gems, archaeology, archaeogemology, Africa, Egypt

One of the persistent illusions in Southern African archaeology is the belief that the past can be approached neutrally—that artefacts will ‘speak for themselves’ and archaeologists can reconstruct the histories of past communities in a purely scientific, unbiased manner. This assumption, already challenged in other contexts, is especially problematic in a region where history has long been contested terrain. Colonial settlers used historical interpretations to legitimize land appropriation; Afrikaner nationalist historians crafted ethnic narratives to justify segregation; liberal historians often downplayed the role of capital accumulation in segregationist policies; and African nationalist historians have sought to construct histories that affirm national identity (Cornevin 1980; Legassick 1980; Marks 1986a; Ranger 1979; Saul and Gelb 1981). It is naïve to imagine archaeology can be exempt from such political processes. In reviewing the history of archaeological research on Southern Africa’s farming communities—still frequently, if inaccurately, labeled the ‘Iron Age’—this study proceeds from the premise that all interpretations of the past are inextricably bound to the present. This does not mean history is mere propaganda, nor that archaeologists lack rigor in evaluating evidence. While distortions exist, particularly in interpretations of Great Zimbabwe, the connection between past and present is usually more subtle. Present-day concerns shape historical questions, and contemporary assumptions—‘common-sense’ notions about society—influence how fragmentary archaeological data are interpreted. Moreover, Southern African archaeologists have long engaged with international schools of thought, further complicating the historiographical landscape, which becomes a layered assemblage of interpretations, assumptions, and data that are not easily disentangled.