressing economic, cul t ural , social and political probl ems. One
t herefore has to ret hi nk the implications of spendi ng one' s lifetime on the ' New Archaeo-
logy' in a count r y lacking t he necessary i nfrast ruct ure.
But this should not mean t hat African archaeologists actively involved with archaeologi-
cal objects and theoretical models should ignore the l at t er in pur suance of finding pract i cal
solutions to t hei r count ri es' probl ems. While every necessary at t empt should be made to
utilize theoretical assumpt i ons in the i nt erpret at i on of dat a, African archaeologists shoul d
be war y about adopt i ng methodologies t hat do not yield r equi r ed results. Our probl em is
compounded by short age of foreign exchange which has resulted in most of us cut t i ng out
membershi ps of archaeological associations, purchases of books and periodicals publ i shed
abr oad and suspension of cont act with ot her colleagues. I t is professionally suicidal for an
archaeologist to allow links built up at great cost and effort to lapse due to lack of foreign
exchange or as a result of career redirection. Ther e is cont i nued need for sustained cont act
African archaeology: looking forward 19
bet ween scholars wi t hi n and outside the African cont i nent . African scholars engaged in
i nt ernat i onal exchanges and co-operat i on such as those pr ogr ammes r un by the Af r i can-
Amer i can Inst i t ut e in Washi ngt on DC shoul d realize t hat such cont act s not onl y foster
research and schol arl y i nqui ry into the discipline but also assist t hem to resist professional
and intellectual decay. Our probl ems with availability of publ i cat i ons in Africa have been
out l i ned by Phillipson (1988:46). He urges all his colleagues in the weal t hy ' Nor t h' to assist
t hei r colleagues based in African countries to keep abreast of cur r ent devel opment s.
Conc l us i on
As I have expl ai ned above, the task of taking a forward look at Afri can archaeol ogy has not
been an easy one, for I am not equal l y compet ent to deal with all part s of the continent: this
has creat ed biases in my coverage of the subject mat t er. I have del i berat el y avoi ded
discussing topics on research and fundi ng in great detail because of pat chy i nformat i on
avai l abl e from those active in the field. I t is t herefore difficult to predi ct devel opment
phases in Afri can archaeol ogy especially as comput er t echnol ogy is still lagging behi nd t hat
in the i ndust ri al i zed countries. J us t as Thur s t an Shaw (1989) admi t s t hat his coverage of
the cont i nent is uneven, my own is much mor e uneven.
However , I have sought to explain in a modest way cont empor ar y and fut ure prospect s
for Afri can archaeol ogy. I have also at t empt ed to highlight t he failures, successes, frustra-
tions and probl ems t hat are experi enced by archaeologists worki ng in Africa. The probl ems
of fundi ng and lack of t rai ni ng opport uni t i es in Africa have posed a challenge to our
cont ri but i on to the st udy of our own past. The not i on t hat we are not doing enough to st udy
our past is t herefore unwar r ant ed, especially as weal t hy count ri es such as UK, USA, West
Ger many and Fr ance are doi ng ver y little to pr omot e the st udy of the African past by
i ndi genous Afri can archaeologists. Whi l e the Nor di c count ri es are building up st rong
part nershi ps wi t h Africans in research and support i ng col l aborat i ve research in former
British, Fr ench and Port uguese colonies, the British and ot her colonizers are sitting on
fences wai t i ng to be invited. Ther e is need for the British especially to change t hei r at t i t ude
and appr oach to the st udy of the African past. They have the money whi ch can be used for
t rai ni ng young Africans i nt erest ed in the st udy of t hei r own past and for i mprovi ng research
facilities on this cont i nent . Thi s is per haps t he surest way of cont ri but i ng effectively to t he
advancement of the subject on t he Afri can cont i nent . They should emul at e the efforts of
SAREC (Swedish Agency for Research Cooper at i on with Devel opi ng Count ri es) in offering
t rai ni ng opport uni t i es and research funds to Africans.
Africans themselves are showi ng commi t ment to the st udy of t hei r past t hr ough the
est abl i shment of institutions such as CI CI BA. I f these institutions can receive suppor t from
west ern countries, researches in many part s of t he cont i nent will be funded and Africa will
agai n be the focus of fasci nat i ng archaeological findings.
Acknowledgements
To be able to deal adequat eI y wi t h t he t opi c of discussion, I needed the opinions of my
Afri can colleagues on a wide range of issues pert ai ni ng to t he state of the discipline on our
cont i nent . But because of i nadequat e time, I was unabl e to cont act many of t hem. Ther e-
20 Francis B. Musonda
fore, the views expressed in this paper are ent i rel y my own, and t hei r accur acy or lack of it
is my own responsi bi l i t y. While I have at t empt ed to be as obj ect i ve and unbi ased as
possible, I accept responsi bi l i t y fbr omi ssi ons of facts, and fbr any errors and i gnor ance of
the t rue prevai l i ng si t uat i ons. The Afri can cont i nent is l arge and diverse and communi ca-
tion pr obl ems cont i nue to be our gr eat est pr obl em. I wish to t hank Dr Davi d Phillipson
who made t hought ful and i nval uabl e comment s and suggestions whi ch hel ped consi derabl y
in the f br mul at i on of my own ideas on a numbe r of points. My sincere t hanks go to Mr s
Est her Ka ba l a nya na Banda, my Secret ary, and Mr s Ver oni ca Si munguzye, Mus e um
Resear ch Typi st , who pai nst aki ngl y conver t ed my illegible manus cr i pt i nt o somet hi ng
readabl e.
References
Agorsah, E. K. 1985. Archaeological
implications of traditional house
construction among the Nchumuru of
Northern Ghana. C.A. 26:103-I5.
Anquandah, J. 1982. Rediscovering Ghana' s
past. Longman.
Atherton, J. H. 1972. Excavations at
Kamabai and Yagala rockshelters, Sierra
Leone. W. A. J. A. 2:39-74.
Bishop, W. W. and Cl arkJ. D. (eds) 1967.
Background to Evolution in Africa. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Bown, L. 1988. The nature and role of
development studies in present-day Britain.
World Development 16(5):631-7.
Bunn, It., Harris, J. W. K., Isaac, G.,
Kaufillu, Z., Kroll, E., Schick, K., Toth,
N. and Behrensmeyer, A. K. 1980. FxJj 50:
an Early Pleistocene site in northern
Kenya. W.A. 12:109-36.
Clark, J. D. (ed.) 1957. Third PanaJrican
Congress on Prehistory. Lodon: Chatto and
Windus.
Clark, J. D. 1963. Prehistoric Cultures of
Northeast Angola and their Significance in
Tropical Africa. Lisbon: Companhia de
Diamantes de Angola.
Clark, J. D. 1970. The Prehistory of Africa.
London: Thames and Hudson.
Clark, J. D. 1974. Kalambo Falls Prehistoric Site,
Vol. 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Clarke, D. L. 1968. Analytical Archaeology.
London: Methuen.
Cannah, G. 1987. African Civilizations.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cruz. e Silva, T. 1980. First indications of the
Early Iron Age in Southern Mozambique.
P. A. C. 8:349-50.
Eyo, E. 1989. Professor Thurstan Shaw: an
appreciation. Paper delivered at the
Conference in Honour of Professor
Thurstan Shaw and Fifty Years of
Archaeology in Africa, Ibadan, 19-23
November 1989.
Fagan, B. M. and Van Noten, F. 1971. The
hunter-gatherers of Gwisho. Tervuren: Music
Royal de l'Afrique Centrale.
Goodwin, C. D. and Nacht, M. t986. Decline
and Renewal.
Hall, M. 1987. The Changing Past:farmers,
kings and traders in southern Afiica, 200-1860.
Cape Town: David Philip.
Harlan, J. R., De Wet, J. M. J . and Stemler,
A. B. L. (eds) 1976. Origins of African Plant
Domestication. The Hague: Mouton.
Harris, J. W. K. and Semaw, S. 1989.
Archaeological studies at the Gona river,
Hadar. N. A. 31:19-20.
ttoll, A. 1985a.. Subsistence patterns of the
Dhar Tichitt Neolithic, Mauritania. A. A. R.
3:151-62.
Holl, A. 1985b. Background to the Ghana
Empire: archaeological investigations on
the transition to statehood in the Dhar
Tichitt region (Mauritania). Journal of
Anthropological Archaeology 4:73-115.
Isaac, G. LI. 1975. The scatter between the
patches. Kroeber Anthrop. Soc Papers.
Berkeley, California.
Isaac G. LI. 1984. The archaeology of human
origins: studies in the Lower Pleistocene in
East Africa 1971-198I. In Advances in World
Archaeology Vol. 3 (ed. F. Wendorf):
pp. 1-87. New" York: Academic Press.
Kleindienst, M. R. 1962. Components of East
African Acheulian assemblages: an analytic
approach. P. A. C. 4:81-I 12.
Af ri can archaeology." looking f o r wa r d 21
Lee, R. B. and DeVore, I. (eds) 1976.
Kalahari Hunter-Gatherers: studies of the .IKung
San and their neighbours. Cambri dge (Mass):
Harvard University Press.
Masao, F. T. 1989. An ethno-historical
speculation on the meanings of some of the
rock art of the Lake Victoria area. Kambuka
- a newsletter of archaeology and related studies in
Eastern and Southern Aj'rica 1 ( 1):30--7.
Morais, J. M. 1976. Prehistoric research in
Mozambique. I n Iron Age research in
Mozambique: collected prelimina~, reports (eds
J. M. Morals et at.). Maput o: Instituto de
Investigagao Cientifica de Mogambique.
Morals, J. M. t984. Mozambi can
archaeology: past and present. A. A. R.
2:113-28.
Morals, J. M. and Sinclair, P. J. J. 1980.
Manyikeni: a Zimbabwe from southern
Mozambique. P. A. C. 8:351-4.
Moyo, S. P. C., Snmaili, T. W. C. and
Moody, J. A. 1986. Oral Traditions in
Southern Africa. Lusaka: Institute for African
Studies, University of Zambia.
Musonda, F. B. 1989a. Are modern hunter-
gatherers ' living' fossils of early hominids?
Zambia Museumx Journal, 7:152-60.
Musonda, F. B. 1989b. Cultural and social
patterning in economic activities and their
implications to archaeological
interpretation: a case ti'om the Kafue
Basin, Zambia. African Studies 48:55-69.
Musonda, F. B. n.d. A report on the Kasaba
Bay archaeological reconnaissance
submitted to Mulungushi Investments Ltd.
Livingstone: The Livingstone Museum.
Ndessokia, P. N. S. 1989. Paleofauna
composition and paleoenvironment of
Peninj (Marita-Nane site) in West Lake
Nat ron Basin, Northern Tanzani a. Kumbuka
- a newsletter of archaeology and related studies in
Eastern and Southern Africa 1 ( 1 ): 18-24.
Nygaard, S. E. and Talbot, M. R. 1976.
Int eri m report on excavation at
Asokrochona, Ghana. W. A, J. A. 6:13-19.
Nygaard, S. E. and Talbot, M. R. 1984.
Stone Age archaeology and environment on
the southern Accra plains, Ghana.
Norwegian Archaeological Review, 17:18-38.
Phillipson, D. W. 1985. African Archaeology.
Cambridge: Cambri dge University Press.
Phillipson, D. W. 1988. Are Africanist
publications available in AtHca? Nsi Bulletin
de liaison des arehdologues du monde Bantu 4:46-7.
Robertshaw, P. and Collett, D. 1983. A new
framework for the study of pastoral
communities in East Africa. J . A. H.
24:289-301.
Sampson, C. G. 1984. Site clusters in the
Smithfield settlement pattern. S. A. A. B.
39:5-23.
Schick, K. D. t984. Processes of PalaeoIithic Site
Formation: an experimental study. Ph.D.
dissertation, University of California,
Berkeley.
Shaw, T. 1965. Excavations at Iwo Eleru.
West African Archaeological Newsletter 3:15-16.
Shaw, T. (ed.) 1967. Report of Second
Conference of West African Archaeologists,
Ibadan, June 1967. West African
Archaeological Newsletter. Ibadan: Institute of
African Studies, University of Ibadan.
Shaw, T. 1972. Finds at Iwo Eleru
Rockshelter, Western Nigeria. P. A. C.
6:190-2.
Shaw, T. 1989. Afifican archaeology: looking
back and looking forward. A. A. R. 7:3-31.
Silberbauer, G. B. 1981. Hunter and Habitat in
the Central Kalaha~ Desert. Cambridge:
Cambri dge University Press.
Sinclair, P. J. J. (forthcoming) Radi ocarbon
dates for Eastern and Southern Africa.
~. A. H.
Sinclair, P. J . J . t987. @ace, Time and Social
Formation. Uppsala: Societas Archaeologica
Upsaliensis.
Speth, J. D. 1987. Early hominid subsistence
strategies in seasonal habitats. J. A. S.
14:13-29.
Speth, J. D. 1989. Early hominid hunt i ng and
scavenging: the role of meat as an energy
source. J . H. E. 18:329-43.
Stiles, D. N. 1980. The Archaeology of
SterkJbntein: a descriptive and comparative
analysis of early hominid culture, Ph.D. thesis,
University of California, Berkeley.
Tixier, J. 1963. Typologie de
l' Epipal~olithique du Maghreb. C. R. A. P. E.
Mfm. 2, Paris.
Vogel, J. D. and Katanekwa, N. M. 1976.
Early Iron Age pottery from western
Zambia. Azania 11:160-7.
Wai-Ogosu, B. E. 1973. Archaeological
Reconnaissance of Upper Volta. Ph.D. thesis:
University of California, Berkeley.
Wendorf, F. (ed.) 1968. The Prehistory of Nubia.
Dallas: Southern Methodist University
Press.
22 Francis B. Musonda
Wendorf, F. and Schild, R. 1976. A Middle
Stone Age Sequence from the Central Rift Valley,
Ethiopia. Wrocl aw: Ossol i neum.
Wendorf, F. and Schild, R. 1976. Prehisto~y of
the Nile Valley. New York: Academi c Press.
Wendorf, F. and Schild, R. 1980. Prehistory of
the Eastern Sahara. New York: Academi c
Press.