Paper short abstract:

History in Africa is largely anthropological, i.e. based on ethnography and oral traditions. But increasingly the written/published texts compete with first hand testimonies. In effect, interest groups and individual people re-interpret, re-construct or directly falsify the past by using references to the published material irrespective of its merit. Thus the Nanumba of the chiefdom of Nanuŋ construct their pre-colonial independence even though the tiny Nanuŋ was hardly fully independent, while the Konkomba who are 20th century settlers in Nanuŋ argue that they were autochthons there.

Paper long abstract:

History in Africa is largely anthropological, i.e. based on ethnography and oral traditions. But increasingly the written/published texts compete with first hand testimonies. In effect, interest groups and individual people re-interpret, re-construct or directly falsify the past by using references to the published material irrespective of its merit. Thus the Nanumba of the chiefdom of Nanuŋ construct their pre-colonial independence even though the tiny Nanuŋ was hardly fully independent, while the Konkomba who are 20th century settlers in Nanuŋ argue that they were autochthons there. The contests between different versions of history take place among the educated ethnic elites. The ordinary subjects/citizens do not necessarily share the competing opinions of the elites. They may continue to adhere to the non-ideologized oral traditions or, in dependence on proximity to the elites, repeat uncritically the politically correct version of their (ethno-)history. The paper will address these problems in greater detail and draw some parallels from recent variety of interpretations of early political centralization processes in Central Europe.