questions of terminal–Stone Age/Iron Age population interactions in East Africa in terms that are determined less by implicit assumptions concerning language, culture, and genetics.

Indigenous Archaeologists

Only Kenyan and Tanzanian universities have active archaeology programs in East Africa, although similar programs are offered by history departments. Most indigenous archaeologists in these countries have concentrated on either the terminal–Stone Age or Iron Age periods (Abungu 1989; Kiriama 1984, 1986, 1992; Masao 1979; Mutoro 1987; Onyango Abuje 1976; Wandibba 1977, 1984). Indigenous archaeologists have concentrated on the later periods because most of the lecturers at the universities were more interested in these periods and they tended to encourage their students to undertake projects in their areas of specialization. It should be noted that, first, despite the prominence of East Africa as a cradle of mankind, none of the people conducting research in the early periods taught at local universities, let alone encouraged local students to undertake study projects in this area. Second, the early period has been seen as not being controversial and as not having enough to do with the history of the local populace and the definition of nation states. Thus, local archaeologists have been encouraged to concentrate on the later periods in an effort to negate colonial and racist propaganda that only began with the intrusion of the white man.

Onyango Abuje (1976) and Onyango Abuje and Wandibba (1979) were the first local archaeologists to argue for the local origins of food production. They also maintained that the term Neolithic, discarded as not being fit for African food producing societies, should be retained as food producing societies in eastern Africa had the same characteristics as those in Europe. Onyango Abuje (1976) in particular argued for a total indigenous evolution of the East African Neolithic culture, contending that the populations that independently invested in and developed food producing skills were not Caucasoid immigrants but African in origin. He further argued that these people domesticated some livestock and the majority of the crops that are currently grown in Africa. Wandibba (1977, 1980) undertook a reanalysis of the pottery in the Rift Valley of Kenya and showed that the pottery was particular to the given areas where it was found; thus, there was no likelihood of its importation by immigrants. Karega Munene, on the other hand, used an evolutionary-ecological model to argue for a home-grown Neolithic culture. According to him, the domestication of plants and animals was the result of an adaptive response to stress caused by specific historic situations. In other words, the East African population domesticated plants and animals independently as a response to specific local situations and needs.

Even with regard to the Iron Age, local indigenous archaeologists have been involved in disproving the migrationist theories of earlier archaeologists. S. Lwanga-Lunyiigo (1976), for example, argues that Bantu speakers appeared on the East African scene very early and that the postulated expansion from West Africa never took place. He maintains that it is difficult to spot the exact origin of Bantu speakers, that iron smelting was an independent East African innovation, and that the interlacustrine area was the center from which metallurgy, ceramics, and agricultural techniques spread to central and southern Africa. Kiriama (1986, 1987, 1993), on the other hand, has used a technological and contextual approach to argue for the local invention of ironworking techniques. Analyzing iron slag from an early–Iron Age site in Kenya, Kiriama (1987) has shown that there was preheating of furnaces during the prehistoric period, which enabled the ironworkers to attain high furnace temperatures and thus produce high carbon steel. He has also used a contextual approach (Kiriama 1993) to show that various Bantu speakers used their ceramic and iron implements differently. This work negates the argument for common Bantu origin, and Kiriama proposes that the social realm within which ceramics and iron objects were created and used should be studied if we are to understand the origins and spread of ironworking. The social context within which an item of material culture functions can enable one to understand