4. CHAPTER FOUR: THE VALUE OF NINETEENTH CENTURY ETHNO- HISTORY IN STUDYING DECORATIVE METALWORK IN SOUTHERN AFRICA
4.2: THE VALUE OF ETHNO-HISTORY
The essential requirements from the discipline identified as ethno-history were developed in the mid-20th century in order to aid the indigenous populations of North America to claim their land rights (Harkin, 2010). For this purpose, written documents and oral evidence was sought to establish a foundation on which to settle the legal positions of these groups (Harkin, 2010). The pursuit of ethno-history as a discipline has been globally accepted as an equal partner to anthropology and archaeology in the later part of the past century (Harkin, 2010). Ethnohistory shares equally with the others in their endeavours of explore human behaviours and the manners in which it may have altered in the past and relate them to the present in terms of helping us to understand human and social behaviour (Leach, 1989; Harkin, 2010). In the past, early ethnographers were
primarily interested in the contrast between European culture and non-European cultures – a phenomena which anthropologists have described as the process of othering.
Supposedly, early ethnographic studies focused on cultural differences that were assumed to be stable over long periods of time, with manners and customs of cultural groups being repeated endlessly (Leach, 1989).
However, with increasing encounters between Westerners and southern Africans leading up to full-scale colonisation in the 19th century, western visitors, such as missionaries, travellers, hunters and amongst others, geologists have recorded in detail several aspects of the communities which they encountered. In some cases, they also recorded the oral traditions of the various people. In northern Zimbabwe, Portuguese explorers recorded various versions of Mutapa dynastic histories (Beach, 1980). In the 19th century, the missionary Moffat (1842) recorded in detail his oral communication with a Hurutse copper smith. In the 20th century, the value to researches in assembling oral records became more critical when observing fading metallurgical activities (Franklin, 1945; Hatton, 1967; Van der Merwe & Scully, 1971; Küsel, 1974; Van der Merwe &
Avery, 1987). The field of ethnohistory in southern Africa, like elsewhere, is based on extracting information from books, pamphlets, tracts, journals and diaries written by missionaries, visitors, prospectors, traders and settlers documented what they witnessed in a country that was being explored by Europeans from the early 1500s. In as much as this database is useful, there are a number of limitations that must always be kept in mind. For example, within the area of decorative metalwork, most visitors to the region lacked a scientific education or the knowledge to interpret what they observed in unexpected encounters with African smelters, smiths and with the processes these craftsmen followed in the manufacture of basic tools and ornamentation. Further, very few commentators visiting indigenous cultures remained sufficiently long to study the craft practised by local craftsmen and women in depth, or to integrate with communities as a whole, or to notice changing customs and manners (Leach, 1989). The consequence is that these observations in fact create a picture of static technological practices that bore similarities to one another throughout southern Africa. Furthermore, these observations struggle with a baggage of essentialism and Eurocentricism.
However, when carefully sifted, these sources do contain useful data. For example Delegorgue (1842) made useful observations that archaeologists and metallurgists have been able to employ to reconstruct details which have provided substantial information in terms of assessing the value of indigenous metal working practices (Maggs, 1992).
Table 4.1 shows the nine cultural groups discussed in the chapter and the visitors or ethnologists who sojourned amongst them and who added relevant knowledge to the forms of ornaments, utilitarian tools made, and the tool-kits observed and used by
indigenous African smelters and smiths in their working locations. The table below represents a culmination of a dedicated archival research and appraisal of the contribution early European visitors, ethnologists and scholars. Although not all visitors and 20th century ethnologists sojourned amongst cultural groups for long enough to observe relevant details, sufficient details were recorded over southern Africa to present an informative picture of what was worn and used over a wide area within southern Africa in the 19th century.
Table 4.1 The production inventory and tool-kits of the cultural groups investigated in southern Africa supported by ethnographical literature.
Production Tool-kit
Authors/
Culteral Group
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N
Ovambo Galton, 1876
X
Read 1902 X X X X
Hambly, 1934 X X X X X X X X
Shaw, 1938 X
Mpukushu
Andersson, 1861 X X X X
Van Tonder, 1966 X X X X X X X
Larson, 1975 X X X X X X X X X
Tswana/Sotho
Lichtenstein, 1928 X X X
Campbell, 1822 X X X X X X X X X X X
Burchell, 1953 X X X X X X
Moffat, 1842 X X X X X X X X X X X
Methuen, 1846 X X X X X
Mackenzie, 1871 X X
Holub, 1872 X X
South Sotho
Backhouse, 1844 X X
Casalis, 1855 X X X X X X X Ellenberger 1912 X X X X X X
Ashton, 1938 X X X X
Kalanga/ Matabele
Wood, 1895 X X X X X
Carnegie, 1938 X X X X X
Cooke, 1959, 1966 X X X X X
Hatton, 1967 X X X X X X
Shona
Bent, 1892 X X X X X
Knight-Bruce, 1895 X X X
Production Tool-kit
Franklin, 1945 X X X X
Ellert, 1984 X X X
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N
Key:
PRODUCTION: A: Beads; B: Bangles; C: Bracelets; D: Neck-rings; E: Ear-rings; F: Spear- heads; G: Axes; H. Knife
TOOL-KIT: I: Bellows, J: Anvil; K: Hammers; L: Chisels; M: Draw plate; N: Tongs Table 4.1 continued
Production Tool-kit
Authors/
Culteral Group
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N Venda, Lemba,
Tsonga
Junod, 1927 X X X X X X
Stayt, 1931 X X X X X X X X X X X X
Van Warmelo, 1940 X X X X X
Shaw 1974 X X X
Van Schalkwyk, 1982 X X X X
Davison, 1984 X X X X X X X X X X X
Northern Nguni
Gardener, 1835 X X X X X
Fynn 1825 X X X X X X X X X X
Mason, 1855 X X
Flemming 1856 X X X X X
Shooter, 1857 X X X X X
Grout, 1861 X
Maggs, 1992 X X X X X X X
Roodt, 1996 X X X X X X X
Southern Nguni
McLaren, 1918 X X X X X X X X X X
Shaw and Van Warmelo 1974
X X X X X X X X X X A B C D E F G H I J K L M N
Key:
PRODUCTION: A: Beads; B: Bangles; C: Bracelets; D: Neck-rings; E: Ear-rings; F: Spear- heads; G: Axes; H. Knife
TOOL-KIT: I: Bellows, J: Anvil; K: Hammers; L: Chisels; M: Draw plate; N: Tongs
This table presents not only useful information but highlights some of the research limitations identified earlier. For example, different observers focused on different aspects, such as the objects which they encountered or parts of the metallurgical processes which they witnessed. Thus, their reports and observations were always destined to be incomplete. It is, for example unlikely that the Ovambo people (Galton, 1876) would have only knives as pieces of decorative metalwork. However, when other sources are considered, it becomes clear that the repertoire of objects made and used by the Ovambo was much wider. As such, when considered holistically, it is clear that the nature of the decorative work used was to some extent similar amongst various groups, but further work is necessary to explore situational specificities.