Oluwole OGUNDELE (Ph.D.),

Department of Archaeology and Anthropology,

University of Ibadan,

Ibadan, NIGERIA.

Email: [email protected]

Abstract

Archaeology started in Nigeria during the second half of the 20^th century, primarily as a colonial enterprise aimed at justifying the evil of the unholy entanglements of the country with Europe.  But the robust Nigerian archaeological record proved the European colonizers and their collaborators wrong.  One good example in this connection, was the evidence of iron smelting technology and sophisticated artistic tradition of sculpting animal and human figures among other things in the Nok Valley region of central Nigeria.  These advanced materialities coupled with socialities and/or ideologies have been dated to approximately between 500 B.C. and 250 A.D.

            Contrary to the pre-conceived notions of the West, Nigeria down the ages was not unchanging.  The above spectacular discoveries led to the application of evolutionary theories of history originally developed by such scholars as Darwin, Spencer, Morgan and Marx.  According to the pioneer archaeologists in Nigeria and West Africa as a whole, the Western world with its industrial capitalism has been positioned by nature to conquer the lower civilizations, in order to liberate them from the bondage of underdevelopment.  This underscores the reason why a conspicuous space was created for diffusionism including migrationism as a theoretical construct to explain the Nigerian archaeological record.  This shows the duality of archaeology – a science and a socio-political engagement.  It is not an innocent scholarship.

            Given this situation, some African archaeologists especially Bassey Andah of Nigerian extraction, began as from the mid-1970s to develop a new set of paradigms to legitimately promote Africanisation which had hitherto been thoroughly undermined by the adherents of colonial anthropology/archaeology like Leo Frobenius and Friedrich Ratzel of the German Cultural-Historical School of Anthropology.  Andah’s revisionist conception of the African scripts was anchored to indigenous Nigerian epistemologies, a basis for producing an authentic Nigerian/African knowledge.  But much still remains to be done up to now in terms of moving forward.  Encumbrances like a gross lack of research funds, political instability and dearth of ideological engagements or debates among indigenous archaeologists continue to weigh the system down.  Consistent overseas financial supports and/or other forms of assistance for archaeological activities in Nigeria and Africa as a whole are not value-free.  They are a subtle exercise in marginality and crisis.  This scenario does not create room for mutuality of respect and sustainable cultural heritage management.  Consequently, Nigeria remains a puppet of the Western intellectual oligarthy.  The Euro-American academy majestically rules the African archaeological heritage landscape.  Nigerian archaeologists need to wake up and reclaim their manifest destinies by showing greater initiative enshrined in robust, home-grown theoretical groundings critical to their becoming vibrant players in the competitive world of modern education.