Editorial: Azania at Fifty

Introduction

For fifty years Azania has been producing detailed quality papers on archaeology and related research across the African continent. This issue of invited articles has been assembled to celebrate the journal's fiftieth volume and to provide a critical commentary on the evolution of particular research themes in the region and how contributions to Azania shaped their development. In 2009, Azania was transformed from a niche publication on aspects of history, archaeology and related disciplines in eastern Africa, produced directly by the British Institute in Eastern Africa (BIEA) and printed in Nairobi, to a multi-issue journal of the BIEA, covering archaeological research in Africa generally, produced commercially by Taylor & Francis Ltd. For obvious reasons, this issue will restrict itself to considering the contributions of Azania to the development of the discipline in eastern Africa; a subsequent issue due for publication in March 2016 will offer a continent-wide perspective on similar and other topics.

Perhaps the first point to note about Azania is its close association with the work of the BIEA, especially in its first few decades of production, aimed at establishing a tradition of research on eastern Africa's later — by which read Holocene — archaeology and precolonial history, at a time when both were in their scholarly infancy. As the journal of the BIEA, which then as now was largely funded by the British Academy and partly modelled on other, older British Academy-funded schools and institutes abroad (such as those in Rome and Athens), Azania was originally conceived as the primary conduit for publishing the results of BIEA–supported research. At the same time, it provided a platform for other researchers to publish their results on related topics:

‘While Azania is the journal of the British Institute of History and Archaeology in East Africa,¹ and will serve as the main channel through which work by our staff and research students will be published, we not only welcome, but expect other contributions’ (Chittick 1966: vii)

It was also intended, at least in terms of its archaeological output, to be a journal of record much like the journals of the other schools and institutes abroad and, although more modestly, subject-focused journals published in Britain, such as the Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society and Britannia. Although these goals have broadened over the years, partly as a consequence of the ever-increasing range of publishing outlets available to Africanist archaeologists but also due to changing editorial policy and composition, Azania’s role as a journal of record has certainly stood the test of time. A great many of the papers published during the first two decades of the journal's history laid the foundations for subsequent research on a host of topics — as our contributors illustrate in greater depth — and, although interpretative frameworks have changed, the quality of the substantive data concerning eastern Africa's Holocene archaeology contained within the pages of Azania has been remarkable, with back issues of the journal remaining a constant source of reference.

Azania's geographical scope, even in its pre-2009 manifestation, has also been broad (Figure 1), reflecting, and often going well beyond, the BIEA's regional remit to span at least sixteen different eastern African countries from Sudan and Somalia in the north to Zambia, Zimbabwe and Mozambique in the south.² Madagascar and the Comoro Islands were also part of the journal's geographical scope from its conception, but whereas the first volume included a paper on the former (Vérin 1966) it took almost twenty years before Azania published a paper dedicated to the archaeology of the Comoros (Wright et al. 1984). Understandably, given the consolidation of the BIEA's Nairobi base (from its original offices in Kampala and Dar es Salaam), and the logistical ease of running field projects in Tanzania and Uganda from there, as well as Kenya, Azania has published a far higher number of papers on the archaeology of these countries, especially Kenya, than any of the other countries considered to be part of the BIEA's normal remit (Figure 1).³ Moreover, despite an editorial policy from the outset (as attested by Vérin's paper cited above) to accept papers in French as well as in English, something that Azania still supports,⁴ the number of papers concerning areas of Francophone eastern Africa, whether in English or French, has been small; this is also true of the region's only Lusophone country, Mozambique, despite some early pioneering studies (Liesegang 1972; Barker 1978).

Figure 1. Concentration of research per country based on proportion of archaeological papers in Azania 1966-2008 (excluding special themed issues).

Alongside these geographical imbalances, as we note below (see also Figure 2), there are several thematic gaps and biases in the journal's overall coverage of the region's archaeological record. However, it has also taken the lead in promoting research on particular topics, not just in terms of period coverage but also thematically. These have included the spread of farming communities (e.g. Soper 1971; Sutton 1994/95) and the archaeology of intensive agriculture, notably at Engaruka, Tanzania (e.g. Robertshaw 1986; Sassoon 1996; Stump 2006; Sutton 1978, 1999), but also more widely (Sutton 1969, 1989). The emergence of urbanism and/or complex societies in the Great Lakes region (e.g. Lanning 1970; Robertshaw 1997), Ethiopia (e.g. Chittick 1974; Munro-Hay 1980; D. Phillipson 2003; L. Phillipson and Sulas 2005) and Sudan (e.g. Welsby 1983; Salih, 2004; Török 2004) has also been of particular concern.⁵ Building on the BIEA's long association with the archaeology of the Swahili coast, the journal has also begun to direct attention to maritime perspectives on eastern Africa's long-term engagement with the wider Indian Ocean world (Wynne-Jones 2007). Other themes, perhaps, have received rather less prominence over the years, such as comparative analysis of regional Later Stone Age traditions (see, however, D. Phillipson 1977). The relative neglect of this topic is unfortunate given the growing international interest in hunter-gatherer variation across time and space and the opportunities for their investigation in the region from combined, archaeological, genetic, linguistic and ethnohistoric perspectives (Kusimba 2003). Similar observations could be made about a number of other themes.

Figure 2. Primary period and/or thematic coverage of archaeological papers published in Azania 1966—2008.

Clearly, no journal can ever be comprehensive in its coverage, even if it might aspire to be, and many of the periodic ‘spikes’ in either regional or thematic coverage, as well as the various ‘absences’, relate as much to the manner in which wider geopolitical contexts and practicalities shape the distribution of research activity and researchers. A case in point is South Sudan, where the BIEA had begun an interdisciplinary project (David et al. 1981; D. Phillipson 1981; Robertshaw and Mawson 1981; Mack and Robertshaw 1982) shortly before the outbreak of the twenty-five year civil war that lead eventually to the creation of Africa's newest nation state in 2011. The ensuing insecurity curtailed further archaeological work until after the signing of a Comprehensive Peace Agreement between the main factions in 2005. Civil war and the ongoing insecurity across Somalia (including the now independent entity of Somaliland) have had similar consequences and have also left in their wake considerable looting of archaeological sites and monuments (Mire 2011). The low density of archaeological research in some countries across the region, even to this day, such as in Zambia and Malawi, has also been a contributory factor, although Sada Mire's (2015) recent work in Somaliland shows how much can be accomplished even with limited human and financial resources.

All this being said, and without either gainsaying the high quality of the work reported or the intentions and motivations of the authors involved, or wishing to undermine the pioneering and foundational importance of many early archaeological studies, it is still fair to say that reading Azania must also take into account the ghosts of British colonialism, as we elaborate below.

Reading Azania

Although its first issue in 1966 appeared after eastern African countries achieved independence, in hindsight Azania very much bore a colonial imprint. In its early years, in particular, Azania had the feel of a high quality ‘Notes and Records’, with a remit on the ‘recent’ precolonial past and spread over several countries. This exploration of the past was overwhelmingly particularistic and culture historical. Although radiocarbon dating was being drawn upon in many of the earliest papers, its use, utility and methodology was poorly understood, as the technique was in its infancy and its purpose was largely to provide chronological fixed points upon which to pin culture historical reconstructions and cultural associations. The desire to order and record echoed attempts by colonial administrators to control knowledge.

Not surprisingly, where papers did explore broader issues, the themes could often be seen to have a distinctly colonial-influenced focus, particularly in relation to migration as a driver of change. For example, in early papers there was often a simplistic assumption that the Swahili stone towns were the residences of Arabs who had subjugated the local African population; many other papers were produced presenting the results of the BIEA's Bantu Studies Project. Yet it should also be remembered that this focus on the recent past, especially in Kenya, and to a lesser extent Tanzania, was a relatively novel direction in the development of archaeology in eastern Africa. Colonial era archaeology had typically concentrated on the Stone Age (Robertshaw 1990). For instance, in one overview of the prehistory of East Africa from the decade prior to the launch of Azania (Cole 1954), 5% of the 266 page text deals with what would now be recognised as the ‘Iron Age’ with a further 12% on the Later Stone Age and 9% dedicated to rock art — the latter chapter entitled ‘Primitive Artists’. Cole (1954: 284) herself admitted that knowledge of the Iron Age was ‘rudimentary and largely conjectural’ and that she had been advised against including this final chapter, reflecting both the absence of substantive knowledge and the lack of desire to explore such time periods because they related to the African ‘tribes’ present in the colonial states:

‘We know very little about the origins of most of the present East African tribes, whence they came and when, or why they were so uninterested in material comforts, labour-saving inventions and cultural and artistic productions’ (Cole 1954: 272).

Based largely on supposition, the Iron Age itself was regarded as extremely short-lived and essentially historical, featuring a succession of migrations and incursions by outside influences: Egyptians, Arabs, Hamites and Bantu speakers. As we are now all too abundantly aware, as a result in part of the research reported in the pages of Azania, the widespread application of radiocarbon dating and the willingness to regard the recent eastern African past in terms of greater complexity and chronological time depth, eastern Africa can now be shown to have a much greater and more complex historical development. Imperfect and uncertain though its output may have been, Azania played a leading role in establishing these basic foundations upon which future archaeologies could be built. Were it to be written today, The Prehistory of East Africa would be unrecognisable and most authors would probably eschew the idea of ‘prehistory’ altogether, in preference for the more inclusive term ‘archaeology’.

There are a number of other significant shortcomings that can and should be raised when discussing the role of Azania. A notable issue is the near absence of contributions by scholars of eastern African origin. From the late 1970s, when the first indigenous archaeologists acquired their qualifications, into the 1990s, by which time there were a significant number of archaeologists from Kenya and Tanzania, there were still markedly few contributions (Odak 1977; Onyango-Abuje 1977; Katenekwa 1978; Wandibba 1983, 1990; Mturi 1986; Elamin 1987; Chami 1992, 1994/95, 1999; Abungu 1994/95; Mutoro 1994/95; Pwiti 1994/95; Kyule 1997),⁶ and this only slightly improved in the last decade of Azania’s focus on eastern Africa. It is really not possible to explore the reasons for this disappointing shortfall in this introduction, but it warrants recognition as an issue. Although tempting, it is too simplistic and inaccurate merely to assume that indigenous scholars were actively ignored when considering papers for publication;⁷ even though there has been a perception among many such scholars that this was the case. In the early years, of course, there were no indigenous archaeologists, because of lack of opportunity, lack of training and, most importantly, a systemic and societal failure to recognise that local scholars were in any way appropriate. Future volumes of Azania must continue the process of constructive engagement with scholars from eastern Africa and the continent as a whole in order to break down misconceptions and to ensure that Azania is truly representative of current research initiatives and academic agendas. For this particular volume, every effort was made to incorporate eastern African scholars as authors and it should be noted that several prominent researchers who were approached were unfortunately not able to commit to the production schedule required.

Besides the representation of eastern African scholarship, there are also a number of other important weaknesses in the papers produced in Azania. The number of female authors is poor, although it has generally improved over the years (Figure 3).⁸ While this probably reflects the general changing presence of women in academic posts, this will necessarily have impacted the perspectives and output on gender in the formative phases of the development of the regional archaeology. Only the last two eastern African-focused volumes of Azania (totalling 43 in 2008) were edited by a woman (Stephanie Wynne-Jones).

Figure 3. Proportion of male and female authors of archaeological papers published in Azania 1966—2008.

Equally, although less overtly problematic, has been the limited contribution to Azania by American and European scholars. Rightly or wrongly, Azania has often been regarded as a publication only for British authors. A much more telling issue, partly exacerbated by the limited number of American contributors, was the lack of explicitly theoretical discussions. Azania’s prolonged culture historical focus inhibited the important new critical approaches now seen as necessary when developing an archaeology appropriate to eastern Africa, or, to any other part of the world (e.g. McNiven and Russell 2005). The scorning of theory, of course, merely condemned archaeology to follow inherited colonial paradigms. Ironically, the BIEA sponsored some of the research that contributed to Ian Hodder's (1982) breakthrough publication on archaeological theory, Symbols in Action, the insights from which helped encourage the kind of explicitly self-critical approaches that would now be recognised as essential for the development of a truly post-colonial archaeology. Sadly, the BIEA, and by default also Azania, manifestly failed, at least until recently, to build on this intellectual capital, or even to take such projects seriously.⁹

The chronological confines that were chosen for Azania have also been problematic, more or less excluding, until the recent change in publishing format, any consideration of Early or Middle Stone Age archaeology (although see, for example, L. Phillipson 1975, 1976; Elamin 1987). With some notable early exceptions — that were not named as such — historical archaeology, whether of different African societies and practices or of external colonising powers, has also been largely ignored. Another major absence — with a few exceptions in special issues — is any consideration of the wealth of ethnoarchaeological research undertaken across the region and the analytical and interpretative insights that have been gleaned from this (Lyons 2013). The goals the BIEA set itself in its early years may well explain the lack of attention to the Earlier and Middle Stone Ages, while the later limit of the beginnings of the colonial or European period in eastern Africa is in some regards also understandable, in that it excluded recent periods dominated by colonial bureaucracy and European history. Of course, by choosing such a parameter but also largely ignoring the archaeology of the last 500 years or so,¹⁰ early editions in particular were implying that there was a fundamental disconnect between precolonial and colonial periods, with the further troubling implication that the colonial period witnessed the inevitable transformation of Africans into dependents in the modern global economy. As this has been relaxed more recently, historical archaeology and studies of community histories have demonstrated that such sub-fields provide an essential counterpoint to documentary history through their ability to access material actions rather than stated intentions and, more importantly, through their ability to explore the viewpoint of communities who were the object of colonial policies and actions (for different perspectives on such matters see, for instance, Lane in press; Reid in press; Schmidt in press).

As a result, Azania must at times be recognised to have been an anachronistic publication that represents a conundrum for academic scholarship. It was variously theoretically, methodologically and critically problematic, but at the same time Azania provided a vital record, particularly before indigenous knowledge and resources were lost to time and rapid social and demographic development. Azania was and remains a genuine attempt to document the African past, but it has also been constrained by significant limitations. Nonetheless, today, it is still possible to dip into back issues and encounter understated papers that, despite decades of work on the archaeology of eastern Africa, discuss topics that remain relevant and represent original sources of information. To some extent, it could even be argued that rather than having been over-relied upon, Azania’s qualities have all too easily been overlooked because of its shortcomings, real and perceived.

Contributions to this issue

This collection of invited papers sought to provide an overview of the contribution of Azania, by considering the changes in understanding of a number of central themes: ceramics, metallurgy, rock art, heritage, the Swahili coast, and Madagascar and the Comoros. These are by no means exhaustive, as significant papers could have been written on topics as diverse as the Horn of Africa, Ethiopian complex societies, cultivation, zooarchaeology, state-formation, the interaction between history, archaeology and linguistics, Later Stone Age archaeology, lithic technologies and pastoralism, among others. The breadth of the chosen themes does, however, provide an effective indication of the depth and range of coverage seen within Azania. At the same time, these papers ably demonstrate how the discipline and writing of archaeology has changed significantly in eastern Africa and how it has come to be more in tune with both theoretical and methodological elements from mainstream archaeology and more effectively focused on the needs of archaeological and heritage practitioners in eastern Africa.

Whereas these themes generally represent well-trodden ground within the pages of Azania, the issue of heritage was less obviously covered. Azania often implicitly sought to highlight and support heritage issues whilst dogmatically regarding heritage as separate and incontrovertible, and its protection non-negotiable. Heritage management experience over the last twenty years or so has shown that such matters can never be assumed, but have to be proactively engaged with by a dynamic and thoroughly trained and skilled group of heritage managers. One of the great achievements in eastern Africa in recent years has been the successful and equable engagement with community groups (e.g. Mapunda and Lane 2004). The favourable outcome of such initiatives has, of course, had the effect of highlighting the number of other contexts in which community engagement is urgently needed and how government and NGO heritage mediators are hopelessly overwhelmed and under-resourced. The potential for this community engagement was first demonstrated by early, highly influential ethnoarchaeological work on iron smelting, with its group meetings, cultural discussions and recognition of indigenous knowledge (e.g. Schmidt 1997). Whilst the potential for such work on iron is now almost completely ended, due to the absence of surviving participants in the process, the potential for community engagement revealed by this ground-breaking work is now being harnessed more generally in exploring heritage perspectives and indeed demonstrates that community-based approaches should be the basis for all archaeological activity.

In all the papers presented here, there are shared themes of growth and increasing complexity of understanding and sophistication of approach. Typically, specialist studies of elements such as ceramics, iron or animal bone shifted from summary paragraphs in general site reports to papers that focused entirely on the material under study. They reflect the maturing of the archaeology that is practised in eastern Africa and the development of the discipline as a whole. We hope, therefore, that this collection of papers will provide an effective, yet critical, celebration of fifty volumes of Azania. The papers explore how perspectives have developed and sub-disciplines have matured within eastern Africa. As such, this celebratory issue of Azania represents a resource that will be of use to archaeologists working in eastern Africa as a commentary on the current state of knowledge, but will also be of use for archaeologists working elsewhere on the continent and beyond to provide an understanding of the development of the discipline in a different and quite distinct part of the world. Notwithstanding its significant historical foibles, it remains a pleasure (even in the absence of an updated index, which is surely overdue) to dip into back issues of Azania and be transported in new directions by information and perspectives presented in a sometimes novel, often unconventional and frequently understated manner.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the general editors of Azania: Archaeological Research in Africa for their invitation to edit this special issue, as well as all the contributing authors for their willingness to be part of this project, their enthusiastic response to suggestions and for sticking to their deadlines — more or less!

ORCID

Paul J. Lane http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9936-1310

Notes

1 This was the name of the Institute when it was founded in 1959; the Institute's name was changed to its current form in 1970.

2 MacDonald et al. (2009: 1) note in their first editorial for Azania: Archaeological Research in Africa, that by 2008 the journal had reported on some aspect of the archaeology of 23 out of 54 African countries (and the total is now 24 out of 55 countries). The full range of countries conventionally included in the BIEA's remit (and on which Figure 1 is based, although our categories ‘Sudan’ and ‘Somalia’ include South Sudan and Somaliland, respectively) are Burundi, the Comoro Islands, Djibouti, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kenya, Madagascar, Malawi, Mozambique, Rwanda, South Sudan, Somaliland, Somalia, Sudan, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia and Zimbabwe.

3 Between 1966 and 2009, including all special issues, just in terms of archaeological articles (i.e. excluding notes and other shorter contributions), the journal reported on aspects of the archaeology of 23 different African countries, as follows: Kenya 92 papers, Tanzania 66, Ethiopia 29, Uganda 27, Sudan 21, Zambia 19, Congo-Kinshasa 7, Madagascar 6, Rwanda 6, Zimbabwe 6, Burundi 5, Mozambique 5, Central African Republic 4, Nigeria 4, South Africa 4, Cameroon 2, Comoro Islands 2, Eritrea 2, Malawi 2, Egypt 1, Mauritius 1 and Namibia 1. If shorter summaries are also counted then the list would also include Botswana, bringing the total to 24.

4 In his first editorial, Neville Chittick (1966: vii) also invited contributions written in either German or Italian (although curiously not Portuguese), but to date Azania has only published papers in either English or French.

5 Note, however, that Azania has only occasionally been used as a publication outlet for research on the ancient and medieval kingdoms of Sudan, and rather less than might have been expected given the support such projects have received over the years from the BIEA.

6 These are all the single authored papers by African archaeologists Azania published prior to 2000. For this period (1966–1999), there are also a few contributions on more historical matters by two African-Asian authors; a selection of shorter archaeological notes, summaries, or specialist reports by African archaeologists; and, a few papers in which African archaeologists are named as co-authors alongside other scholars. Space precludes citing all of these here.

7 While editor, one of us actively sought to increase the number of papers from African scholars, although not always successfully.

8 Overall totals for named authors of journal articles published between 1966 and 2008 are 339 male authors and 87 female authors; since several male and female authors contributed more than one article over this period, these numbers do not reflect the true number of different male or female researchers, which is much lower in both cases.

9 In 1987, a senior officer of the BIEA described Ian Hodder's seminal work to one of us as ‘the biggest waste of money’ of any project to which they had provided financial assistance; the passage of time has shown just how short-sighted that statement was!

10 Important exceptions to this include Chapman (1966), Lofgren (1967), Posnansky (1967) and Scully (1969).