ARCHAEOLOGY, in simplistic terms, can be defined as the study of man’s past by the scientific analysis of the material remains of his cultures.
In times of inspiration, I have often wondered what if the stones and cultural remains at Great Zimbabwe could talk; in what language would they speak?
As writing and documentation developed and literacy became widespread, orature as a genre of historical recollection became less important, especially in literate societies, because of the presumed unreliability of African oral traditions as compared to the documents of the colonising forces of the English, French or German.
Archaeology is no doubt still a purely Westernised discourse in need of our own indigenous world view, perception and interpretation of our past, as well as analysis from an indigenous socio-psychological perspective.
This brings me to the question of our own Zimbabwean archaeological history. The knowledge of most pre-literate historical periods in Zimbabwe is derived in some form from oral accounts.
Most of the research I have conducted over time at ancient sites dotted around the country have been through interviews with the elders living in the locales of the sites; basically, a written form of orature.
Africa and Zimbabwe, in particular, are lucky in that our archaeological records reside in the memory of still living custodians.
The phrase ‘oral traditional heritage’ generally refers to folklore, legends, tales, edicts and stories through which knowledge of the past is preserved and transmitted from one generation to another.
Such oral traditions record the origins, movements and settlements of peoples; the genealogy and chronology of royalty, priests and ordinary citizens, together with important landmarks and political geography in our history.
Perhaps we should extend this definition to encompass oral archaeological records?
The earliest written documents regarding indigenous African people were the accounts written by Europeans; beginning with the early Portuguese, followed by French, English, Dutch and Arab traders, travellers and explorers who narrated their experiences primarily for home audiences or as personal memoirs from their distorted Euro-centric lens.
For this reason, many of the colonial historical accounts and studies on Africa cannot be considered historical records, but colonial adventure stories and diaries combined with a touch of anthropology.
Archaeological findings of early African civilisations were attributed to foreign influences.
It is in this context that the British historian Hugh Trevor-Roper postulated that: “Perhaps in the future there will be some African history to teach. But at present, there is none; only the history of Europeans in Africa. The rest in darkness… and darkness is not the subject of history.”
In fact, much of the political and academic power held by colonial scholars, particularly anthropologists and archaeologists, was falsely based on their own written interpretations of our material culture and not on African oral records, which they shunned for obvious reasons.
This colonisation of African knowledge was not unrelated to the growth of European archives and the documentary traditions of the Medieval European courts.
Indeed, by the 19th Century, a form of colonial historiographical tradition that alleged that only Western-written sources could produce historical reliability and accuracy had become established in Europe.
European historians were firmly inclined to believe that non-literate societies, such as African, had no history or technological acumen.
This denigration of the African memory, intelligence technology and history was a replication of the European racial and colonial enterprise, referred to by Edward Said as ‘a race construct of otherness’.
The superiority complex perpetuated via colonial literature, academic histories, archaeology and anthropology glorified the Western ideal in conquered and dominated peoples.
The challenge for the post-colonial African to the question of African history is to prove their existence and to record our chronology through the only source that was dynamic at the time, and still alive today – our oral traditions.
African historians have professed the value and reliability of oral traditions for the construction and reconstruction of the African peoples’ history.
Thus academics of the colonial African historical consciousness need to use orature and oral traditions as a source and method for our historical renaissance.
Indigenous African anthology and use of oral traditions to interpret archaeological and social history have survived much Western historiographical scrutiny and remain national historical classics.
In Zimbabwe, we have examples in the works of Aenias Chigwedere, a former Minister of Education, Arts and Culture.
Oral traditions have thus been successfully employed to reconstruct the history of many post-colonial societies in Africa.
Jan Vansina’s seminal theoretical work, Oral Tradition: A Study in Historical Methodology, articulated the major theoretical advances in defence of the use of oral traditions in historical reconstruction.
Consequently, oral traditions have had a wider and greater influence on global historiography than its critics would concede.
Although many Western critics point out that African oral history lacks absolute chronology, is selective in content and is compromised by possible human errors, African traditional oral history offers African scholars, historians, anthropologists and archaeologists the means to record an independent African, and indeed, Zimbabwean history uncontaminated by colonialism.
The emphasis on the written source as the only reliable store of historical reconstruction needs other resources of history, including archaeology, palaeography and linguistics, mostly as oral traditions, to substantiate any data.
Oral traditions have also shed critical light on the debate of the dependability of Western-written history, many questioning their reliability.
Indeed, it has currently been acknowledged in history studies that many written Western documents are in reality processed oral African traditions.
The challenge of reconstructing the archaeological history of pre-literate Zimbabwean Iron Age societies makes the study and interpretation of our oral traditions surrounding these historical ancient archaeological sites evermore pertinent and essential.
Some indigenous custodians of the Iron Age societies in Zimbabwe have gone to great lengths to preserve and transmit the knowledge of our past in oral forms.
It is now incumbent upon our Zimbabwean scholars to question, research and document our archaeological history deferentially from our indigenous point of view.
Western-written archaeological records of African societies need to be questioned with an indigenous fine-tooth comb.
How can they begin to conceptualise our life, if it is not in our language?
This is not to say all Western archaeological research be dismissed as hearsay, but to use it in tandem with our own traditional oral records.
Thus rediscover, ascertain and re-empower indigenous oral scholarship in so doing.
The study of oral traditions has developed into a recognised discipline in academia.
It is time for Zimbabwe to embrace an indigenous traditional oral approach to historical scholarship.
Dr Tony Monda holds a PhD in Art Theory and Philosophy and a DBA (Doctorate in Business Administration) and Post-Colonial Heritage Studies. He is a writer, lecturer, musician, art critic, practising artist and corporate image consultant. He is also a specialist art consultant, post-colonial scholar, Zimbabwean socio-economic analyst and researcher.
For views and comments, email: tonym.MONDA@gmail.com