Shaping the
southern African
‘Iron Age’
archaeological landscape:
Indigenous African
ritual, technology, and knowledge
A conceptual summary and project description
Robert Thornton
Anthropology, University of the
Witwatersrand
Johannesburg, South Africa
November 2013
Abstract: Consideration of the role of African
indigenous cultural, ritual, and symbolic thought and practices is largely
absent from contemporary Iron Age archaeology and history. This project seeks to fill this gap through a
reinterpretation of the archaeological landscape and material culture in the
light of southern African traditional knowledge systems. A similar shift in the way rock art was
interpreted allowed us to see rock art as a window into deep spiritual
practices of San shamans rather than as simple pictures of economic activities
such as hunting. The change of
perspective that this research introduces and seeks to validate will allow a
profound re-visioning of South African history, material culture and
archaeology for this period. Current models and histories emphasize cattle and
kingship; the model to be developed in this discussion focuses instead on a
social order built around guilds of ritual and technological specialists such
as blacksmiths, miners, glass-bead makers, potters, healers and shamans in a
landscape of sacred sites and secret knowledge.
Aspects of history are preserved in contemporary sangoma’s knowledge,
but also in the material culture and landscape.
The research is transdisciplinary, utilizing high-level scientific
technology (e.g. electron & light microscopy), experimental re-creation of
ancient technologies of glass and metals, together with humanistic and social
scientific methods of anthropology, archaeology and history. It brings to bear new, recently developing
perspectives (e.g. on landscapes, ancient mining, & early fabrication techniques) and new research
technologies (GPS, XRF, GoogleEarth).
1
I seek to develop ideas that have arisen in my long-term
engagement with bungoma (‘traditional healing’ or ‘indigenous knowledge
systems’/IKS), and to develop
data, argument, and theory more fully. My
preliminary research had led me to a major conceptualization of
anthropological, historical and archaeological interpretations of the
pre-colonial history of the region comprising Limpopo, Mpumalanga and Gauteng
during the southern African ‘Iron Age’ from approximately 500-1600 CE. This project will allow me to develop preliminary findings into a tight
case for an alternative model.
Second, it provides a significantly new
understanding of bungoma/’traditional healing’ as a specialised technical
knowledge system (or ‘science’), organised in secret guild-like social
structures, that is partially preserved yet today amongst contemporary
sangoma’s practices, material culture (‘regalia’), and knowledge systems. I have already made considerable
contributions to knowledge in this field (Thornton
2000; 2003; 2005; 2008; 2009; 2010; 2012; 1998).
The central
argument, then, is that exclusive guilds or syndicates of specialists practiced
these technologies, and that this specialized knowledge is historical and
culturally continuous with some contemporary sangoma practices and
knowledge.
This project began with the question: ‘can a history of bungoma (South African ‘traditional
healing’) be written, given the lack of textual sources?’ It is clear that
knowledge, and thus historical evidence, but not history itself, is indeed
passed down from teacher to student (Thornton
2009). Bungoma knowledge has a history, therefore, like any product of
human thought and practice, but this history is not known. To recover this
history is to understand the role of bungoma in South African history, and to
understand its place in the cultural landscape as well as in current and past
cultural practices. This is therefore also an intellectual history of African
thought in the context of a broader South African history over the previous two
millennia.
Throughout, the existence of strong historical and cultural
continuities, rather than ruptures, is proposed.
Previous research shows clearly that the main features of
material culture in the southern African archaeological landscape consists of:
(1) large numbers (in excess of 100,000) of stone-walled structures of
monumental scale, often circles or complexes of multiple circles and other
linear features; (2) the presence of glass beads at most sites dating from 600
CE to the present, with high concentrations at a few sites such as Mapungubwe;
(3) a profusion of ceramics and small metal objects made of iron, bronze,
copper, brass and gold across a wide range of sites; (4) extensive evidence of
high-temperature technologies including metal smelting, melting, casting and
forging, and production of ceramics. The
landscape itself shows evidence of extensive mining and metal extraction
technologies from pre-colonial times to contemporary large-scale, small-scale
and artisanal mines. None of this has
been studied in an integrated way.
A key problem is the lack of textual accounts of these
industries, and almost no oral history, memory, or identification with these
sites among any contemporary southern African populations. Since the knowledge of these technologies was
the property of secret guilds of a few specialised technicians, this knowledge
of pyrotechnology and mining was lost at the time that metal and glass objects
and materials from European and Indian Ocean sources swamped local production,
certainly by 200-300 years ago, and possibly a century or two earlier. Suppression of sangomas from the nineteenth
century by missionaries and African Christians, and by the state, resulted in
further loss of knowledge. It is now
preserved largely in the material culture, and landscapes.
Much of the southern African material culture from the
previous three centuries is now only available in museums, especially European
museums in London, Paris, Prague, Berlin, Leiden and others. SA scholars rarely
access these. These collections preserve
18th - 19th C material culture, much of it belonging to ‘witchdoctors’,
‘healers’ and 'shamans’. This is effectively new material or new phenomena to
be investigated.
I intend to examine the archaeological landscape through the
lens of bungoma (‘traditional healing’), that is, through an anthropological-
archaeological- historical model built on southern African traditional
knowledge systems that I have studied intensively over a period of 12
years. An ‘archaeological landscape’ is
a past cultural landscape. Landscapes,
like languages or other cultural products, preserve historical traces that can
be interpreted. Peter Johansen defines a
cultural landscapes (in the archaeological context) as “spatial and temporal fields of action in which material and conceptual
contexts are constructed and negotiated through the processual articulation of
social action, structure and the physical environment” (Johansen 2004; citing Smith 2003).
It is not possible to recover the full complex of meanings associated
with the cultures of this period, but by assuming that historical continuities
with ethnographic realities and landscapes exist, it is possible to recover
significant structures of their practice and conceptual systems.
This
exploratory project lies in the borderlands between anthropology, archaeology
and the sciences (life, environmental, and physical sciences, geography, etc.),
and goes beyond the horizon of contemporary knowledge of both academic
anthropology and of bungoma because (1) there are no historical texts in IKS on
which to base this enquiry, (2) for sangomas, all knowledge comes from
ancestors (and therefore does not preserve what might be called historical
knowledge), and (3) no history of southern African indigenous philosophy and
healing yet exists. Similarly, almost
nothing is known of early African fabrication techniques in glass, metals or
other materials, and almost nothing of mining, landscape and trade (except that
it happened).
This
approach complements and extends the current models by adding the dimension of
ritual, healing, and the sacred.
Interpretation of the archaeology and historical landscape has so far
been focused on agricultural-pastoral economies of ‘Bantu-speaking’ peoples
with political structures characterized as early states, chiefdoms, and
kingdoms during the southern African ‘Iron Age’. The major role of ritual, ‘healing’ (bungoma)
and the sacred in African cultures has been largely neglected (with the
exception of rock art, attributed to San peoples), or treated as an adjunct to
political order. By contrast, the model
I am developing interprets major archaeological sites (such as Mapungubwe, the
‘stone circles’, Thulamela and others) and their associated material cultures
as elements of ritual practices, healing, and sacred sites in this
landscape. Many aspects of
metal-working, metallurgy, mining, bead-making (especially glass bead
production, but also using many other materials) and other elements of material
culture can be better understood in terms of ritual practice and their symbolic
significance.
The project
is important because it helps to establish links between early southern African
material culture with the rest of Africa and the Indian Ocean civilizations,
because it provides a richer interpretive framework, and because it will enrich
heritage management and tourism development.
It is clear
that the principal users of amulets, glass beads, and probably other early
metals and high-temperature technologies were ritual practitioners, that is,
sangomas, or ‘shamans’ and ‘healers’. They were also, probably, the makers of
these objects, and therefore masters of specialized technologies. This is certainly true in all other
historical and ethnographic cases, so it is likely to be true of southern
African too. The link between secret and
sacred ritual and early technologies is well attested globally, but has never
been applied to southern African materials.
Bungoma is
an African science of its environment and utilizes natural resources to
accomplish ritual and healing goals.
Close examination of its products in historical-archaeological context,
using current advanced technologies as well as interpretive techniques of the
humanities and social sciences, will help to unravel its history and
significance. New theoretical approaches
will be developed and new methodologies deployed. Breakthroughs in archaeometallurgy, chemistry
and physics of glass and metal, new analytical techniques (XRF, OLM, SEM, EDS,
others) and accurate geo-referencing and imaging systems (digital photography,
GPS, GoogleEarth, specialized software, etc.) make the proposed research
possible, and do-able, as never before.
It is cutting edge, integrative, and innovative.
For
instance, my preliminary investigation of the physical structure of glass beads
suggests that many of the earliest beads were produced in the region for local
use but also for trade in Africa-wide and Indian Ocean networks. This investigation
is different from the investigation of the chemical composition and trace-element
and REE analysis that has been done, for instance, by Davison(1972)), Saitowitz (Saitowitz and Reid 1996) and Robertshaw and Wood et al. (2000; 2002; 2012; 2012), all of which attempts
to show the external origin of all glass beads.
So far, this has been unsuccessful in matching southern African beads
with beads from anywhere else in the world.
Experimental
reconstructions with local materials show how glass beads could have been
locally manufactured, and suggests that in fact it could be locally
manufactured. Source of plant ash used as flux (Salsola kali (L.) & S.
soda (L.)) is plentiful in the vicinity of bead production sites, and high
quality silica is also plentiful, as are grinding sites where quartz was
processed. These sites are also
associated with metal production, too, especially gold and iron. I have experimentally produced ‘virgin' glass
from raw local materials, using an open charcoal fire. This glass has colours and characteristics of
the glass in first millennium beads. I have made beads that resemble very
closely the physical structure and appearance of beads from the first
millennium archaeological sites. Materials and technologies were well
within the range of capabilities that first millennium southern Africa
societies already possessed but this has not been recognized in any study to date.
Ethnographic and archaeological evidence
from other places in which beads were made, and examination of internal
structures such as included bubbles, inclusions of ash and crystals, heat
fractures, and other microscopic detail in the glass gives evidence of
manufacturing processes involved.
The
dominant historical narrative claims that all beads were imported. I argue that the region’s trade with the rest
of Africa was a two-way trade that exchanged beads for other beads, that is
manufactured goods for other goods. Other small ritually significant objects were
also involved, especially metal, but also organic materials (‘muti’), shells,
etc., in an economy of ritual objects.
This economic exchange of ritual objects probably went hand in hand with
more general trade, but was probably the predominant focus of trade in this
region as it was in most other regions in earlier times. The model I propose
shows the role of independent African manufacturing capability in the later
first millennium southern African cultures, and shifts our understanding of
early pre-colonial trade networks considerably.
Other anomalies exist. Despite an interpretive model (the
‘Central cattle pattern’ or CCP) that emphasises cattle pastoralism and
agriculture, there is a surprising lack of evidence for cattle (‘bovines’) at
most sites. Again, standard histories of the region emphasise warfare among
ethnic groups, the rise of kingdoms, and agriculture, even though most
artefacts are small and of little use for warfare or agriculture.
Another major problem for historical and archaeological
interpretation has been the function and significance of the numerous (more
than 100,000) and extensive monumental ‘stone circles’ of dry stone ‘walling’
across parts of the southern African landscape.
These are composed of local stone stacked without mortar into linear or
circular features. Surprisingly, there
is very little other cultural material associated with these features (apart
from the features themselves). There is a diversity of interpretation of what
these may have been (Sadr 2005; Sadr 2013; Sadr,
et al. 2013; Sadr and Rodier 2012), and extremely intense debate among
scholars and a wider public of ‘amateur archaeologists’.
This research offers potential insight into these problems. Under this interpretation, large well-known sites such as Mapungubwe can
be interpreted as regional sacred sites that functioned in regional ritual
practices of pilgrimage involving sacrifice, feasts, and fasting. This is true of many sacred sites today in
southern Africa, and is more consistent with the archaeological material than
other interpretations. The stone structures, for instance, are
tentatively interpreted as temporary sacred sites built to provide ritual
protection. Ritual and processes that
would require protection include the full range of ‘ritual’ activities
(circumcision, healing, trance-dance,), as well as ‘manufacturing’ processes
such as metal smithing (iron, gold, copper), bead making, and preparation of
medicines, amulets and other paraphernalia.
The stone structures
occur largely on ultramafic rocks and soils, that is, in places that are
especially rich in metals, especially iron and gold.
In other words, the structures offer identity, geographic
position, and ritual protection for a range of secular and sacred activities.
In many ways, this initiative parallels the ground-breaking work of David
Lewis-Williams who was able to chart radically new research direction in the
field of rock art through interpreting the images through the lens of
‘shamanic’ practices and beliefs of early southern African populations ( For instance, among many others: Lewis-Williams
1996; Lewis-Williams and Pearce 2012; Lewis-Williams 1981; Lewis-Williams 1990;
Lewis-Williams and Challis 2011; Lewis-Williams and Pearce 2005).
There is currently considerable interest in recovering lost
landscapes using mixed archaeological, technological and anthropological
methods. Herr describes the efforts to
recover the sacred landscape of the Western Apache that was lost through forced
removals, expropriation of native lands, and genocide that uses mixed
methodologies.
When the fragile archaeological remains are
considered with ecological information, historical documents, ethnographic
reports, and the accounts provided by members from descendant communities, a
robust historic Apache landscape can still be found (Herr 2013:679).
Jan Jansen, in the most recent issue of the journal History
in Africa, discusses uses of new technologies in conservation of historical
heritage.
Historians long have recognized
the often ‘vulnerable’ nature of African historical sources, including the
deterioration of manuscripts, the destruction of archives in conflict zones,
the loss of recorded interview to decay, to name just three. … [Today] new opportunities and challenges
[exist] especially due to the introduction of new technologies and media and
their roles in the collection, preservation, and distribution of historical
sources.(Jansen, et al. 2013)
This is especially true of new GPS technologies, extremely
portable iPad-type computing devices, GoogleEarth geo-imaging and sophisticated
mapping and geo-location technologies.
These make investigation of the landscape possible in ways that have
never before been possible. Chirikure and Pikirayi, professors of archaeology
at University of Cape Town and University of Pretoria, make this point strongly
with respect to studies of Great Zimbabwe archaeology.
Since 1980, there has never been
an integrated archaeological research programme on Great Zimbabwe, only
isolated and often fragmented approaches … on stone architecture, … on
soapstone birds and … on metalwork. This fragmented approach … frustrates
attempts to develop a coherent history of … the site as revealed through
artefact studies. (Chirikure and Pikirayi 2008)
The proposed research here addresses this issue with respect
a different area, but with similar past ‘fragmented’ studies.
In sum, I
have found that by interpreting a large part of the archaeological evidence in
terms of ritual and religious systems of bungoma, rather than in the
economic-evolutionist paradigms that are more usual, it is possible to see the
southern African archaeological landscape in an entirely new light.
References cited
[Titles have been shortened to save space, but should be fully
identifiable. This is a only a small selection of the material available in
this field.]
Chirikure,
S, and I Pikirayi. 2008 Inside and outside the dry stone walls.
Antiquity 82:976-993.
Davison,
C C. 1972 Glass beads in African
archaeology. PhD, University of California.
Herr,
S A. 2013 In search of lost landscapes. Am. Antiquity
78(4):679-701.
Jansen,
Jan, et al. 2013 In search of Africans'
Histories. History in Africa 40(2013):1-3.
Johansen,
P G 2004
Landscape, monumental architecture, and ritual. J Anthr Archaeology
23:209-330.
Lewis-Williams,
D, and D G Pearce 2012 The southern San and the trance dance. Antiquity
86(333):696-706.
---. 2005
Inside the neolithic mind. Thames & Hudson.
Lewis-Williams,
D. 1996
Discovering African rock art. CapeTown:David Philip.
---. 1981
Believing and seeing. New York:
Academic Press.
---. 1990 Discovering Southern African rock art. Cape
Town: D. Phillip.
Lewis-Williams,
D, and S Challis 2011 Deciphering ancient minds. London: Thames
& Hudson.
Sadr,
Karim. 2005 Hunter-gatherers and herders of the Kalahari
during the late Holocene. In Desert
Peoples: Archaeological perspectives. P. Veth, M. Smith, and P. Hiscock, eds.
Pp. 206-221. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
---. 2013
The archaeology of herding in southernmost Africa. In The Oxford Handbook of African Archaeology. P. Mitchell and P.
Lane, eds. Pp. 641-651. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sadr,
Karim, J Gribble, and G Euston-Brown. 2013
Archaeological survey on the Vredenburg peninsula. In The Archaeology of the West Coast of South Africa. A. Jerandino,
A. Malan, and D. Braun, eds. Pp. 50-67. Cambrdge Monographs in African
Archaeology, Vol. 84. Oxford: Archaeopress.
Sadr,
K, and X Rodier. 2012 Google Earth, GIS and stone-walled structures
in southern Gauteng, South Africa. J Archaeological Science 39(2012):1034-1042.
Saitowitz,
S J., and D L. Reid. 1996 Glass bead trade from Islamic Egypt to South
Africa c. AD 900-1250. S A J Science
92(2):101.
Smith, A T. 2003
The Political Landscape. Berkeley, CA: U of California Press.
Thornton,
R J. 1998 Toward a theory of persons and things.
African Anthropology / Anthropologie Africaine 4(1):14-16.
---. 2000 The
Landspace, Land and Landscapes in Contemporary South Africa. In Skalnik, P
(ed.) Sociocultural Anthropology at the Turn of the Century. Prague
---. 2003
Traditional healers and bio-medical practice: Prospects and barriers to
co-operation. Adler Museum bulletin 29(2):8-16.
---. 2005
Four principles of South African political culture at the local level.
Anthropology Southern Africa 28(1):22-30.
---. 2008
Unimagined community : sex, networks, and AIDS in Uganda and South
Africa. Berkeley: University of California Press.
---.
2009 The transmission of knowledge in
South African traditional healing. Africa 79(01):17-34.
---. 2010
The market for healing and the elasticity of belief: Medical pluralism
in Mpumalanga, South Africa. Markets of Well-Being: Navigating Health and
Healing in Africa 9:144.
---. 2012
Magical Empiricism and the ‘exposed being’ in Public Health and
Traditional Healing. In Workshop:
“The (Un)healthy Body in Southern Africa”.
. Wits Reproductive Health and HIV Institute, Hillbrow, Johannesburg,
South Africa: unpublished.
Wood,
M. 2000
Making Connections: Relationships between International Trade and Glass
Beads from the Shashe-Limpopo Area. Goodwin Series 8. South African Archaeological Society:78-90.
---.
2002 The glass beads of Kaole. In Southern Africa and the Swahili
World. F. Chami and G. Pwiti, eds. Pp. 50-65. Dar es Salaam: Dar es Salaam
University Press.
---.
2012 Interconnections: glass beads and
trade in southern and eastern Africa and the Indian Ocean, 7th to 16th
centuries AD. Uppsala: Department of Archaeology and Ancient History.
Wood,
M, L Dussubieux, and P Robertshaw.
2012 The glass of Chibuene,
Mozambique: New insights into early Indian Ocean trade. S A Archaeo Bull.
67(195):59-74
