How new technologies have debunked old myths about African history
Until relatively recently, attempts were often made to explain African history through ideas that now appear to be patently incorrect. Complex societies and technologies were attributed to outsiders from other regions, whilst the knowledge of local people was virtually ignored. However, radiocarbon dating and other modern methods have forced archaeologists to rethink many old assumptions. Archaeologist Tim Forssman has identified four stages in the study of Africa’s past — from 19th-century colonial collections to genetic research and collaboration with local communities.
Europeans’ systematic interest in African antiquities intensified towards the end of the 19th century — coinciding with the partition of the continent amongst the European powers.
Archaeology, as we understand it today, was only just taking shape at that time. Artefacts were collected by museum staff, missionaries, travellers and colonial officials. The objects often simply served to expand collections, whilst the circumstances of their discovery and their historical context were studied to a much lesser extent.
The main problem lay not only in the imperfection of the methods. Researchers frequently interpreted Africa’s past through the colonial lens of their own time.
In particular, there were attempts to explain the development of complex African societies by the influence of certain outsiders. Even fantastical hypotheses were put forward, such as those concerning Atlantis or peoples who allegedly brought advanced technologies from Egypt to other parts of the continent.
Details
A turning point came in the mid-20th century, when archaeologists gained the ability to determine the age of organic materials using radiocarbon dating.
This method made it possible to test hypotheses not only by comparing artefacts and historical texts, but also through independent dating.
A telling example occurred in Nigeria. The archaeologist Bernard Fagg investigated unusual terracotta heads on the Jos Plateau, dating from the Nok culture.
Dating revealed that some of the finds were over 2,000 years old.
This was of great significance: the findings contradicted old colonial notions, according to which complex cultural traditions had emerged in this part of Africa much later.
What had previously been explained away as prejudice or conjecture now had to be weighed against physical evidence.
It was not only the methodology that changed, but also the very questions that scholars were asking about the past.
A good example is the Swahili coast in East Africa. For centuries, it had been linked by trade routes to the Arabian Peninsula, Persia, India and other regions of the Indian Ocean.
Early research placed great emphasis on the role of Arab groups arriving from outside in the development of local cities and trade.
Later, the picture became considerably more complex.
Researchers began to view local communities not as passive recipients of external influence, but as direct participants in social and economic change. The focus shifted from merely monumental structures, such as the Great Mosque of Kilwa Kisiwani in present-day Tanzania, to people’s everyday lives.
According to Forssman, this clearly illustrates the extent to which a researcher’s chosen approach can influence the past that they ultimately perceive.
Another major shift began around the 1960s.
Local communities began to play an increasingly prominent role in research — not only as labourers on excavation sites, but also as bearers of knowledge capable of helping to interpret the finds.
The importance of this approach is particularly evident in the study of rock art. The images alone were often insufficient to grasp their meaning. Researchers had to turn to the beliefs and traditions of the people associated with the cultures that left this legacy.
Thus, the very principle of research gradually changed: the knowledge of the local population, which might previously have been underestimated, began to be regarded as an important source of information.
Today, the capabilities of science have advanced far beyond radiocarbon dating.
Genetic research makes it possible to reconstruct the ancient movements of people and animals. The chemical composition of glass beads helps to trace trade links between distant regions.
Therefore, even a long-known find can yield new information if examined using modern methods.
But Forssman draws attention to another problem: a significant proportion of research on Africa’s past is still carried out by researchers from Europe and North America.
International collaboration brings funding, equipment and opportunities for training specialists, but at the same time perpetuates inequality in access to scientific infrastructure.
The archaeologist believes that one solution is to establish more state-of-the-art laboratories directly within African countries. This would help to develop local scientific expertise and reduce the need to transport sensitive and valuable materials outside their regions of origin.
At the same time, archaeologists face a problem that cannot be solved by a single new analytical method.
Archaeological heritage is being destroyed by looters, wars, erosion and natural disasters.
Some of the most valuable artefacts from Nigeria and Mali have been lost due to illegal excavations and the trade in antiquities. Armed conflicts have also led to damage to historical monuments.
Added to this is climate change. Coastal sites are particularly vulnerable, threatened by flooding, erosion and extreme weather events.
This creates a paradoxical situation: technology allows scientists to extract more information from finds than ever before, yet part of the archaeological heritage itself may disappear.
Why this matters
The history of African archaeology shows that our understanding of the past depends not only on what lies beneath the ground.
They are influenced by available technologies, scientific concepts and even the political climate of the era in which the researcher is working.
Over the past century and a half, African archaeology has evolved from the collection of antiquities and attempts to fit finds into colonial narratives to radiocarbon dating, genetics and collaboration with local communities.
And this process is not yet complete. New methods have the potential to reshape our understanding of the past once again — including forcing scholars to reconsider what today seems well-established.
Source
This article is based on an interview with archaeologist Tim Forssman, who has conducted research in South Africa, Botswana, Lesotho and Mozambique. In his book on the history of African archaeology, he proposes dividing the development of the discipline into four stages — from the early colonial period of the late 19th century to modern archaeology, which utilises radiocarbon dating, genetics, chemical methods and the knowledge of local communities.