East African Archaeology: Foragers, Potters, Smiths, and Traders

10. Explaining the Origins of the State in East Africa

10 The Origins of the State in East Africa Peter Robertshaw This chapter uses a set of models that emphasize power and social agency to understand state formation in the Bunyoro-Kitara region of western Uganda and, by way of contrast, on the Swahili coast of East Africa. Building on Blanton et al.’s (1996) distinction between exclusionary (network ) and corporate power strategies—the former founded upon wealthbased finance and prestige-goods systems and the latter upon staple-based finance and public works (monuments)—I contrast state formation processes in these two areas. The Swahili coast elites practiced exclusionary power strategies, while Bunyoro-Kitara social stratification was an outcome of corporate power strategies in which elites were reluctant to differentiate themselves through the use of prestige items. The theories explain the apparent invisibility of Bunyoro-Kitara elites. Among the major goals of archaeology—one of its “Big Questions” (Binford 1983)—is the explanation of the development of sociopolitical complexity or, in more grandiose terms, the rise of civilization. For archaeologists studying sub-Saharan Africa, this question has often been recast as one of origins: Did states arise as the result of migrations of people from elsewhere or were they indigenous African phenomena? Alternatively, might states have arisen among indigenous African peoples with the knowledge and perhaps the accoutrements of statecraft coming from elsewhere? Answers to these questions have been influenced by the context of research. Colonialism and nationalism have tended to set the agendas for archaeological research, even if the results of research have not always been in accordance with dominant ideology (Robertshaw 1990).Thus, the indigenous identity of the builders of Great Zimbabwe was firmly established, at least in the minds of archaeologists and historians, by Caton Thompson in 1929 (Caton Thompson 1931), if not many years earlier by Randall MacIver (1906), despite the preferences of the Rhodesian colonists (M. Hall 1990). Clearly, identification of the site’s builders was considered the major mystery of Great Zimbabwe, whereas explanation of the process of state formation was relegated to a secondary role. The study of state formation in East Africa mirrors the history of the investigation of Great Zimbabwe, in that the identity of the agents of change has been accorded as much (if not more) attention as the process of change. Was it Muslim traders from the Persian Gulf or indigenous African entrepreneurs who founded the Swahili city-states? Is the rise of the kingdoms of the Great Lakes region most correctly attributed to the spread of ideas of divine kingship up the Nile to its headwaters or to the migration of “Hamitic” pastoralists or to local developments? At least in recent years, answers to these questions have favored indigenous origins, as indeed might be expected after more than thirty years of independence from colonialism. Muslim colonists at the coast and Egyptian divine kingship in the interior have virtually attained the status of dialectical straw men.Thus, with the problem of identity either solved or subjugated to a dominant ideology, attention has begun to focus on questions of process. Explaining the process of state formation in East Africa, however, has not proved as easy a task as that of identifying the actors.To resolve this issue, I make use of a set of models that emphasize power and social agency.My discussion focuses upon the Bunyoro-Kitara region of western Uganda, where I am conducting field research.By way of contrast,I also briefly consider the Swahili coast. Bunyoro-Kitara European explorers in the 19th century entered the Great Lakes region (Fig. 10.1) in their search for the sources of the Nile and encountered statelevel societies whose leaders seemed to merit the use of the English term “king” (Speke 1863; Grant 1864; Baker 1866) and whose kingdoms included Buganda, Bunyoro, and Nkore, which were later to be incorporated in modern -day Uganda. Since these states were so far removed geographically from historical international trading networks, their origins posed an immediate puzzle, particularly in the prevailing climate of colonialism. Oral traditions, recorded in the context of the royal courts (Fisher 1911; K.W. 1935; Nyakatura 1973), indicated that the 19th-century states, especially Bunyoro,represented the rump of a much larger Cwezi“empire,”centered East African Archaeology: Foragers, Potters, Smiths, and Traders 150 in Kitara and dating to about the 14th century (Oliver 1953).However,drawing attention to this earlier polity did not,of course,solve the...