A New Look at Interpretations of the Early Iron Age in East Africa

Abstract

Since the publication in English in 1965 of Jan Vansina's Oral Tradition, historians of Africa have been increasingly concerned with developing methods which confirm the historical value of oral traditions. Independent proof for the historicity of oral traditions is often lacking; consequently the historian is usually left with comparative analysis as his primary analytical method. Archeologists such as Merrick Posnansky, Frank Willett, and John Sutton have in part attempted to show linkages between oral traditions and archeological evidence.Posnansky, especially, has contributed much to the idea that it is possible to combine the two sources to obtain a more comprehensive view of Hfeways usually referred to as ‘prehistoric’ Recent research, though, now suggests that the concept ‘prehistoric’ must be questioned, particularly in cases where there is a demonstrated tie between archeological evidence and oral traditions. When archeology affirms the accuracy of oral traditions which explain, comment on, interpret, or locate activities and sites which predate a literate tradition, then the germaneness of the concept must be critically questioned. It is my position here that when archeological evidence confirms the historical value of oral traditions about preliterate life, then those cultural phenomena in that time period should be considered historic rather than prehistoric. To retain ‘prehistory’ as a concept in this context ignores and even militates against the historiographies and historical concepts of other cultures. The ramifications of this relativist perspective are considerable both for the study of history and of prehistory. Given this logic, historians must begin to reassess and expand their concepts of what history is and prehistorians must prepare to forfeit part of the temporal domain previously considered as prehistory.