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

3-22

African archaeology: looking forward

FRANCIS B. M U S O N D A

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 archaeo-
logy: 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: lookingforward 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 col-
leagues 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 partici-
pants, 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 MuseumsJournal, 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
6 Francis B. Musonda

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, forth-
coming) since the early 1960s. East African archaeological, geological and palaeontologicaI
researches have combined to utilize the long sequence of volcanic deposits in the 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
 African archaeology:lookingforward 7

emphasize aspects of the ecology of early man in their researches. Jean, for example, has up
to the present continued to orient her studies toward the nature of hominid behavioural
relationships to plants, plant communities and vegetation patterns, an aspect that both
Desmond and Glynn thought was central to our understanding of prehistoric human diet
and exploitation patterns. The same goes for students of Cambridge University,
Birmingham University and the Institute of Archaeology at University College in London
and other European institutions where archaeology is taught. Therefore, lack of research in
some aspects of archaeology is symptomatic of the attitudes of research and training
institutions. At Berkeley, these attitudes have changed: the retirement ofJ. Desmond Clark
in 1986 and the tragic loss of Glynn Isaac who had earlier left for Harvard University have
led to the eventual toss of the Anthropology Department's strong African archaeological
bias which the two developed through many years of hard work. This loss is deeply
regretted (A.A.R. Editorial 1987:1). Perhaps the new generation of scholars at Berkeley
conceive African archaeology as an unnecessary element in the University's curriculum, so
that undertaking research on the African continent is considered hardly necessary.
However, this trend is being reversed by Cambridge University which, through the effort of
David Phillipson, John Alexander and others, has developed a strong orientation toward
African archaeology. The present generation of archaeologists is therefore not despairing of
the current attitudes of some European and American institutions towards training Afri-
cans and lack of consideration of African archaeology as an essential feature of their
curriculum.
It is widely recognized that a number of British and American Africanist archaeologists
can be identified with the present trend away from studies exclusively concerned with stone
tools and pottery to research that seeks to explain the entire process of human cultural and
behavioural evolution (Clark 1970; Isaac 1984; Phillipson 1985). The work of such people
has, fortunately, emphasized the need to look beyond stone tools in our attempt to under-
stand the lifeways of hunter-gatherers. The study of social organization, environmental
patterns, diet (Speth 1987, 1989) and how such behaviours relate to prehistoric hunter-
gatherers are beginning to gain prominence (Musonda 1989a, 1989b). There is also the
realization that social organization and other adaptive behaviours have developed through
time and that, as we move back in time, they become simpler and less complex (Stiles
1980:28). What therefore should future archaeologists attempt to achieve? Stiles (ibid.)
suggests that we should document when in the course of human evolution certain stages in
social organization first appeared.
A critical examination of the archaeological literature relevant to social organization of
hunter-gatherers reveals enormous gaps. Much of the African continent has virtually
nothing precisely known about its prehistoric settlements, and this creates problems result-
ing in inadequate synthesis and misleading interpretations. South Africa and the newly
independent state of Namibia are perhaps an exception. Archaeologists in that region have
made substantial gains in knowledge and far-reaching results have been achieved in ethno-
archaeological research (Sampson 1984). There is need constantly to redefine archaeo-
logical and environmental interpretations and techniques. The researches of Silberbauer
(1981), Lee and De Vore (1976) and many others that have been undertaken in southern
Africa have contributed to a radical change in our perception of what the future holds for
African archaeology.
8 Francis B. Musonda

While some areas in eastern and southern Africa, the Sahara and some parts of West
Africa have greatly benefited from researches 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 strate-
gies. Archaeologists wilt need to address themselves fully to questions of variability in stone
tool assemblages and of agricultural origins.
African archaeology continues to suffer from the lack of 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 assem-
blages (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
 African archaeology: lookingforward 9

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 archaeologi-
cal 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 devel-
oped 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
10 FrancisB. Musonda

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 con-
centrate 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 arch-
aeological 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.
 African archaeology: lookingforward 11

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 them-
selves regard it as a non priority discipline.
12 Francis B. Musonda

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 archaeo-
logical 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 pri-
ority. 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 indi-
genous 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 archaeolo-
gists in Africa. Despite the great need for African archaeologists to have been present at
such a conference, only a few Africans undergoing training in the USA were able to attend:
high travel costs 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: lookingforward 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 col-
leagues 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
14 FrancisB. Musonda

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: lookingJbrward 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. I C C R O M has further become involved in conservation prob-
lems 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 con-
servation problems in African museums, and I C C R O M 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 archaeolo-
gists, 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 postpone-
ments. 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
16 FrancisB. Musonda

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 U I S P P 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 interna-
tional 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 archaeo-
logists 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.
 African archaeology: lookingforward 17

Equally important are regional conferences and seminars such as the ones held annually
by institutions in Eastern Africa involved in the Project on Urban Origins in Eastern
Africa, by the Southern Africa Association of Archaeologists and by CICIBA. The project
on urban origins is a joint venture linking institutions in Botswana, Comores, Kenya,
Madagascar, Mozambique, Sweden, Tanzania, Zanzibar and Zimbabwe; Zambia's par-
ticipation is being considered. This project is being undertaken in phases, each phase being
carefully executed and the results analysed at a workshop attended by all participating
scholars, before moving on to the next phase. Since its inception in 1986, the programme
has been organized into three phases: Phase I involved formulating a joint research prob-
lem, surveying literature and holding a workshop to evaluate the successes and failures so
far; Phase n currently involves implementation of research proposals, conduct of surveys,
spatial analysis for defining settlement hierarchies, excavation of selected sites, and analysis
and comparison of finds; while Phase m will mark the end of the programme, when a
conference will be held in Nairobi, Kenya, at which the results of the institutional projects
will be discussed and publication of finds finalized. According to the project coordinators,
this conference may be held in 1991.
The programme outlined above is probably the first of its kind in snb-Saharan Africa.
Project proposals address a regional theme across political boundaries and seek solutions to
problems of a regional character. Interest has been expressed in setting up a similar
programme in West Africa. The West African Trade Project directed by Merrick
Posnansky in the early 1970s, although largely concentrating on Ghana, was multidis-
ciplinary in character and comparable in a small way to the Project on Urban Origins in
Eastern Africa. The Swedish approach to the study of the African past should be emulated
by those with deep interest in the study of the past in other regions of the African continent.
The Centre International des Civilisations Bantu held the first seminar of archaeologists
of the Bantu zone in Libreville, Gabon, in December 1989. The seminar evaluated the state
of archaeological research in the region, stressing the need to establish strong networks
among archaeologists working in the region. Funding of archaeological projects is still
sporadic and financial contributions to CICIBA by member states are sometimes behind
schedule. However, despite the teething problems that the organization is going through,
there is a good chance that the bringing together of French- and English-speaking archaeo-
logists working in the Bantu area will find common ground for solving archaeological
problems. Once all countries in Bantu-speaking Africa become members of CICIBA, it will
be possible to find common and acceptable solutions to the present problems. Our diffi-
culties of training future archaeologists and funding of archaeological researches will also
be eased. It will probably even be possible to persuade organizations such as UNESCO to
provide equipment and specialized services for the study of the past.

Professional decline or renewal?

A common assumption which unfortunately underlies the thinking of some of our col-
teagues in the developed ~North' is that Africans trained abroad seem to be insufficiently
prepared to be able to cope with the fast increasing knowledge when they return to their
home countries (A.A.R. Editorial 1985). This problem of lack of proper tools to cope with
new knowledge is not unique to Africa or the developing countries but is an international
18 Francis B. Musonda

phenomenon. The decline in intellectual 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 archaeologi-
cal 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
 African archaeology: lookingforward 19

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, frustra-
tions 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-
20 Francis B. Musonda

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 K a b a l a n y a n a 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
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: collectedprelimina~, 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.
21
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. Processesof 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.
22 Francis B. Musonda
Wendorf, F. and Schild, R. 1976. A Middle
Stone Age Sequencefrom 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.