Beyond Colonial Boundaries: Reimagining the Rozvi through Landscapes, Identities and Indigenous Epistemologies
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
It is an excellently contextualised work. I would have liked more depth and systematisation in the landscape study of the historical documents. I have made some more specific remarks below:
-The objectives of the paper should be made clearer both in the abstract and in the development of the document, either as a separate section or integrated into the introduction.
-Is the mapping originally produced? It must be specified.
-I see the need to include a section explaining the methodology and its phases, how to integrate landscape analysis into the reconstruction of the history of colonised peoples.
-The bibliographic references are appropriate and quite up-to-date.
Author Response
Query 1. The objectives of the paper should be made clearer both in the abstract and in the development of the document, either as a separate section or integrated into the introduction.
Response:
We have integrated the objectives into both the abstract and introduction.
Please try to skillfully add the following statement to the sections itemized above.
“This paper advances the notion that archaeology in Africa, with special reference to the Rozvi past has extensively suffered under Euro-American hegemonic tendencies. History-making processes in Africa are unique, localized and too subjective to be explored under borrowed epistemic paradigms that often despise the invisible dimensions of traditional societies. By systematically unpacking the colonial injustices, the intricate values of Indigenous Knowledge Systems (IKS) and their complex bonds to people, the land and materiality easily come to the fore. Therefore, this paper challenges the academic status quo by providing a detailed and critical analysis of the European written sources. Instead of just describing the legacies of colonialism, context based analytical solutions are proffered as means towards the effective reading of landscapes from both a Western and Indigenous worldview.”
Query 2. Is the mapping originally produced? It must be specified.
Response:
All maps produced by the authors, except for map 2.
Query 3. I see the need to include a section explaining the methodology and its phases, how to integrate landscape analysis into the reconstruction of the history of colonized peoples.
Response:
In our view the methodology was well articulated as part of a post-processual framework. Maybe this concern stems from the fact that it was not bluntly outlined as a separate section but it was integrated into the entire paper. The different subsections as well as the information presented therein constitutes the research design. As pointed out by reviewer 1, the methods are adequately described and the results are clearly presented. Hence, altering the current state of the paper would actually affect the smooth flow of ideas.
Reviewer 2 Report
One of the premises for this interesting research topic is that research on African history and archaeology remains Eurocentric. I am unsure what this means in the year 2023, as multiple Zimbabwean universities have carried out African-centered research for a long time now, counting on high-caliber African talent. I would have liked to see a strong argument supporting this generalization. There could of course be stimulating European angles, for instance in a comparative light, as many communities across Europe were marginalized, forgotten, and misrepresented throughout history, and narratives were mostly written by the conqueror.
By citing Tilley as a key reference (“Tilly” at one point – a minor typo), I assume the text opts for a post-processual angle, in which subjective elements affect human agency, hence our contextual interpretation of a given historical reality. In this methodological light, I do understand the tension that still today determines the collective perceptions mentioned in the text (e.g. African citizens, Zimbabweans in this case, looking at research as a “colonial” activity that does not adequately portray their traditions). I have seen this firsthand when carrying out research in former colonies. The proposition can be challenged, though, as in the mid-20th century all mainstream European scholarship was simplistic in synthesizing the past, including the portrayal of Germanic tribes, borders between civilized people and others, medieval settlement, defensive architecture, Muslims, Jews, Gypsies, Cathars, Indians, Africans, and so forth. The list is endless and what seems odd in our time and age was the academic norm less than a century ago; methodological preconceptions did not target African history specifically. Post-processualism can indeed explain this but offers no real tools for de-stylizing group dynamics, as it remains heavily sociological in its approach and so it easily perpetuates the idea of “us” and “them” in historical research.
A large section of the paper offers an insight into the definition of landscape and territory, and then enters the subject of Rozvi identity within larger southern African systems, and the Khami-phase in particular. The text provides a detailed and critical analysis of the European written sources, addressing inconsistencies in historical explanations on the regional tribal configurations. Archaeological research is deemed less interesting, given that material culture did not change and cannot be linked to a given group or ethnicity. Storytelling then becomes a powerful instrument for describing the dynamic landscapes encapsulating Rozvi identity.
I did enjoy reading this paper and believe it may be of use to others. The ethnographic, oral, spiritual, and subjective understandings of a landscape are absolutely vital to historical interpretation. Even other sectors, such as travel and tourism, gastronomy, or arts, can benefit from such a portrayal. My individual take on the matter of Eurocentrism in academic research is very different from that of the authors but this paper is not about me and so I would support the publication, after a thorough review. For instance, I noticed some APA-style references (in-text and between parentheses) instead of endnotes. Another suggestion could be somehow acknowledging the positive impacts of colonial influence on historical research in Africa, although this is currently an unpopular academic stance. In short, the text is well-written and recycles ideas from previous publications without entering plagiarism.
Author Response
- One of the premises for this interesting research topic is that research on African history and archaeology remains Eurocentric. I am unsure what this means in the year 2023, as multiple Zimbabwean universities have carried out African-centered research for a long time now, counting on high-caliber African talent.
Response:
The entire paper is actually wound around this particular argument, and we cannot mince our words on this academic misnomer. Precisely, a strictly material-based approach is more inclined towards Western epistemic dimensions than Indigenous philosophies and ontologies. Through universalizing archaeological methodological approaches involving artefact retrieval, description, classification and the general interpretation of stylistic patterns, the discipline sometimes fabricates the true realities of African pasts. While the standardization of approaches is valid and crucial in archaeology, we should not forget that this is only but one small avenue to glean into the complex past. The deeper meanings about people and their histories are often hidden in the invisible aspects of things (objects, structures and places). In Africa and Zimbabwe in particular, the tangible and intangible aspects are always intricately bound, yet this reality remains least emphasized archaeologically today. Hence, the Eurocentric argument being pushed in the entire paper speaks to just that. The sidelining or marginalization of the spiritual dimensions of things, which usually makes the most sense to Indigenous communities remains a major challenge that needs to be confronted head-on in African archaeology.
- I would have liked to see a strong argument supporting this generalization. There could of course be stimulating European angles, for instance in a comparative light, as many communities across Europe were marginalized, forgotten, and misrepresented throughout history, and narratives were mostly written by the conqueror.
Response:
In view of the shortfalls associated with a Eurocentric approach to African archaeology, the paper proffers three main solutions to this. Firstly, archaeologists should take advantage of progress made in onomastics to study connections between people and their landscapes. Names are active symbols of expressing group identities and histories, dedicating special attention to such brings immense revelations. Secondly, the paper has advanced the notion of dwelling as a powerful symbol of claiming space and changing identities. Even though the power of this strategy is acknowledged, both in the Global North and South, it has been least emphasized because of the obsession with materiality. The quest to see, touch and interpret, remains one of the greatest challenges towards the recognition of Indigenous philosophies because these are usually subjective and difficult to verify or validate. Last but not least, the notion of storytelling as an integral part of doing archaeology in Africa was also advanced as a counter-measure to an archaeology premised on lab-based analysis.
The following words extracted from the reviewer’s report are of particular interest to us and we agree to disagree on this note:
My individual take on the matter of Eurocentrism in academic research is very different from that of the authors but this paper is not about me and so I would support the publication, after a thorough review.
- By citing Tilley as a key reference (“Tilly” at one point – a minor typo).
Response:
Corrected.
- I assume the text opts for a post-processual angle, in which subjective elements affect human agency, hence our contextual interpretation of a given historical reality. In this methodological light, I do understand the tension that still today determines the collective perceptions mentioned in the text (e.g. African citizens, Zimbabweans in this case, looking at research as a “colonial” activity that does not adequately portray their traditions). I have seen this first-hand when carrying out research in former colonies.
Response:
The above comment by the reviewer illustrates the clarity of our argument as already pointed out above. Indeed, we advocate for a post-processual framework that perceives people as active agents always in pursuit of self-will. Their daily struggles against social structures in their way towards attaining personal goals defines the true nature of past realities, which were never objective but always situational and subjective. The paper is advocating for subjectivity ahead of objectivity because the past was populated by ideational beings not automatons that can be easily predicted and put into our artificial and self-imagined archaeological categories. This explains why strictly scientific archaeological conclusions are often miles apart from Indigenous community interpretations of their own pasts.
- The proposition can be challenged, though, as in the mid-20th century all mainstream European scholarship was simplistic in synthesizing the past, including the portrayal of Germanic tribes, borders between civilized people and others, medieval settlement, defensive architecture, Muslims, Jews, Gypsies, Cathars, Indians, Africans, and so forth.
Response:
We take note of this exception and have effected the suggestion under the conclusion as paragraph number 1 in the following manner:
E.g. “As the post-colonial mindset and methodologies continue to shape archaeological thinking today, novel frameworks to free and untangle the African historiography from the colonial rhetoric are increasingly emerging and gaining momentum. For instance, calls to re-imagine precolonial socio-political landscapes in Africa using indigenous epistemic perspectives are a welcome development. While colonialism undoubtedly denigrated and perpetuated calculated racial scholarship and biases against colonized societies, it is important to also acknowledge it. It is worth noting that aligning with post-colonial or indigenous paradigm shifts is not to take away from the efforts of earlier scholars. They were children of their times, informed by the dominant theoretical and methodological environments existing then. Though disagreeing with our present sensibilities, some of the colonial perspectives explored above were indeed the prevailing academic norms less than a century ago.
Therefore, despite the initial ‘aggressive tone’ set out in this article, we acknowledge that not all aspects of Western colonial scholarship were mischievous, disrespectful and hateful to the African people and their histories. On the contrary, and again using archaeological science as a lens, scientific insights into the past have enabled us to examine ancient African societies that would have otherwise remained inaccessible or nearly impossible to explore beyond contemporary memory. Given the myriad biases and distortions typical of oral traditions, we cannot dare imagine how complicated it would have been for historians and archaeologists alike to comprehend diverse and conflicting narratives emanating from adamant indigenous communities seeking to legitimize their biased claims for land, identity, power and cultural achievements among other things. With that in mind, we however remain unapologetic about the urgent need to push some of our ‘prehistory archaeology’ colleagues out of their false comfort zones so as to draw them much closer to indigenous community past realities. Material culture even when put under advanced microscopes is not enough to inform us about dynamic processes in the past. Hence, there is need for us to reinvest more towards exploring the invisible, spiritual and intangible dimensions of past societies.”
- I noticed some APA-style references (in-text and between parentheses) instead of endnotes.
Response:
Corrected
- Another suggestion could be somehow acknowledging the positive impacts of colonial influence on historical research in Africa, although this is currently an unpopular academic stance.
Response:
Response to query 5 addresses this suggestion.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The article is good. The responses to the comments I made are appropriate, although I would have liked a greater effort to improve the presentation of the objectives.
