Critical approaches to post-colonial (post-conflict) heritage

Critical approaches to post-colonial, post-conflict heritage, as defined here, typically explore the cycling, ‘re’ or otherwise, of power through heritage sites, events, practices and other heritage ‘things’ as these have moved from precolonial, to colonial, to post-colonial ownership. The key tension in these debates is the issue of post-colonial, post-conflict agency pulling against neocolonial conformity as states struggle to nation-build and make something perceived to be new and better out of something perceived to be old and tainted. In addition, as highlighted by Fontein’s (2006) analysis, these approaches may provide powerful demonstrations of the colonial pervasiveness of professional heritage discourses as a means of cultural dispossession. These are ‘critical heritage issues’ (cf. Winter, 2012) both in humanitarian terms, because they directly pertain to the successful creation of new, more inclusive and equal societies, and in anthropological terms (cf. Smith, 2012), because they provide intensely rich demonstrations of the meaning and function of heritage. Indeed, although ‘heritage issues concerning identity claims, indigeneity, rights, access, and benefits are common to most settings today irrespective of post-conflict or post-colonial status’, in these intense atmospheres of reappropriation and recycling for cultural renewal, post-colonial, post-conflict cases provide a ‘critical distillation’ (Meskell, 2012, pp. 8–9) of these matters

Can, door, heritage

I last saw the USAID tin can when it was in use as one component of a door to a house in a now 'abandoned' Internally Displaced Person (IDP) camp, called Pabbo, in northern Uganda. I came within touching distance of the can in August 2011 whilst conducting postdoctoral research concerning the postconflict use of heritage. Although I never made physical contact with the can, it is an object that affected me at the time and that I continue to be affected by today because of a memory now bound to a photograph

A reconsideration of Rwandan Archaeological ceramics and their political significance in a post-genocide era

This paper reviews Rwandan ceramic typologies and integrates these with recent regional ones through the consideration of four new ceramic assemblages dating to three distinct phases across the past 2,000 years. In addition to providing a synthesis of ceramic approaches as a research resource, it also suggests that ceramics previously termed type C might now better be understood as a transitional form of Urewe. In so doing, it both describes how previous accounts of Rwanda's archaeological ceramics reproduced a contested ethno-racial colonial construction of Rwandan society and suggests the replacement of these with non-ethno-racial explanations of material culture change proposed elsewhere for comparable circumstances in Great Lakes Africa. Finally, as the government seeks to reintroduce secondary school history teaching using archaeological narratives, it discusses the contemporary political significance of this and other research in post-genocide Rwanda, arguing that archaeology, whether framed in technical language or not, has contemporary political referenc

Political and theoretical problems for the archaeological identification of precolonial Twa, Tutsi and Hutu in Rwanda

Although there has been much debate concerning the definition of Twa, Tutsi, and Hutu–and whether they are ethnic, economic or political identities-it is clear that they were important groupings within the Nyiginya Kingdom, The Antecedent to Modern Rwanda (Vansina 2004). In recognition of their importance, mid-20th century archaeologists, influenced by the ethnoracial, colonial construction of precolonial Rwanda, understandably sought to associate these ‘ethnicities’ with respective archaeologies. However, more recent social histories of Rwanda have deconstructed these precolonial identities, citing their mutability and presenting significant challenges to the archaeological identification of ‘Twa’, ‘Tutsi’, and ‘Hutu’. This chapter therefore critically evaluates these changing historical perspectives and their implications for the current political climate and the archaeological research I have undertaken in Rwanda (Giblin 2010)

Toward a politicised interpretation ethic in African archaeology

Following the Foucauldian, post-colonial and archaeological post-processual critiques of knowledge construction and more recent calls for a political ethic in archaeology, this paper furthers this discussion by advocating the introduction of a politicised interpretation publication ethic in African archaeology. This is a response to a survey of recent African archaeology publications that suggests that ethics and politics continue to be removed from archaeological interpretation. The archaeology-as-science ethic is subsequently critiqued through a brief review of two famous African archaeology examples: the controversy over Great Zimbabwe and the practice of archaeology in apartheid period South Africa. Finally, the problematic archaeology-as-science ethic in pre-genocide Rwanda is outlined and the ethical creation of archaeology today in a post-genocide situation considered as the paper moves toward a discussion of what a politicised interpretation publication ethic might look like in contemporary African archaeology

Decolonial challenges and post-genocide archaeological politics in Rwanda

This paper narrates in an autobiographical manner PhD research regarding pre-colonial Rwandan archaeology and its contemporary socio-political relevance. The paper reflects on the decolonial challenge that inspired the research and the ways in which, and reasons why, the research fell short of achieving its decolonial aims. In response to this complex personal, national, and disciplinary case study, the paper questions activist archaeologies and suggests that, whilst political engagement remains essential, the outcomes of well-intentioned approaches may actually perpetuate the undesirable political paradigms they seek to challenge. In conclusion, the paper proposes a hybrid set of decolonial responses that might be usefully employed in African Archaeology and the colonial discipline of archaeology more broadly

Politics, ideology and indigenous perspectives

Since its inception, African archaeology has been influenced and harnessed by various political ideologies. From European colonialism, when at times archaeological narratives reproduced racist colonial dogma, to African nationalism and the celebration of an African past, African archaeology has been used for ideological legitimation. More recently, archaeologists working in Africa have reflected on the political nature of the discipline. They have identified the inherent colonialism of previous archaeologies and now seek to undertake postcolonial ones that have contemporary relevance for the societies in which they work. This includes the identification and incorporation of indigenous knowledge systems something that is, in turn, leading to new indigenous archaeological drivers. African archaeology thus continues to exist in overtly political contexts. Yet archaeological interpretation is not simply dictated by political biases. It may also be influenced by methodological, logistical, and theoretical developments, as well as by the availability and nature archaeological data (Trigger 1990). However, ignorance of political influences in, and political use of, archaeology neglects the discipline's subjectivity and agency beyond the academy. Thus, while this chapter describes political trends in African archaeology, it recognizes that its history is also the product of non-political factors

Post-conflict heritage : symbolic healing and cultural renewal

Heritage is invoked for post-conflict development by international organisations, governments, and sub-national groups to provide emotional and cultural, including economic, healing for individuals and societies. However, academic critiques of healing-heritage typically cite the failure of heritage to heal, either because it cannot, or because it is managed incorrectly. Thus, an anomalous situation exists between expectations and critiques, which this study describes and explores through international policies and national and sub-national post-conflict healing-heritage initiatives from Rwanda and Uganda. Drawing on concepts of heritage as a cultural process, cultural trauma, and symbolic healing, this study proposes that heritage is neither an essentially positive nor negative post-conflict development strategy to select or avoid respectively. Instead, heritage is better understood as a common element of post-conflict renewal, which becomes intensified as the past is aggressively negotiated to provide healing related to conflict traumas. By moving beyond the ‘does heritage heal or hurt?’ distraction the meaning and function of heritage in post-conflict contexts as a common element of post-conflict healing complexes is elucidated. The implication for those who wish to manage post-conflict development through heritage is that they are just the latest in a long history of symbolic healers, from whom they have a lot to learn

The social and symbolic context of the royal potters of Buganda

This paper describes the technical activities of the contemporary makers of the royal pots of Buganda and the social context of this technology and its products, alongside the symbolic world of which these are a part. The ethnoarchaeological research presented here suggests that Ganda pottery was not only a technical and functional product, but was also socially and symbolically constructed, reflecting the moral values of society. This paper identifies pottery in Buganda as a symbolic source of health, which has resulted in the establishment of royal potters who make ritually clean royal pots by following strict taboos in order to protect the health of the kabaka (king) and the kingdom. The unfortunate archaeological implications of this work are that it may be the intangible and archaeologically elusive activities of the royal potters that make their pots royal are not necessarily the tangible ones

First and second millennium A.D. agriculture in Rwanda : archaeobotanical finds and radiocarbon dates from seven sites

This article presents the results from a programme of bulk soil sampling and flotation of first and second millennium a. d. early farming, 'Iron Age', archaeological sites in Rwanda conducted in 2006-2007 alongside a new set of associated radiocarbon dates, which contribute toward the development of a chronology of plant use for the region. This research has identified the earliest examples of pearl millet (Pennisetum glaucum), finger millet (Eleusine coracana) and sorghum (Sorghum bicolor) in Great Lakes Africa and thus this article also discusses the significance of these finds within the later archaeology of the region and presents a brief synthesis of the direct archaeological evidence for finger millet in sub-Saharan Africa