Conclusion

Historical archaeology as practiced on the African continent is a diverse and varied subfield of the broader discipline. Whereas some favor an emphasis on the integration of oral histories and testimonies with material remains, on the grounds that the former are more authentically indigenous than written texts, others consider that the focus of historical archaeology should be on the consequences of European contact and subsequent colonialism. Between these two poles, there are many other approaches that place greater value on the interpretive possibilities offered by the existence of multiple sources of information about the past for any period, rather than on placing limits on the temporal or conceptual boundaries of the subfield. Others still have observed that the concept of historical archaeology is not only redundant, since all archaeology should be concerned with addressing historical questions, but also serves to reinforce an artificial divide, and the prejudicial baggage that comes with such a distinction, between history and prehistory, which much archaeological practice on the continent seeks to counteract. Rhetoric aside, and whether one uses the appellation ‘historical archaeology’ or not to describe the kind of studies outlined above, two things are abundantly clear. First, recovery and analysis of the archaeological traces of the last 500 years of human activity on the African continent has the potential to provide novel insights into the histories of the continent’s diverse populations, while simultaneously providing an important testament to their successes and failures, their struggles for equity and recognition, and the ways in which they gave meaning to their lives. Some of these insights could perhaps have been gleaned from careful reading of other historical sources, but most could only have been exposed by sustained archaeological research. Without a concept such as ‘historical archaeology’, however defined, to inspire and guide this research it is questionable whether archaeologists would have devoted, and continue to devote, as much attention to these time periods as they clearly deserve. Second, whether investigating the archaeology of the last 500 years or that of earlier time periods, the interpretation of archaeological remains is always enriched when alternative sources are available to interrogate. The challenges archaeologists face are first, how to develop methodologies and theoretical frameworks that are appropriate to each of these different classes of historical information, and second, how to maintain a critical and questioning perspective so as avoid taking too much of that evidence for granted. Many of the studies outlined above indicate how archaeologists have attempted to do this, and whether these approaches have stood the test of time or have now been superseded. Whether one considers these types of study as exemplars of historical archaeology, or not, they have clearly made significant contributions to our understanding of the substantive history of different parts of the continent.

See also: Africa, West: Villages, Cities, and States; Enslavement, Archaeology of; Historical Archaeology: Methods; Writing Systems.