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.