The future of archaeology in Africa

Abstract

ARCHAEOLOGICAL FUTURESIn February's edition ofAntiquityKoji Mizoguchi launched our new feature, ‘Archaeological Futures’, with his thoughts on the regional traditions of archaeology in a globalised world. In this issue, Innocent Pikirayi, Professor of Archaeology at the University of Pretoria, continues the series with his reflections on archaeology in Africa. In particular, he focuses on the barriers that must be broken down in order to secure a relevant and meaningful future for the practice and dissemination of archaeology in this continent that was the cradle of humanity.

Sustainability and an archaeology of the future

“…This is concerning, as sustainability cannot be fully discussed without consideration of this important component of our discipline. Furthermore, while I agree with their point that contemporary archaeological theory reflects and serves contemporary society, it must be emphasised that archaeology which does not resonate with the public, including local and descendant communities, is irrelevant (see Pikirayi 2015). It is irrelevance that is the source of anxiety for all archaeologists, hence the references to sustainability.…”

Assembling “Effective Archaeologies” toward Equitable Futures

“…In later decades of the twentieth century, there was growing concern to speak to and be heard by “broader publics,” whether as justification for government funding or motivated by a desire to contribute to the “betterment of humankind” (Spriggs , 291). For the most part, this imagined public “circle of we” (di Leonardo , 82) excluded colonized peoples (“them”) whose pasts many archaeologists studied (Andah ; Pikirayi ; Pwiti and Ndoro ). “We” was conceptually bounded by an “abyssal line” (Santos , ) that imagined the metropolitan (“Western”) as separate from the colonial, grounding the visible (metropolitan, civilized) in what was rendered invisible (colonial, savage) and creating hierarchies of knowledge that undergirded Western scholarship.…”

“…Yet, more fundamentally and righteously-and herein lies the "exciting juncture" (Atalay 2012, 11)-we are called to account, by other principles and social groups that travel under the sign of "community," for all that term's gloss of the diverse composition and interests within a community. We are asked to state more clearly and forcefully than ever what archaeology brings to the table, what are our "broader impacts" (Ion and Barrett 2016;Kintigh et al 2014;Little and Shackel 2014;Minnis et al 2017;Pikirayi 2015;Rockman 2012;Sabloff 2008). Thus, during times when citizens anxiously contemplate futures in relation to intensifying flows of people and things-perceived by some as a headlong rush into "catastrophic times" (Stengers 2015)-we feel both compelled and persuaded to account for how archaeological studies of the past are useful in the present and for the future.…”

“…; Little and Shackel ; Minnis et al. ; Pikirayi ; Rockman ; Sabloff ). Thus, during times when citizens anxiously contemplate futures in relation to intensifying flows of people and things—perceived by some as a headlong rush into “catastrophic times” (Stengers )—we feel both compelled and persuaded to account for how archaeological studies of the past are useful in the present and for the future.…”

Nyanga pottery and the Manyika ethnohistory: towards a decolonised archaeology of the Nyanga agricultural complex

“…It explores the social lifecycle of Manyika pottery from modern-day Nyanga, right from production to discard to develop an emic perspective of the relations that possibly existed between the Later Iron Age (CE 1300–1900) communities of Nyanga and the various broken potsherds and few complete earthenware archaeologists recovered from their upland and lowland residences (sensu [19941998] , [19941999] ; David and Kramer, 2001 ; Hodder and Hutson, 2003 ; Stark, 2003 ; Fowler, 2008 ; Pikirayi, 2007 ; Skibo, 1992 , 2013 Ashley, 2010 ). This approach is in liaison with decolonial studies trending in global archaeology and ethnoarchaeology, where archaeologists and anthropologists now recognise the significance of locally-centred knowledges when approaching material culture ( Dietler and Herbich, 1989 ; Collett, 1993 ; Lindahl and Matenga, 1995 ; Ndoro, 1996 ; Gosselain, 2000 ; 2016 ; Ogundele, 2006 ; Pikirayi, 2007 ; 2015 ; Karega-Munene and Schmidt, 2010 ; Lindahl and Pikirayi, 2010 ; Lane, 2011 ; Mtetwa et al, 2013 ; Nyamushosho, 2014 ; Chirikure, 2016 , Chirikure, 2020 ; Haber, 2016 ; Cunningham and MacEachern, 2016 ; Chirikure et al, 2018 ; Chipangura et al, 2019 ). In light of this, we approach decolonised archaeology as a philosophical and archaeological practice that is independent of colonial prejudices and hegemonic discourses; hence studying and portraying past societies in a more engaging way that resonates with local meanings and contexts of their material culture ( Stahl, 1995 ; Stark, 2003 ; Pikirayi, 2015 ; Cunningham and MacEachern, 2016 ; Haber, 2016 ; Chirikure et al, 2017 ).…”