Fufu to Great Zimbabwe

Ever since I saw a cooking show where someone made and ate fufu I have wanted to try it. Fufu is boiled and mashed starchy tubers and plantains then processed by pounding the mixture into an elastic dough. It sorta looks like mashed potatoes met mochi. Typically, you use fufu almost like a utensil to eat a savory dish such as palm nut soup, light soup, okra soup, among others.

Fufu itself dates back centuries. While the exact origins are difficult to pinpoint, it has long been a traditional food in West and Central Africa, including among the Akan people of Ghana, the Yoruba of Nigeria, and other ethnic groups in the region (you can read more about it here). 

But, for this post, rather than talk about the history of fufu, although very interesting, I wanted to look at the archaeology of Africa. In the many intro courses in anthropology/archaeology I have come across, rarely has Africa been one of the topics. College curricula tend to focus on Western Europe (think Green, Rome, Stonehenge), the Middle East (think the Fertile Crescent, Indus Valley, Sumreia), Americas (think Inca, Aztec, Maya). This pattern is not random as some might assume, but is instead deeply rooted in colonialism, bias, and racism within the field of archaeology. 

What do I mean by colonial, bias, and racism in archaeology? 

African archaeology has been historically neglected in academia.  This partly stems from a colonial and post-colonial bias. During and after the colonial era, the historical and archaeological achievements of African societies were often undervalued or overlooked by scholars from colonial powers, who instead tended to focus on Africa for its resource value and not history. 

It can be easy for scholars to argue that there were fewer “civilizations” to study in Africa, hence the lack of focus. However, there are many errors of thinking in that line of reasoning. First, because of the historical circumstances of archaeology in Africa (see above paragraph), there are less well-documented sites in sub-Saharan Africa. It would be incorrect to assume that means they are not there. Less focus has just meant less money and less research. 

Second, the assumption of fewer complex sites is tied to racist origins of the concept of “civilization”. The term “complexity” and its history could be its own post. But, in short, complexity developed out of the idea that there were civilized and uncivilized people. Early theories on the origins of complexity often framed European civilization as the pinnacle of cultural and social development. On the other end of the spectrum were the less complex “savages” or “barbarians”. Their supposed inferiority was then used to rationalize the imposition of Western norms and governance. In archaeology (and anthropology), the focus on the “other” brought this narrative into theories about cultural diversity and evolution around the world. Early scholars thought that all groups developed from savages into barbarians and then into civilizations. Or, as later scholars would rebrand it, from bands to tribes to chiefdoms to states. You can imagine who they used to draw models for bands for and who was the model for states. And while more recent scholarship had attempted to use this categorization free from stereotyping and Eurocentric bias, it still too often draws on problematic assumptions from the past. 

While archaeology is starting to find ways to decolonize itself, the road ahead is long. One such step is bringing focus and attention to the archaeology of under-represented regions. In that vein, here is a brief overview of one of the more amazing (and complex) civilizations in Africa, Great Zimbabwe (if you want to read about others, I recommend looking into Kush, Mali, Songhai, Aksumite, Benin, Hausa, or Oyo to name a few.  

---

Great Zimbabwe

Great Zimbabwe (CE 1270–1550) is one of the more famous African states and is a UNESCO World Heritage Site. Side note, Great Zimbabwe was not a “lost civilization”, locals were well aware of it. But it was Karl Mauch (circa 1871) who brought its attention to the Western world and looted it. Yay early archaeology? 

https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/364/gallery

Fitting with the issues discussed above, early “scholars” attempting to record the history of Great Zimbabwe, assumed it was so complex that only advanced (aka not African) people, such as Hamites or Semites, could have built it. A supposition entirely unsupported by the archaeology record. While archaeologists then sought to document the site, early theories were still often rooted in bias and racism. This was further exaberated by certain political regimes, such as the Rhodesian Front, who sought to erase any history that did not fit their worldview. As stated by Chirikure and Pikirayi (2008: 577) 

“The radical white Rhodesian Front exiled professional archaeologists and hired non-archaeologists to re-write and popularise the antiquarian version on the origins and identity of the builders of the site”. 

Surprise, Great Zimbabwe emerged from earlier local farming communities, not some foreign intrusion of other groups. It developed into a series of aristocratic centers succeeding each other in a manner consistent with Shona (a local Bantu ethnic group native to South Africa) in a system of political succession and chiefly politics. In other words, it developed out of local practices, whose descendants still reside in the region today. 

https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/364/gallery

As more archaeology has documented Great Zimbabwe, is has become increasingly clear that it was a large, and very complex, settlement that functioned as the capital of a larger political system in a network of other large, complex settlements in the region (there is some debate as to whether it was the capital for the entire region from the Indian Ocean to the Kalahari Desert or if the region had multiple city-states; think similar to Greece). At its peak, it is thought to have controlled an area of 700 hectares and was home to 20,000 people. It was a stratified society wherein rulers appeared to have accumulated wealth through the owning of cattle herds, and participated in long-distance trade of gold and ivory along the coast. People engaged in the production of elaborate tools and technology. They had complex religious beliefs. Large-scale construction, such as the Great Enclosure, was truly monumental and remarkable in that it was built without mortar. For reference, the Great Enclosure’s outer wall is about 820 feet in circumference and 36 feet tall, making it the largest known structure in Africa south of the Saraha Desert.

The Takeaway

Archaeology is the study of the past, and that includes the history of the discipline itself. That history is not always positive. But in its recognition lies ideas for how to move forward and perhaps even ways to decolonize. Learning about the history of people all around the world, and the foods they eat!, is a great place to start. 

---