Antecedent Methodology
The use of Cheikh Anta Diop’s historiographic frameworking, orDiopian Historiography , is done so primarily to place African
culture as foundation in any analysis of African history. Diop
understood well that the unifying factors of African cosmology were more
fundamental than the externally imposed notions of what makes African
people different (Diop, 1989, x). He did not deny ethnic diversity, or
even dynamism, but insisted on foundational and unifying aspects of
African culture based on ancient antecedents. The complementary notions
of the domains of matriarchy and patriarchy, denied for various
erroneous reasons by the western academy, was Diop’s attempt in
reconstructing an Afrocentric social history. Thus, Diop’s Two-Cradle
Theory (Wobogo, 1976) arose as a social theory in which to use as a
guiding methodology. Whether one finds the entirety of his Two-Cradle
Theory to be practical or not, the use of the African background in
formulating his theories are wholly relevant to the reconstruction of
African history and historical cosmology. Although, when utilized, I
propose that less focus should be placed upon the conflicting nature of
the supposed two cradles, and more focus placed on Diop’s notions of
cultural continuity and unity among the southern cradle of African
people.
It is clear from Diop’s work that although the study of our historical
culture may be foundational to the struggle for restoration, scholars
should lend equal importance to contemporary political and social
conditions. Such should express the dynamism and vast variety of African
reality along with the overlapping social, political, economic, and
spiritual circumstances transgenerationally and transcontinentally. In
approaching this, the question of how African variation is understood
becomes central. In respect to this regard, I have developed a
methodology based on the antecedent hypothesis presented by Diop. Being
pan-African in scope, I have utilized three African terms in order to
develop a methodology in which to use in order to further understand, as
Okafor put it, the matrix of African culture.
The first aspect or method of approach is Kanna (sameness). This
approach is developed from the Yoruba phrase, “ti kanna ọrọ”, or “of
the same matter”. It involves the gathering of data garnered from the
field of Africology, and the various other aforementioned fields of
interest, and synthesizing it using Afrocentric methodology in order to
show clear antecedental sameness between various African ethnic groups
and cultures. Examples could include the use of oral tradition and oral
history in order to reconstruct antecedental properties between regional
groups, Afrocentric analysis of written accounts of various ethnic
groups, or Afrocentric analysis of the material culture of various
African societies (especially if they help to formulate social histories
or examples of past lifeways).
The more nuanced concept of Fánna (similarity) derives from the
Xhosa/Zulu term “Kuyafana”, or “in the same way; it is just the
same”. This method assists with the notions of cultural continuity
stemming from ancient precedents argued to be exemplified within the
whole of the continental border, as well as within the African diaspora.Fánna may somewhat overlap with the Kanna method as
investigations into cultural phenomena such as water rites,
circumcision, libation, domains of matriarchy, and a variety of other
cosmological similarities become central. However, Fánna recognizes that
similar African phenomena may not present ready antecedents. It is
simply a bridge in assisting in the possible discovery of antecedents or
the acknowledgement of African phenomena that appears inherent
throughout multiple groups despite any clear origin.
The concept of Naanị (uniqueness) derives from the Igbo phrase,
“naanị ebe”, or “only place/source”. The use of the Naani method
involves the distinguishing of cultural phenomena which shows no clear
antecedents or similarity with other groups. This would involve first
the identification and investigation of the unique phenomena before also
investigating other groups in proximity, and/or regional and diaspora
groups, in order to determine if either Kanna or Fánna is
indeed not present. The utility in such also secures the agency and
intellectual autonomy of individual African societies.
In employing this methodology, Africologists may use terms that are
specific to the language of the group being investigated. In fact, I
encourage such because it only enriches lexical refinement as well as
cosmological understanding between groups, while also limiting the
possibility of hegemonic ideals across cultures. For African Americans,
this method is especially salient as it provides frameworking for
reconstructing the past lifeways of enslaved ancestors. Doing so would
assist in further reconstructing the cosmological rational and utility
of various aspects of African vestige among African Americans, enriching
the collective comprehension of our own Africanity .11Often
defined as the state or quality of being African, as Africologists, we
emphasize that the traditions, customs, and values of African people
are the core of the meaning of Africanity.