Musonda - The Future of African Archaeology

The African Archaeological Review, 8 (1990), pp. 3-22

African archaeology: F R A N C I S B. M U S O N D A

looking forward

Abstract

The future of African archaeology has recently been a major focus of attention by African archaeologists. This article looks at anticipated major advances, and at the expectations and desires of young African archaeologists in the advancement of the discipline. The

major constraints to research are identified and solutions to these problems are suggested.

R6sum~

Le futur de l'archdologie africaine est devenu rdcemment un sujet de prdoccupation majeur pour les archdologues africains. Cet article passe en revue les progr~s principaux que l'on peut en attendre ainsi que les espoirs et les souhaits des jeunes archdologues africains en ce qui concerne le ddveloppement de la discipline. Les principales contraintes affectant la recherche sont identifi~es et des solutions sont propos~es ~t ces probl~mes.

Introduction

The Editor has requested me to write a sequel to Thurstan Shaw's article 'African archaeology: looking back and looking forward' which appeared in volume 7 of this journal (Shaw 1989). I agreed to undertake this onerous assignment with full awareness of some very serious shortcomings. Shaw's (t989:18) insistence that a follow-up article should come

from an African archaeologist active in the field has little or no bearing on my competence to represent my generation of young African archaeologists.

Thurstan Shaw was able to take a hard and critical backward look at developments in African archaeology since the early nineteenth century, because of his close association with the discipline and his wide experiences on the African continent (Eyo t989). However, my limited experience inhibits me from presenting in greater detail the state of knowledge and the current thinking of the younger African archaeologists who are active in the field.

4 Francis B. Musonda

But every attempt is made to bring to the fore problems, frustrations, issues and options confronting young African archaeologists, and to suggest how some of these may be

resolved.

Continental diversity

The African continent is remarkably diverse in topography, geology, climate, vegetation, fauna and people. Its large size and its under-development impede communication

between archaeologists. Whilst the few older Africanist archaeologists such as J. Desmond Clark, Thurstan Shaw, Merrick Posnansky and Peter Shinnie have been able to traverse the continent in search of ancient cultural remains, few young African archaeologists have been able to cross even their own countries' borders. This isolation is further exacerbated by the multiplicity of languages on the continent. This causes difficulties in communication and spread of ideas and is also a great obstacle in the way of creating national and regional

feeling amongst African peoples. To transact official business, African countries have generally adopted the language of their former imperial power. This divides the continent

into English-, French-, Portuguese- and Arabic-speaking zones, making the problem of communication less severe. But what prevails is that those conducting their researches in

Anglophone West, East, Central or southern Africa tend to or find it much easier to communicate amongst themselves; and the same is true with Francophone and Portuguese- speaking scholars, although the latter are much less inhibited linguistically (Morais and Sinclair 1980). The circulation of correspondence and literature across these linguistic

boundaries is severely limited. Where Arabic has been adopted as the official language, as in the Sudan Republic, little or nothing is heard from there by those of us who cannot read

the language, other than from external visitors. While this problem of language among African archaeologists remains a vexing one,

there is no reason why it should continue to isolate us. Efforts are being made in some African countries such as the Cameroon Republic to make both English and French

compulsory in schools. Unless nationalism objects too strongly to this arrangement, as has been the case in Tanzania, English and French are likely to emerge as the main languages of communication in sub-Saharan Africa. There is need for consideration of the time and the cost involved in learning and translating archaeological material between English and French. The doctorate programmes at the University of California and other American

and British Universities encourage students to gain proficiency" in a European language

other than English. The foreign language requirement serves to make certain that Ph.D. candidates have the ability to acquire wide knowledge in their field of study, and to enable them to keep up with foreign developments in the field. Our colleagues in Mozambique (Morals 1976, 1984; Morais and Sinclair 1980) and some from Francophone West Africa are overcoming this language barrier by publishing their work in English (e.g. Holl 1985a, 1985b). Efforts to achieve exchange of publications on the regional level can also serve to minimize the problems of communication between institutions and scholars. The formation of regional groupings such as the Southern African Development Coordination Conference (SADCC) of the southern African states has resulted in regional co-operation among museums. The SADCC Museum Association formed in 1988 in Livingstone, Zambia, brings together museums in Angola, Botswana, Zimbabwe, Zambia, Mozambique and

African archaeology: looking forward 5

Malawi. The language problem continues to dog the Association, but with concerted effort on the part of scholars, a common ground should be sought. Once contacts are established and commitment reaffirmed there is a good chance that communication can be maintained 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 colleagues in Ghana, Nigeria, Malawi, Kenya, Tanzania, Botswana and Mozambique, just to mention a few. Through such contacts, I regularly receive their published works and they also receive mine. The trend is shifting more toward increased co-operation in the exchange of information.

In 1985, Professor Cyril S. Belshaw of the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada and Professor John Ogbu of the University of California, Berkeley, organized a 10- day workshop on International Social Science Writing in Nairobi, Kenya. Twenty participants, mostly anthropologists, were drawn from Botswana, Kenya, Malawi, Lesotho, Somalia, Sudan, Tanzania and Zambia. The workshop focused on the writing of articles for international journals. Problems confronting a young scientist such as making a choice between writing for an international review journal, a regional or national journal were dealt with. If African archaeologists are to make an impact on the world of publishing, and if their research results are not going to end up accumulating dust without being known to others, such workshops are essential. Funding agencies should be encouraged to support workshops for both Francophone and Anglophone Africa to train young archaeologists in writing research articles. This training will result in improved publication and increased rate of article acceptance in international journals. It is through publishing research results in journals of international standard that thnding 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 infrastructure for the publishing sector in most AtHcan countries is deplorable. Without the means to propagate ideas there can be no real progress in Africa. However, despite increased publication costs and undue delays affecting indigenous journals, there is a good chance that their continued appearance, though irregular, will continue to accommodate African archaeologists. Locally published journals such as the Zambia Museums Journal, Kumbuka (a newsletter of archaeology and related studies in eastern and southern Africa first published in 1989 by the National Museum of Tanzania), West African Journal of Archaeology, and Nsi: Bulletin de Liaison des ArcMologues du Monde Bantu will continue to complement 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. Contributions from black African archaeologists are on the increase and this is likely to be so in future as long as these journals 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 standing publications-exchange .programme with many other libraries, a facility that has proved to be a reliable source of material that cannot be purchased from the meagre tbreign exchange that is available. Even this


exchange facility has proved difficult due to irregularity in the appearance of some African publications. West African and North African journals, for example, are rarely seen in eastern and southern Africa, and vice versa. I have had to send personal copies of the Zambia

Museums]ournal and the Livingstone Museum Newsletter to the University of Ghana library and the National Museums of Ghana, of whose needs I was aware through my personal association with those institutions.

Research orientation

Advances in archaeological theory of the t960s are continuing to be developed as more and more young archaeologists apply in African archaeology analytical techniques which have been borrowed from natural sciences (Schick 1984). Others are developing archaeological theory based on ethnographic data that is adding new dimensions to our understanding of the past in relation to the present (Agorsah 1985). Since the late 1970s, the study of African archaeology, especially the late periods, has substantially" shifted direction to blend with ethnography and history, an approach that is placing more emphasis on interdisciplinarity and teamwork (Moyo et al. 1986).

Since the advent of radiocarbon dating in the 1950s, African archaeology has gone through several developmental phases. Africa has made major strides in the application of radiometric dating methods which have laid firm foundations for the archaeological suc- cession. Shaw (1989:figs t-8) has demonstrated the contributions that radiocarbon dating has made in the several regions of the continent. North, West and Central Africa do not seem to have awakened to this new development until the mid 1970s; whereas East and southern Africa have had a well documented record of available dates (Sinclair, forthcoming) since the early 1960s. East African archaeological, geological and palaeontologicaI researches have combined to utilize the long sequence of volcanic deposits in the dating of hominoid and hominid fossils. It is here that the advancement of the potassium argon method has been a dramatic success. Young scientists working in East Africa today, such as Prosper Ndessokia of Tanzania, have continued to add new knowledge to our present understanding of Plio/Pleistocene events in the area (Ndessokia 1989:18). The training of young scientists presently going on in British and American Universities promises to offer continuity in the work that was started by Mary 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 advantage of the potassium argon method without which our knowledge of the time depth would have been highly suspect.

Anglophone East, West and southern Africa have sought the training of African scholars in Britain and North America to meet challenges in their own countries. The research designs subsequently prepared by these workers tend to reflect the nature and place of training and to emphasize the biases of the archaeology and anthropology departments that they represent. Take for instance, students ofJ. Desmond Clark and the late Glynn Isaac, many of whose researches tend to emphasize palaeolithic archaeology with an ecological orientation. My Berkeley colleagues such as Jean Sept, Nick Toth, Kathy Schick of Indiana University, Zefe Kaufulu of the University of Malawi, Henry Bunn, Ellen Kroll of the University of Wisconsin, and Fiona Marshall, all of whom have had stints East of Lake Turkana (Bunn et al. 1980) under the direction of the late Gtynn Isaac, continue to


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 understand 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 resulting 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 archaeological 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.


While some areas in eastern and southern Africa, the Sahara and some parts of West Africa have greatly benefited from researches undertaken by expatriate archaeologists, others - probably because of the prevailing inhospitable conditions - have not. Whereas countries such as Kenya with its long history of archaeological research have contributed to the refinement of field methodology and archaeological interpretation of the past, the position is deplorable in many parts of the continent where there is need to employ well refined field and laboratory techniques and to arrive at sound interpretations.

The work of Fred Wendorf and his associates in North-East Africa which has been carefully set out in several major volumes and articles (Wendorf 1968; Wendorf and Schild 1974, 1976, 1980) needs to be updated and expanded by contributions by indigenous archaeologists of the region to ensure continuity in the availability of archaeological data from the Nile Valley. This region is extremely important in our understanding of the cultural evolution of the continent and the origins of agriculture (Harlan et aI. 1976). Future archaeological work in the Nile Valley should be oriented toward answering questions on human adaptive behaviour following Wendorf's interdisciplinary approach. One aspect of prehistoric study that has emerged from archaeological studies in the Nile Valley is the variability in stone tool assemblages during 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 strategies. 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 standardized taxonomic systems for stone artefacts similar to that designed for the Epipalaeolithic of the Maghreb (Tixier 1963). Kleindienst (1962) had earlier offered a descriptive terminology" for East African Acheulian assemblages, but this could not be accommodated in some parts of the continent (Nygaard and Talbot 1976, 1984). Elsewhere, typologies have been based on local assemblages (Atherton 1972; Shaw 1965, 1972; Wai-Ogusu 1973; Willett 1962; Clark t974). These regional typologies continue to reflect the prevailing thoughts of the founding t~tthers who introduced archaeology on the African continent more than six decades ago. The Third Panafrican Congress (Clark 1957) and the 1965 Burg Wartenstein Symposium (Bishop and Clark 1967:687-901) dealt with the problem of terminology in African archaeology~ and recommendations 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 term '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 symposium should be convened to look critically once again at the problem of terminology and the continued informal use of terms such as 'Early', 'Middle' and 'Late' Stone Age, 'Neolithic' and 'Iron Age'. The present trend of ignoring conventional terminology in preference for new terms for the sake of clarity should further be examined. Future archaeologists should be afforded an opportunity 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 study the problems of another part of the world and prescribe their solutions?' Perhaps the answer can best be found in reports of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). 'Third World' countries suffering from depressed


economies have been prescribed with some bitter pills which have in most cases failed to cure their battered economies. For them to recover, they need to prescribe their own solutions best suited to local conditions. Independence in many African countries has been accompanied by an increased awareness of the importance of studying the prehistoric past. As a result, many countries have enacted taws to protect their relics from plunder and the destruction of archaeological sites by untrained excavators whose approach to archaeological excavation has tended to be more romantic than scientific in character. The emerging nations continue to emphasize the need to understand the political, economic and social life of the peoples who inhabited the continent a f~w centuries ago as opposed to the study of the rather remote Stone Age. This has led to renewed interest in the study of the Iron Age and the historical period. A few scholars have been able successfully to use ethnographic data, oral traditions, folklore and linguistics in the study of the past (Anquandah 1982). Thus approach to the study of Africa's past has led to the shift in emphasis from Stone Age to later prehistoric periods and from those dealing with the entire continent (Clark 1970; Phillipson 1985) to those concerned with regions and countries (Hall 1987; Connah 1987).

Future development of archaeology in Africa is likely to be influenced by the prevailing unfavourable economic climate. This unfortunate situation has come about at the time when Africans are just beginning to appreciate the usefulness of studying their past and preserving their cultural heritage. Funding constraints require that research proposals be designed to accommodate government decisions and national goals. The present emphasis on tourism as a means of generating foreign exchange means that archaeologists should attempt to design projects that are geared toward achieving that goal. In Kenya, Tanzania and Zimbabwe, National Museums are charged with the responsibility to manage developed archaeological sites such as Olorgesailie, Olduvai Gorge and the Great Zimbabwe which are important tourist attractions.

In Zambia, two archaeological projects designed by this writer aim at contributing to the economic development of the country and popularizing the discipline. The research goals are aimed at establishing field museums at Kasaba Bay Lodge near the Southern tip of Lake Tanganyika and at Lochinvar Lodge near the Gwisho archaeological sites (Fagan and Van Noten 1971) in order to boost tourism in those areas while at the same time promoting archaeological awareness among the general public. This approach to the popularization of the discipline has already received the support of the Zambian Government and of private companies. Initial funding 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 making a meaningful contribution to the economic development of a nation have a better chance of being funded than those that are purely academic in character, especially when the results of such a project are relevant to the aspirations of the people. Use of the media to solicit funding and to advertise major archaeological discoveries should be considered by all those experiencing difficulties in securing research funds. Those of us who have been fortunate enough to obtain funding from commercial firms realize that these donors require to see practical results if they are to support an archaeological project. Projects aimed at contributing to the economic, political, social, cultural and scientific development of a nation stand a much better chance of being funded. The involvement of schools through archaeological clubs and the establishment of archaeology-related projects such as exhibitions in schools and public buildings are the


surest means of popularizing the subject. It is necessary therefore that those wishing to make a contribution to the study of Africa's past should avoid taking a theoretical stance on finding solutions to our problems but should instead critically examine the nature of the society being studied before prescribing a solution. The tempo of exploring Africa's past and the multidisciplinary approach that many African archaeologists have adopted in

solving archaeological problems (Anquandah 1982) should continue.

Archaeological research on the African continent during the last five decades has remained uneven, with large areas unexplored. For example, some parts of eastern and southern Africa have only been explored for the purpose of studying earliest human origins and society. In some parts of North and North-East Africa, research has largely con- centrated on the study of cultures associated with the appearance of modern man and the

Middle Palaeolithic cultures, whilst West African archaeologists have tended to concentrate their efforts on later stages of prehistoric studies. But each region boasts of flashes of studies of cultural manifestations transcending human history despite their lack of impact on our present understanding of cultural and hominid evolution. As the pace of archaeological investigations is increased and the problems of interpreting finds are solved,

our interest in the study of the African past will undoubtedly be stimulated. To be able to improve their contribution to the study of the past, African institutions should embark on training 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 other

areas. We cannot ignore the contributions that have been made by foreign experts and the fact

that their researches have paved the way for team-oriented studies of the African past. This approach tends to cut down on fieldwork cost and to increase the yield of desired results. There is therefore great need to pursue recent studies developed in palaeoanthropology especially those dealing with the improvement of field techniques, and with prehistoric diet or the use of fire by early hominids. Studies on the functions of stone tools such as the

replicative experiments conducted at the East African hominid sites by Nick Toth of

Indiana University should be vigorously pursued. Field studies conducted by Garth Sampson (1984) in the Zeekoe Valley have employed a

new set of archaeological methods that promises to be the future basis for locating archaeological sites. This involves a systematic investigation of a large area to show how ancient peoples utilized space in the same way that the late Glynn Isaac (1975, 1984) studied hominid localities east of Lake Turkana, a study he referred to as 'the scatter between the patches'. If these studies are to benefit future African archaeology, there is need for researchers to hold regular meetings to compare field notes. Such meetings would also open up discussions on new research strategies and priorities. It is therefore essential that we emphasize collaborative research and work toward exploiting existing opportunities for multi-disciplinary research. It is only through the establishment of closer links between scholars dealing with archaeological issues and with the complexity of social organization and the emergence and interaction of states that our investigations will become more

meaningful.


Training and funding

The paucity of trained archaeologists working in Africa is perhaps the main reason why large areas of the continent have for long remained archaeologically unknown. Before the exodus of experienced expatriate archaeologists in the late 1960s, both Francophone and Anglophone countries including apartheid South Africa enjoyed the services of a well trained group of European and American archaeologists. At the same time, African archaeology substantially advanced in methodolo~7 and techniques. Old ideas were relinquished as a result of the advancement of knowledge in the field during the 1960s and 1970s, there was

now the realization of the importance of training indigenous Africans to study their own past. But the British did little to train indigenous Africans compared to the French, who pursued a policy that did not systematically discriminate against Afidcans. Much of the early influence to encourage Africans in the study of their past was a result of French and American efforts. It was also French influence that led to the abandonment of the European/American prejudice that local training would not be sut~cient to prepare Afri- cans for future work. Comparatively, Portuguese colonies of Mozambique and Angola suffered some neglect during the colonial period. Angola continues to be so and the earlier work undertaken by Clark (1963) has not been followed up, whereas Mozambique has come completely out of the limbo with the coming of independence (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 foundation of our present knowledge of the past. But when they departed, they left no cadre of trained indigenous archaeologists to continue with their work, only to realize later that they had made a cardinal mistake. Political turmoil that followed independence in some countries such as Angola has made it impossible for research to be conducted or continued.

The influx of international research expeditions and the accompanying euphoria that foilowed major fossil discoveries in East Africa obviously heightened awareness among expatriate archaeologists of the need to train indigenous scholars to study their own past. While research permits and visas were being processed and movements of scholars across the African continent became visibly noticeable, these international scholars began to co- opt Africans into their research expeditions.

As more and more international research expeditions were made to Africa, a number of American and European universities began to take interest in the training of Africans. The former have an especially well developed interest in the study of Africa's past, and the majority of indigenous scholars in southern and eastern Africa and Anglophone West Africa have received their training in North America. But today, the interest in teaching of archaeology and training of Africans in American universities seems to be declining. In British universities, it is difficult even to speculate whether African archaeology has made any impact on the academic curriculum. Cambridge University offers limited training with the assistance of David Phillipson and others. The Cambridge Commonwealth Trust offers scholarships to citizens of Commonwealth countries wishing to pursue graduate studies at Cambridge University; but unfortunately, until recently, the selection process does not seem to have favoured archaeology, perhaps because many 'third world' countries themselves regard it as a non priority discipline.


Funding of archaeological researches in Africa during 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 'brain drain' syndrome continues unabated. Professionals who are supposed to be undertaking archaeological surveys, rescue archaeological operations and participating in the enactment of laws to protect archaeological sites from destruction by developers are busy crossing borders in pursuit of a better economic and social life. University departments continue to be starved of lecturers and teaching materials, while museums continue to suffer from lack of adequate conservation and storage facilities, and publication of research findings is often granted even less priority. However, communication among those actively engaged in archaeological research, although perhaps the most difficult thing to attain on the continent, is slowly being improved and therefore co-ordination of research activities among researchers is likely to be

achieved. These problems if not properly addressed, are bound to dominate the academic climate on the continent during the next decade. There is therefore need for the academic and funding institutions of the weahhy 'North' to come to our assistance.

Obtaining funding for archaeological projects is one of the most frustrating exercises that a young archaeologist has to undertake. A new graduate is unlikely to enter the mainstream 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, rather than lack of suitable skills, are responsible for the failure of young archaeologists in the 'South' to make the necessary contribution to knowledge. More than ninety percent of research funds that have been given to African archaeologists have been disbursed during the course of training. The L. S. B. Leakey Foundation in Pasadena, California, and the Cambridge Commonwealth Trust are spearheading training of indigenous African archaeologists with the assistance of those university departments that offer teaching assistantships. The big foundations such as Wenner Gren, Ford and the Social Science Research Council have little interest in the training of archaeology students, but instead show enthusiasm for the African prehistoric past by supporting researches of the remaining few 'ancients' whose contribution to knowledge has been outstanding. How does a young scholar benefit from financial resources of sponsoring organizations when the only experience one can boast of is fieldwork undertaken under the direction of an academic supervisor (Bunn et al. 1980)?

It is indeed ironic that the topic treated in this paper could have been a subject of discussion in North America 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 University of Florida, Gainesville in March 1990. The burning issues affecting archaeological research in Africa that formed the basis of discussion are underdevelopment of archaeology and the funding and training of archaeologists 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 undoubtedly inhibited our ability to participate in discussions of issues that directly affect our continent.

Once funding constraints are eased and the importance of palaeoanthropological and palaeontological studies are recognized by African governments, African archaeologists

African archaeoloey : looking forward 13

will be bound to design research goals that will be of great benefit to the aspirations of the

African people. Archaeology is just beginning to be appreciated in most parts of the

continent as a result of fascinating fossil discoveries and the emphasis being placed on the preservation of archaeological monuments such as the Great Zimbabwe. But there is need to conduct research even in those regions which lack such foci and for financial institutions to identify themselves with the aspirations of the emerging nations. Many young African archaeologists are complaining that the tempo of archaeological research on the continent has slackened and that there are fewer research expeditions being made to Afidca than in the 1960s and 1970s. During that period of enlightenment, archaeology benefited from interdisciplinary researches when British, French and American scholars worked together

and exchanged notes. To what extent are their former students doing the same? Are we moving from a period when the ageing founding fathers who initiated interdisciplinary

research worked as a family to a period of isolation? If we have to attract funding from research organizations and foundations in the wealthy ~North', an effort should be made tO promote interdisciplinary research in which colleagues from western countries are invited to participate. It is perhaps easier for those of us who received our training in western Europe and North America to utilize the services of our former professors and colleagues in securing research funds. Breaking new ground in research to support a request for funds is not easy, and not everyone can be as lucky as the Leakeys who through painstaking searching for remains of early man were rewarded with Zinjanthropus in 1957. While all efforts should be made to strengthen the existing links that were established in the t960s between African research institutions and those of the 'North', the onus is on the young African archaeologists to establish new ones as well, although many archaeologists com- plain that these take too long to mature.

Both Francophone and Anglophone Africa have benefited from the presence on the continent of foreign scholars whose trips have been financed from their home countries. The offers of training have substantially strengthened existing links between them. If this

kind of gesture is to continue, the burden is on the needy Africa to extend an arm of friendship to the wealthy 'North'. In the present circumstances, the best that African scholars can do to advance their training and research, is to continue to strengthen existing relations with colleagues and institutions and to open up new areas of co-operation. Facilities for exchange visits exist at many institutions and these can be utilized. Nordic countries, for example, otter a programme that enables scholars from Africa to pursue their research at the Scandinavian Institute of African Studies for periods of three to four months.

The scarcity of foreign exchange on the African continent has inhibited the importation of periodicals, books, and other published works, resulting in intellectual starvation. Some African archaeologists who have kept their lines of communication open with their colleagues in the 'North' continue to receive books and reprints. Within the last couple of years, we in Zambia have benefited from colleagues and institutions who have been kind and considerate enough to send us books, periodicals and reprints free of charge and at their own expense. This valued support is perhaps the surest means of assisting African archaeologists to keep abreast of modern ideas and techniques in the discipline. This sentiment is also expressed by the Editor (A.A.R. Editorial t985:2) who urged the Society of Africanist Archaeologists in America and comparable organizations elsewhere to assist


Africans obtain books, periodicals and other reading materials that they are unable to obtain on their 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 the conviction that the study of Africa's prehistoric past is not only the

responsibility of indigenous Africans but of mankind as a whole. There will not come a time when Africa will be self-sufficient in professional archaeologists. There is always going to be

room for outsiders. Even if a country may be fortunate enough to possess a cadre of active indigenous archaeologists like Kenya, Zimbabwe and South Africa, foreign scholars still remain indispensable. Their work will always supplement that of the former. There are

many examples on the continent where local and foreign scholars are working together to find solutions to archaeological problems (Vogel and Katanekwa 1976; Harris and Semaw

1989). We should also realize that contributions made by foreign experts will not go on for ever, therefore Africans themselves have to develop a mechanism to facilitate the continu-

ation of work started by them. Besides the direct benefits derived from such collaborative research which usually comes

in the form of equipment, the exchange of information that ensues is most beneficial to both parties. These foreign experts are more likely to derive benefits concomitant with their

research goals if they are attached to a research institution such as a museum in the country

of research than if they work alone. Laboratory space, use of a research vehicle, accom- modation and ancillary field research staff may be arranged at a nominal fee to ease the burden. The experiences gained from such collaborative research are not only useful to

archaeological interpretation, but enhance understanding and goodwill among nations of the world. The Livingstone Museum has made a breakthrough in developing such partner-

ships with foreign scholars and institutions. More importantly, outside researchers must recognize the need to build up these rela-

tionships and partnerships between institutions in order to stimulate the talent that remains untapped. Expansion of research will demand provision of adequate storage and conservation facilities for archaeological collections. This wilt in turn necessitate a proper documentation system. Because of the need for museums to be able to manage and account for every object that enters their doors, museums in Africa are finding it absolutely essential to computerize their documentation systems. In September 1989, the International Council of Museums (ICOM) during its 16th General Assembly in the Hague, the Netherlands, recommended among other things that training of museum personnel, documentation and exchange of information on all aspects of the cultural and natural heritage should form the basis of the development of museums. Why should African museums with their rich archaeological collections remain in many respects less advanced than, say, those in the developed 'North'? At least there is one area where Africa is quickly catching up, this is the area of documentation. The Museum Documentation Association (MDA) based in Cam- bridge, UK, has developed a documentation system that is being widely used in AtHcan museums. The advantage of this system over most others, including the Smithsonian one, is that it can be used for either manual or computerized documentation. There is absolute need for museum archaeological collections to have a uniform or standardized system of

documentation so as to facilitate exchange of data between museums. The urgency of improving documentation and classification of archaeological objects in

our museums has opened up Africa to the International Centre for the Preservation and

African archaeology: looking Jbrward 15

Restoration of Cultural Property (ICCROM) in Rome, Italy. The Centre has several statutory functions including documentation (collection, study and circulation), research and training; and currently it is spearheading preservation of cultural property in African museums, discouraging illegal tramc of artefacts, protecting each country's cultural heritage and training museum personnel. Since 1986, both Francophone (t986-87, 1988- 89) and Anglophone (1987-88) countries have participated in an eleven-month Preventa- tive Conservation (PREMA) Project which focuses on teaching museum professionals preventative conservation. ICCROM has further become involved in conservation problems in museums, and an intensive training course in the storage and handling of museum objects was initiated at the National Museums of Ghana, Accra, in September 1989. In 1990, the project wilt be launched at the Livingstone Museum. There are alarming conservation problems in African museums, and ICCROM is addressing itself to this problen ( ICCROM Newsletter t5, t989).

Which way the Panafrican Congress?

Seven years have now gone by since the last Panafrican Congress on Prehistory was held at Jos, Nigeria but, more significantly, thirteen years have passed since the majority of African archaeologists attended a Panafrican Congress. Like its predecessor held in 1971 in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, the Nairobi Congress of 1977 was organized by indigenous archaeologists, Richard Leakey and John Onyango-Abuje. Attendance by Africans increased fi~om just about twenty in 1971 to over thirty in 1977. Regrettably the majority (about 75%) of the African archaeologists at theJos Congress were Nigerians; the poor attendance by non- Nigerians was largely attributable to unfortunate but, I am told, unavoidable postponements. Most of the Africans who had been present at the Nairobi Congress were by 1983 either undergoing training in American and European universities or could not obtain the funds necessary for them to travel toJos. Funding for some Africans had been promised by the organizers in the first circular, but subsequent circulars were mute about this aspect of the Congress, making 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 Panafrican Congress, was due to take place in Cairo, Egypt. This congress is already three years overdue or rather seven years behind schedule. h will be appreciated that 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 if this will be the future trend. The founding fathers had maintained, until after 1971, an average period of four years between congresses. This is indeed a reasonable time to allow organizers and participants to prepare adequately for another congress. Although I am not competent to comment on let alone understand the problems which the preparatory 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 Panafrican Congress is very unfortunate. There has been speculation in some quarters that perhaps this delay has been a result of the senti- ments expressed at the 1986 World Archaeological Congress, of a breakdown in administrative responsibility, or just lack of commitment on the part of the organizing


committee. It needs to be stressed that the continental organization is an important one in that it brings together scholars from many areas and diverse disciplines. It attracts all practising archaeologists from the length and breadth of the continent and from beyond, and the range of themes and subject matter discussed is wide. There should therefore be no disagreements on the usefulness of this congress, even though its membership may be a matter for controversy. Until we see acceptable practical changes in the political system of the apartheid republic, South African scholars should continue to practise and study archaeology in isolation. But the threat to exclude from attending the 10th Panafrican Congress scholars who attended the Mainz UISPP Congress in West Germany at which

South Africans were admitted should be re-considered. Shaw's (1989) approach to problems relating to apartheid and the distinction he makes

between maintaining personal contacts with South African archaeologists opposed to the

diabolical system and the banning of South African archaeologists from attending international congresses agrees with the views of most African archaeologists. Most of us have very serious reservations about giving a platform to South Afi'ican scholars outside the South African borders. Our present contention is that scholars fi'om South Africa irrespective of their stand on apartheid should not be allowed to step out of their country to attend international conferences: it is here that the process of cross-fertilization becomes irrelevant. What comes into conflict is the image, good image for that matter, that these scholars create on behalf of South Africa when they unof~cially represent their country. As

Shaw (1989:16) argues, their presence does give a pseudo-respectability to the regime which it does not deserve. Future links with South African archaeologists and exchange of

ideas on archaeological issues on the continent will largely depend on the outcome of negotiations that the present South African government is pursuing with the black

majority. To speed up arrangements for the 10th Congress David Phillipson, Bassey Andah and a

few others who were present at the Ibadan Conference in November 1989 in honour of Thurstan Shaw, proposed that a new preparatory committee be constituted to work out a

timetable that will help steer the continent into holding the Panafrican Congress as soon as possible. David Phillipson put forward the Ibadan proposal at the first seminar for archaeologists in the Bantu zone held at the Centre International des Civilisations Bantu (CICIBA) in Libreville in December 1989. The proposal was accepted. The hope was expressed that the Gabonese government would formally invite the 10th Panafrican Con-

gress to meet in Libreville in 1991. The future of the Panafrican Congress of Prehistory and Related Studies largely depends

on the commitment of young African scholars and the support of their governments. Many of the founding fathers are no longer with us and some of those that are still alive have slowly begun to lose interest because of the political overtones that the congress has assumed. They are not willing to be drawn into political wrangles and view the trend, I guess rightly, as a threat to their continued membership. Therefore, to persuade the 'Old Guard' to maintain their cherished membership in the Panafrican Congress African archaeologists must critically examine their approach to issues that are likely to divide us while they firmly reject apartheid. The future success of the Panafrican Congress depends on all of us and on unequivocal support from institutions such as museums, universities, institutes and our governments.


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 problem, 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 multidisciplinary 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 archaeologists 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 difficulties 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 or r e n e w a 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


phenomenon. The decline in intellectual competence that follows and the setback that some African archaeologists experience after receiving training abroad may largely be due to a drift into administration, especially if it lures them away from the pursuit of their discipline (Goodwin and Nacht 1986:3). Although the trend of losing trained archaeologists to

administrative jobs is still going on in Africa, the situation is not as bad as it was at the time when African countries first gained their political independence. As more administrative posts are filled by those trained to do such jobs, future archaeologists will concentrate on doing archaeology. There will be a need to expand archaeological research facilities in museums, universities and other research institutions to accommodate those who want to

make a career in archaeology. There are of course those who were trained in the 1970s to do archaeology of whom we no

longer hear. These professionals have readjusted their careers to serve either personal or

national interests. Their professional decline can perhaps be measured in terms of output of scientific papers. For example, in Zambia, Malawi and Tanzania, some of my colleagues have had their careers redirected to become administrators. But fortunately these scholars have not lost touch with the discipline as they continue to attend and deliver papers at seminars and conferences and, on a limited scale, to publish articles (Masao 1989). However, these and many other scholars in administrative jobs are slowly drifting towards the fringes of archaeology; and by the end of this century they may lose touch with the latest innovations in the field. To save such scholars from professional decline there is need to

intensify and encourage professional exchange of ideas and the infusion of external motiva- tion and competition. The paucity of trained indigenous archaeologists requires that those of us who are active in the field maintain a respectable position on the scientific frontier.

The inability to cope with new knowledge may also have its origins in language. Clearly, an average African has an English language problem especially the language relating to technical and theoretical issues. Who expects me, for instance, to spend hours on end trying to digest the thoughts and ideas advanced in such publications as Analytical Archaeology (Clarke 1968) which offer no immediate solution to my country's problems? Do I need to engage in unravelling archaeological problems through application of theories that are of little or no immediate relevance to solving our pressing cultural, social and scientific difficulties? The expectation of an African government is that a citizen who has acquired training in a discipline such as archaeology should be sufficiently well equipped to offer practical solutions to pressing economic, cultural, social and political problems. One

therefore has to rethink the implications of spending one's lifetime on the 'New Archaeo- logy' in a country lacking the necessary infrastructure.

But this should not mean that African archaeologists actively involved with archaeological objects and theoretical models should ignore the latter in pursuance of finding practical solutions to their countries' problems. While every necessary attempt should be made to utilize theoretical assumptions in the interpretation of data, African archaeologists should be wary about adopting methodologies that do not yield required results. Our problem is

compounded by shortage of foreign exchange which has resulted in most of us cutting out memberships of archaeological associations, purchases of books and periodicals published abroad and suspension of contact with other colleagues. It 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. There is continued need for sustained contact


between scholars within and outside the African continent. African scholars engaged in

international exchanges and co-operation such as those programmes run by the African-

American Institute in Washington DC should realize that such contacts not only foster research and scholarly inquiry into the discipline but also assist them to resist professional and intellectual decay. Our problems with availability of publications in Africa have been outlined by Phillipson (1988:46). He urges all his colleagues in the wealthy 'North' to assist

their colleagues based in African countries to keep abreast of current developments.

Conclusion

As I have explained above, the task of taking a forward look at African archaeology has not

been an easy one, for I am not equally competent to deal with all parts of the continent: this has created biases in my coverage of the subject matter. I have deliberately avoided discussing topics on research and funding in great detail because of patchy information available from those active in the field. It is therefore difficult to predict development

phases in African archaeology especially as computer technology is still lagging behind that in the industrialized countries. Just as Thurstan Shaw (1989) admits that his coverage of the continent is uneven, my own is much more uneven.

However, I have sought to explain in a modest way contemporary and future prospects

for African archaeology. I have also attempted to highlight the failures, successes, frustrations and problems that are experienced by archaeologists working in Africa. The problems of funding and lack of training opportunities in Africa have posed a challenge to our contribution to the study of our own past. The notion that we are not doing enough to study our past is therefore unwarranted, especially as wealthy countries such as UK, USA, West

Germany and France are doing very little to promote the study of the African past by indigenous African archaeologists. While the Nordic countries are building up strong partnerships with Africans in research and supporting collaborative research in former

British, French and Portuguese colonies, the British and other colonizers are sitting on fences waiting to be invited. There is need for the British especially to change their attitude and approach to the study of the African past. They have the money which can be used for training young Africans interested in the study of their own past and for improving research facilities on this continent. This is perhaps the surest way of contributing effectively to the advancement of the subject on the African continent. They should emulate the efforts of SAREC (Swedish Agency for Research Cooperation with Developing Countries) in offering training opportunities and research funds to Africans.

Africans themselves are showing commitment to the study of their past through the establishment of institutions such as CICIBA. If these institutions can receive support from western countries, researches in many parts of the continent will be funded and Africa will again be the focus of fascinating archaeological findings.

Acknowledgements

To be able to deal adequateIy with the topic of discussion, I needed the opinions of my African colleagues on a wide range of issues pertaining to the state of the discipline on our continent. But because of inadequate time, I was unable to contact many of them. There-


fore, the views expressed in this paper are entirely my own, and their accuracy or lack of it

is my own responsibility. While I have attempted to be as objective and unbiased as

possible, I accept responsibility fbr omissions of facts, and fbr any errors and ignorance of

the true prevailing situations. The African continent is large and diverse and communica-

tion problems continue to be our greatest problem. I wish to thank Dr David Phillipson

who made thoughtful and invaluable comments and suggestions which helped considerably

in the fbrmulation of my own ideas on a number of points. My sincere thanks go to Mrs Esther Kabalanyana Banda, my Secretary, and Mrs Veronica Simunguzye, Museum

Research Typist, who painstakingly converted my illegible manuscript into something

readable.

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 ClarkJ. 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.

African archaeology." looking forward 21

Lee, R. B. and DeVore, I. (eds) 1976. Kalahari Hunter-Gatherers: studies of the .IKung San and their neighbours. Cambridge (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. In Iron Age research in Mozambique: collected prelimina~, reports (eds J. M. Morals et at.). Maputo: Instituto de Investigagao Cientifica de Mogambique.

Morals, J. M. t984. Mozambican 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 Natron Basin, Northern Tanzania. 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. Interim 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: Cambridge 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: Cambridge University Press.

Sinclair, P. J. J. (forthcoming) Radiocarbon 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 hunting 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.


Wendorf, F. and Schild, R. 1976. A Middle Stone Age Sequence from the Central Rift Valley, Ethiopia. Wroclaw: Ossolineum.

Wendorf, F. and Schild, R. 1976. Prehisto~y of the Nile Valley. New York: Academic Press.

Wendorf, F. and Schild, R. 1980. Prehistory of the Eastern Sahara. New York: Academic Press.

Documents

Musonda - The Future of African Archaeology