Abstract
Boreda Indigenous knowledge prescribed that humans respect all entities with whom they co-inhabit, including stone. Humans, stone, and water’s reciprocal relationships prompted their participation in each other becoming fetuses, infants, children, youth, married adults, mature adults, elders, and ancestors. Life was a co-production between humans and non-humans, such that stone and water could inflict harm or bring well-being to humans. Non-human beings, such as flaked stone tools, were evidence of engaging in correct interaction ‘practice’ (time, place, and actor) with other beings—a process of mutual respect and responsibility and one in which there was no end or final “product.”
Résumé
Le savoir indigène Boreda stipulait que les humains respectent toutes les entités avec lesquelles ils cohabitent, y compris la pierre. Les relations réciproques entre humains, pierre et eau ont déclenché leur participation mutuelle pour devenir des foetus, des nourrissons, des enfants, des adolescents, des adultes mariés, des adultes d'âge mur, des anciens puis des ancêtres. La vie était une production conjointe entre humains et non humains, de telle sorte que la pierre et l'eau pouvaient infliger des dommages aux humains ou leur apporter un bien-être. Les êtres non-humains, tels que les outils de pierre éclatée, étaient la preuve de l'exercice d'une "pratique" correcte d'interaction (temps, lieu et acteur) avec d'autres créatures, à savoir un processus de respect mutuel et de responsabilité pour lequel il n'existait pas de « produit » fini ou final.
Resumen
El conocimiento indígena de Boreda prescribía que los humanos respetaran todas las entidades con las que cohabitan, incluida la piedra. Las relaciones recíprocas de los humanos, la piedra y el agua impulsaron su participación mutua convirtiéndose en fetos, bebés, niños, jóvenes, adultos casados, adultos maduros, ancianos y antepasados. La vida era una coproducción entre humanos y no humanos, de modo que la piedra y el agua podían causar daño o traer bienestar a los humanos. Los seres no humanos, como las herramientas de piedra labrada, eran evidencia de participar en una "práctica" de interacción correcta (tiempo, lugar y actor) con otros seres: un proceso de respeto y responsabilidad mutuos y en el que no había fin ni "producto" final.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Each genus of fig trees requires its own species of wasp to reproduce. Wasps nest in the fig and distribute the fig pollen in the fig, which enables the tree to make seeds and reproduce.
7 is a high-level tone marker for the following letter “a” in Omotic languages.
References
Acholonu, C. O. (1995). Motherism: The afrocentric alternative to feminism, Let’s help humanitarian project Nigerian Institute of International Affairs.
Akena, F. A. (2012). Critical analysis of the production of Western knowledge and its implications for Indigenous knowledge and decolonization. Journal of Black Studies, 43(6), 599–619.
Amadiume, I. (1997). Re-inventing Africa: Matriarchy. London: Zed Books.
Arthur, J. W., & Weedman, K. (2005). Chapter 7: Ethnoarchaeology. In H. Maschner & C. Chippindale (Eds.), Handbook for archaeological methods (Vol. I, pp. 216–269). Walnut Creek: AltaMira Press.
Arthur, K. W. (2018). The lives of stone tools: Crafting the status, skill, and identity of flintknappers. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
Arthur, K. W. (2019). Ethnoarchaeologies of listening: Learning technological ontologies bit by bit. In P. R. Schmidt & A. B. Kehoe (Eds.), Archaeologies of listening (pp. 25–46). Gainesville: University of Florida Press.
Arthur, K. W. (2020). Wombs of the earth: Preserving and reconstituting feminine prestige and dignity through heritage. Archeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association, 31(1), 41–53.
Arthur, K. W. (2021). Material scientists: Learning the importance of color and brightness from lithic practitioners. Cambridge Archaeological Journal, 31(2), 293–304.
Arthur, K. W., Tocha, Y. E., Curtis, M. C., Lakew, B., & Arthur, J. W. (2017). Seniority through ancestral landscapes: Community archaeology in the highlands of southern Ethiopia. Journal of Community Archaeology & Heritage, 4(2), 101–114.
Asante, M. K. (2007). An Afrocentric Manifesto: Toward an African Renaissance. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Bennett, J. (2010). Vibrant matter: A political ecology of things. Durham: Duke University Press.
Bombe, B. (2013). Slavery in gamo highlands. Saarbrucken: LAP Lambert Academic Publishing.
Bonsu, N. O. (2016). African traditional religion: An examination of terminologies used for describing the indigenous faith of African people, using an Afrocentric paradigm. Journal of Pan African Studies, 9(9), 108–121.
Brumbach, H. J., & Jarvenpa, R. (1990). Archeologist-ethnographer-informant relations: The dynamics of ethnoarcheology in the field. Archeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association, 2(1), 39–46.
Chirikure, S. (2016). ‘Ethno’plus ‘archaeology’: What’s in there for Africa(ns)? World Archaeology, 48(5), 693–699.
Coltorti, M., Pieruccini, P., Arthur, K. J., Arthur, J., & Curtis, M. (2019). Geomorphology, soils and palaeosols of the Chencha area (Gamo Gofa, southwestern Ethiopian Highlands). Journal of African Earth Sciences, 151, 225–240.
Diop, C. A. (1974). The African origin of civilization: Myth or reality. New York: Lawrence Hill.
Dutta, M., Ramasubramanian, S., Barrett, M., Elers, C., Sarwatay, D., Raghunath, P., Raghunath, S., Kaur, D., Dutta, P., Jayan, M., Rahman, E., Tallam, S., Roy, A., Falnikar, G. M., Johnson, I. M., Dutta, U., Basnyat, I., Soriano, C., Pavarala, V., … Zapata, D. (2021). Decolonizing open science: Southern interventions. Journal of Communication, 71(5), 803–826.
Freeman, D. (2002). Initiating change in highland Ethiopia: Causes and consequences of cultural transformation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gonzalez, W. J. (2012). Methodological universalism in science and its limits. Imperialism versus complexity. In K. Brzechczyn & K. Paprzycka (Eds.), Thinking about provincialism in thinking (pp. 155–175). Leiden: Brill.
Harvey, G. (2005). Animism: Respecting the living world. New York: Columbia University Press.
Ichumbaki, E. B., Biginagwa, T. J., & Mapunda, B. B. (2023). They know more than we do, yet we appreciate them less than they deserve: Decoding local ontologies in heritage interpretation and preservation in Southern Tanzania. Journal of Community Archaeology & Heritage, 10(3–4), 1–19.
Karenga, M. (2004). Maat, the moral ideal in ancient Egypt: A study in classical African ethics. London: Routledge.
Keller, C. M., & Keller, J. D. (1996). Cognition and tool use: The blacksmith at work. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kimmerer, R. (2013). Braiding sweetgrass: Indigenous wisdom, scientific knowledge and the teachings of plants, Milkweed Editions. Minneapolis.
Kiros, T. (2005). Zara Yacob: Rationality of the Human Heart. Trenton: Red Sea Press.
Megerssa, G., & Kassam, A. (2020). Sacred knowledge traditions of the Oromo of the Horn of Africa. Durham: Fifth World Publications.
Murove, M. F. (2018). Indigenous knowledge systems discourse and inclusionality: An Afro-centric quest for recognition in a globalised world. Journal for the Study of Religion, 31(1), 159–176.
Nnaemeka, O. (2004). Nego-feminism: Theorizing, practicing, and pruning Africa’s way. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 29(2), 357–385.
Ogundiran, A. (2014). The making of an internal frontier settlement: Archaeology and historical process in Osun Grove (Nigeria), seventeenth to eighteenth centuries. African Archaeological Review, 31, 1–24.
Ogundiran, A. (2022). A Mosaic of Yorùbá Ontology and materiality of pleasure since AD 1000. African Studies Review, 65(4), 827–846.
Oyěwùmí, O. (2016). What gender is motherhood? Changing Yoruba ideals of power, procreation, and identity in the age of modernity. New York: Springer.
Pikirayi, I., Shenjere-Nyabezi, P., & Sagiya, M. E. (2022). Landscape, history and power: The Zimbabwe Culture and the Nambya state, north-western Zimbabwe. Journal of Community Archaeology & Heritage, 9(3), 175–195.
Schmidt, P. R. (2018). Ontology unveiled, serpents remembered, time reconfigured. In S. Souvatzi, A. Baysal, & E. L. Baysal (Eds.), Time and history in prehistory (pp. 58–76). London: Routledge.
Schmidt, P. R. (2023). African epistemologies and ontologies: Building a pathway that elevates African ways of constructing the world as part of a future African archaeology. African Archaeological Review, 40(4), 823–826.
Shott, M., & Weedman, K. J. (2007). Measuring reduction in stone tools: An ethnoarchaeological study of Gamo hidescrapers from Ethiopia. Journal of Archaeological Science, 34(2007), 1016–1035.
Wallaert, H. (2012). Apprenticeship and the confirmation of social boundaries. In W. Wendrich (Ed.), Archaeology and apprenticeship: Body knowledge, identity, and communities of practice (pp. 20–42). Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
Walz, J. R. (2013). Routes to history: Archaeology and being articulate in Eastern Africa. In P. R. Schmidt & S. A. Mrozowski (Eds.), Death of prehistory (pp. 69–92). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Weedman, K. J. (2002). On the spur of the moment: Effects of age and experience on hafted stone scraper morphology. American Antiquity, 67(4), 731–744.
Weedman, K. J. (2005). Gender and stone tools: An ethnographic study of the Konso and Gamo Hideworkers of Southern Ethiopia. In L. Frink & K. Weedman (Eds.), Gender and hide production (pp. 175–196). Walnut Creek: AltaMira Press.
Weedman, K. J. (2006). An ethnoarchaeological study of hafting and stone tool diversity among the Gamo of Ethiopia. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 13, 188–237.
Acknowledgments
Heartfelt thanks go to many Boreda who shared their present and past lives with me. I hope this work brings you pride, honor, and dignity. In addition, I thank the program officers and reviewers at the National Science Foundation and the National Endowment for the Humanities. Finally, I extend my deep gratitude for the assistance of the personnel of the offices at Ethiopia’s Authority for Research and Conservation of Cultural Heritage, particularly my national and regional representatives; the National Museum of Ethiopia; and the Southern Nations, Nationalities, and Peoples Region’s Bureau of Culture and Tourism in Awassa, Arba Minch, and Boreda Zefine.
Funding
Research associated with this article was supported by National Science Foundation (SBR 9634199, BCS 0514055, 1027607, 1916933) and National Endowment for the Humanities (RZ-50575-06).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The author declares no potential conflict of interest.
Ethical Approval
The contents of this article were produced through informed consent with Boreda community members. The contents are in compliance with American Anthropological Association ethical standards and approved by the University of South Florida Internal Review Board for integrity and compliance with informed consent #103527.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Arthur, K.W. Living a Path of Mutual Respect: Technological Stone Ontologies in the Horn of Africa. Arch 20, 327–351 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11759-024-09500-0
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11759-024-09500-0