The grant by the Carnegie Corporation of New York to the Library of Congress in December 1959 for the purpose of establishing and operating for five years an African studies unit resulted in the formation of the Africana (since changed to African) Section within the General Reference and Bibliography Division of the Reference Department of the Library. Activation of the unit came in March 1960 with the transfer of Miss Helen F. Conover to the African Section as area specialist. Dr. Conrad C. Reining was appointed head of the section in April of 1960. The position of editorial clerk was provided for by the initial grant and has had three incumbents. Mrs. Audrey A. Walker, of the Manuscript Division of the Library, was appointed to fill the position of bibliographer-reference librarian in June 1961.

The section has gradually built up a collection of reference works comprised of bibliographies, directories, atlases, guides, and surveys which is of prime importance for its work and invariably of interest to visitors. The current issues of fifty or so periodicals selected for display are also constantly used by both staff and visitors. About fifty boxes of ephemeral reference material have been assembled. The section maintains a card file of current publications on Africa, which is a continuation and refinement of one originated by Miss Conover some years ago. About twenty entries per week are made from Library of Congress preliminary catalog cards and from notices of new books. Most of the entries are for publications of the past three years. The file is consulted several times a day by the staff and research workers, and is currently forming the basis of Miss Conover's major task of revising the general bibliographyAfrica South of the Sahara. We have also started reference card files for addresses of organizations concerned with Africa, biographical materials, pertinent abbreviations, and special issues of periodicals on Africa.

Le nombre de publications s'intérressant à l'Afrique est de plus en plus grand et il est de plus en plus difficile de couvir l'ensemble de la documentation concernant l'Afrique noire.

Dans cet article, nous ne donnerons qu'un bref aperçu de l'ensemble des publications. Nous n'envisagerons ici que l'Afrique noire à l'exclusion de Madagascar, encore que de nombreuses revues citees concernent egalement la grand ile.

Une remarque préliminaire s'impose, c'est, le domaine des sciences naturelles excepte, l'absence de spécialisation veritable des revues qui concernent soit l'ancien domaine colonial, soit ce que nous appelons maintenant le Tiers Monde.

A cette absence de spécialisation des revues, correspond bien souvent une absence de spécialisation des articles, tel article sur une tribu du Centre-Afrique ou du Nord-Dahomey faisant intervenir simultanément la géographie, l'histoire, l'ethnologie, la religion, le développement économique etc.

An essential feature of the oral history project is the comparability of material once it has been collected. It should be made clear that for comparative analysis it is not essential (although it makes the work easier, if this has already been standardized) for all categories of data collection to be standardized in all countries studied; it is essential only that a full picture of all significant aspects of each movement will be covered--a task, as Professor Blanksten suggests, made easier by some forethought as to which categories should be covered in the interview. We assume that the categories not covered but very important in one or two countries will be recorded there if the interviewers perform their roles adequately.

Certainly there are a number of extremely interesting problems that comparison would solve. What are the different speeds with which success or failure of these movements occurs? Why did some simply die out, others become dominant and successful, while still others become separatist tribal groups? If we use Professor Zolberg's categories plus others that turn up in the pilot study, and take account of Professor Cohen's strictures concerning quantification, then some answers may be forthcoming.

The literature and documentation relating to the study of colonial Malawi (formerly Nyasaland) is quite considerable, and is increasingly being augmented by the annual output of monographs and articles, by the continuous unearthing of private collections and papers, and by governmental archival records gradually becoming available for public inspection. The purpose of this essay is to provide a guide to some of the more important works and material concerning selected aspects of Malawi's political history during the colonial period, presenting the literature in terms of the comparative analysis of political change in colonial Africa. Research work in progress is also cited, and some of the various gaps that require to be filled are mentioned.

The study of political and social change in colonial Malawi must take into account both the indigenous society and the external forces that have stimulated change, as well as the actual process of development. It is therefore necessary to have, first, some understanding of those features of the traditional environment and historical setting of precolonial Malawi which have a bearing on subsequent developments. Two useful discussions of the patterns of intertribal relations before colonization are offered by M. G. MARWICK (1963) and J. G. PIKE (1965). CLYDE MITCHELL (1960) provides a good general sketch of the African peoples and cultures, while another brief account of the tribal background appears in MARY TEW (1950). More detailed ethnographical studies relating to specific tribal groups are contained in the writings of J. CLYDE MITCHELL (1956), MARGARET READ (1956), J. M. SCHOFFELEERS (1966), J. VAN VELSEN (1964), and GODFREY WILSON (1939). These last five works also provide brief discussions of intertribal relations, the slave trade, and the early contacts of European explorers and missionaries with the African peoples. Two further important treatments of early race relations in Central Africa are the industrious volumes of A. J. HANNA (1956) and H. ALAN C. CAIRNS (1965), which are based on a vast variety of well known and obscure published sources. But, in the absence of African-derived records the story remains European centered, although the collection and assessment of African oral tradition should do much to redress the balance. For a critical analysis of Dr. Hanna's approach and interpretations, including a wealth of further material and insight, see the fine long essay by GEORGE SHEPPERSON (1958).

All of my work in the last fifteen years has been influenced by my association with Bill Brown. But it is perhaps especially appropriate that this piece be included in this tribute to him, for it is the first paper which I wrote after joining him, and it focused on what was always of prime concern to him: the clarification of concepts. I still recall some of our discussion when I showed him the first draft: he was with it, at least insofar as the limits of space permitted development of the topic. Perhaps I remember this because this paper was in a way an earnest of what my stewardship in his institution should be.

The paper was read at the American Anthropological Association annual meetings in Detroit, December 1954, in the Symposium on Economic Factors in Stability and Change. I made no effort then to submit it for publication in any of the appropriate journals because I had taken time out from writing my dissertation to do the paper and returned my attention to that urgent task (it was also my first year of teaching a survey course on African ethnography), and the paper was soon out of mind. Now, after a lapse of time, the question arises, should it be brought up to date? Two quite different things can be implied by this question. First, should more recent data be adduced? To do so would be to write a new paper which would have none of this one's association with W. O. Brown. Furthermore, this paper now has a certain historical value as a contemporary description of some aspects of late colonial conditions. Second, should the interpretation and conclusion be modified in the light of more recent writings? I feel that both can stand. Therefore, no change has been made in the text.

The historical study of nationalist movements in Africa is obviously of critical importance for the future history of mankind, but the relevance of such an undertaking is not quite so self-evident from the point of view of the social sciences more generally. Yet political scientists concerned primarily with the comparative analysis of contemporary political systems have come to recognize that the formative period of an organization is as important as its equivalent in the life of individuals; anthropologists and sociologists have found it useful to examine the emergence of new organizational life in Africa in order to intercept crucial aspects of the process of cultural and structural change. Scholars interested in individual behavior often discover new men in the making when they appear as actors in new organizations. If this were not enough to justify a cooperative effort on the part of researchers from a variety of academic tribes, it might be added that by reconstructing the history of nationalism social scientists can perform a significant service for their African hosts in search of a contemporary identity.

Although the origins of “nationalism” in Africa can and must be traced to at least the middle of the nineteenth century in some cases, it is evident that the period between the two world wars was one of direct preparation for the emergence of large-scale movements immediately afterwards. More is known about this period in some countries than in others, partly as a function of the more or less liberal nature of the colonial regime.