The east African Neolithic: An alternative view

The East African Neolithic has been attributed to the migration of food- producing populations from the Sudan and Ethiopia. The migrants are thought to have entered the region via northern Kenya. Attempts have been made not only to reconstruct the routes taken by those migrants, but also to establish their linguistic and/or ethnic identity. These attempts have treated Neolithic pottery wares as discrete cultural entities and correlated them with specific linguistic and/or ethnic groups. The main problem with this approach is that it minimizes the contribution that contact and exchange or trade may have made to culture change. It also denies the groups concerned the dynamism that appears to have characterized their relationships with each other and with their environment. The present paper offers an alternative interpretation of the Neolithic phenomenon. The similarities and differences in material culture, like the ones that have been used to define the pottery wares in question, are reflections of the dynamic relationships that existed between the people responsible for its production and consumption. Production and consumption of the wares could have taken place among individuals living in a given area or among different villages or communities living as far apart as the Central Rift and the Lake Victoria basin.

---

Résumé Le néolithique de l'Est de l'Afrique a été attribué à des migrations de populations productrices de nourriture en provenance du Soudan et d'Ethiopie. On pense que ces migrations ont pénétré dans la région via le Nord du Kenya. Des tentatives ont été faites, non seulement pour reconstruire les routes empruntées par ces migrants, mais aussi pour établier leur identité linguistique et/ou ethnique. Ces tentatives ont utilisé les différents groupes de poterie néolithiques comme autant d'entités culturelles discrètes et les ont mises en relation avec des groupes linguistiques ou ethniques spécifiques. Le problème principal avec cette approche est qu'elle minimise la contribution que les contacts, les échanges ou le commerce ont pu avoid sur le changement culturel. Elle ne prend pas non plus en compte le dynamisme qui semble avoir caractérisé leurs relations entre elles et avec leur environnement. Le présent article tente d'offrir une interprétation alternative au phénomène néolithique. Ceci est réalisé en utilisant un modèle interprétatif que reconnaît que les humains ont des capacitiés intellectuelles et technologiques multiples et que les décisions et actions individuelles sont reflétées par les restes matériels des sociétés auxquels appartiennent les individus. Par conséquent, les similarités et les différences dans la culture matérielle comme celles qui ont été utilisées pour définir les groupes de poterie dont il est question sont le reflect de relations dynamiques qui existaient entre les peuples responsables de sa production et de sa consommation. La production et la consommation de ces groupes peuvent s'êtres produites parmi des individus vivant dans une région donnée ou parmi différents villages ou communautés vivant aussi éloignées l'une de l'autre que le Rift Central et le bassin du Lac Victoria.

     

Postcolonial Archaeologies in Africa: Breaking the Silence

Postcolonial archaeologies in Africa are engaged in a variety of agendas including the decolonization of everyday practices in the field and in the classroom. Postcolonial theory, concerned with issues of power and the Other, is increasingly being invoked to examine how archaeologists conduct their field research and how archaeology is used to dismantle essentialized histories—the metanarratives that arose in the colonial as well as the postcolonial era. Easily misunderstood, however, is the passion expressed by some African archaeologists who are voicing their own views while simultaneously trying to free themselves from dominating “expert” voices. These occurrences create tensions in archaeological discourse that are a natural part of decolonizing archaeology, joining other forms of disenchantment, particularly the disenchantments arising in contemporary African communities about social services, civil society, and human rights. Archaeologists are also implicated in disenchantments as they conduct investigations in the midst of people who may be without water or are suffering from HIV/AIDS—conditions that starkly contrast with their own comfortable lives. We may also need to reconsider how to deal with states that see archaeological research as contrary to nation building. This essay responds to some current misunderstandings that have arisen over these and related issues.