Anthropologists in the United States came relatively late to a concern with Africa. It was through the study of American Indians that anthropology developed in this country. This orientation was specified long before the discipline was a recognized academic subject. Thomas Jefferson recommended the study of Indian customs and languages, and through this study a reconstruction of Indian history. Albert Gallatin in the 1830's began to give to this goal the vigor he also gave to public life. Many others, whose reputations are associated with other fields, were “intelligent dabblers” (e.g. Henry Thoreau; cf. Lawrence Willson, “Thoreau: Student of Anthropology,” American Anthropologist, LXI, no. 2 [April 1959]).

The European-derived populations of the United States and of South Africa have comparable situations in that each has in its own back yard, so to speak, a number of “laboratories” for the study of societies and cultures other than their own. Anthropology in each country has developed in relation to these opportunities and challenges, but in South Africa it came at a very much later period.

Americans were, in fact, among the catalysts of the development of anthropological thought in the nineteenth century, but they were scarcely cognizant of Africa. Insofar as African ethnography was developed in the nineteenth century, it was done by Europeans. The commercial, colonial, and missionary interest of European countries helped to direct the attention of anthropologists in those countries toward Africa, but also of course to Asia, Oceania, and elsewhere. In toto, Africa was less cultivated at that period than were other major areas.

About 1960, the study of West African history took a new turn as historians became aware of the interest and value of Islamic sources for their work, particularly manuscript materials in Arabic. To be sure, the use of Arabic sources for the history of West Africa is nothing new: in 1841, W. Des-borough Cooley published his The Negroland of the Arabs Examined and Explained; or, an Inquiry into the Early History and Geography of Central Africa. But Cooley's pioneering book was discounted by later British and American writers on Africa as the work of an eccentric. In the 1880's and 1890's, many of these writers were spellbound by their vision of what Christianity might do for the African, while others were preoccupied by what they deemed to be the morally indefensible activities of the Muslims as slave-raiders and traders in West and East Africa. As late as the 1930's, the well-known British anthropologist C. K. Meek indicted Islam in northern Nigeria when he wrote: “The institution of slavery is a pivotal feature of Islamic society, and we are justified with charging Muhammadanism with the devastation and desolation in which Northern Nigeria was found at the beginning of this century.” Other writers, like Sir A.C. Burns for Nigeria, and A. W. Cardinall and W. E. F. Ward for Ghana, dismissed the Islamic side of West African history in few words, or gave it no mention at all. There were other reasons for this lack of emphasis. In northern Nigeria, for example, many British officials were apprehensive of an outbreak of “Mahdism” among the Muslims; and very frequently, French officials looked on Islam as a rival political system, dangerous and potentially subversive.

In the summer 1963 issue of Africana Newsletter (pp. 38–39), I reported on the then sad state of public records in the Gambia. Since that time the Gambian government has acted to preserve and catalogue the materials which prior to independence had been so carelessly handled. This reconstruction was made possible by a substantial gift by Nigeria on the occasion of independence. With these funds a trained Library Records Officer, J. M. Smyth, was brought from the Colonial Office to Gambia. From November 1965 to February 1966 he planned and did the preliminary work necessary for a functioning archive. Before he left Gambia the bulk of collecting, sorting, and cataloguing had been done and the framework for future growth had been created (see Smyth’s Report, Sessional no. 10, 1966).

The National Archives of Tanzania (Idara ya Kumbukumbu za Taifa la Tanzania) were established on 28 August 1965. Since this date energies have been directed toward building an efficient archival service: better storage facilities have been acquired, trained Tanzanian personnel have been hired, and there is now seating space for ten researchers. The most significant development from the historian's point of view has been the recent organization of the German records into a concise and convenient index catalogue.

In June 1967 the West German Government Technical Aid Program sent Mr. Peter Geissler, an Archivinspektor at Hessiches Staatsarchiv, Marburg, on a two-year project to reorganize the German records. Mr. Geissler is already familiar to historians of the American Revolution for his research on the Hessian troop records at Marburg. In Deutsch-Ostafrika the old German Registry System (renewed in 1902 and in effect until 1916) had been utilized in numbering the various files. A still extant two-volume Registry lists all the documents in existence before the First World War, but many of these have since been lost, eaten by white ants, stolen, or destroyed. It is evident that only a few records concerning district political administration have survived, while land, legal, mission, public works, and education files are among the most complete. The files have been divided into two main groupings: (1) the old German Registry and other German Government Administration (G 1 - G 65); and (2) Private Archives (G 66 - G 86). Each file card contains both the new “G” number and the old German Registry designation. In addition Mr. Geissler has performed a painstaking task in listing on each card some of the outstanding names, places, etc. mentioned in the particular file.

African studies in the United States were still in their infancy in 1958 when the National Defense Education Act was passed. One instructional program -- at Hartford Seminary -- had a long history. And numbers of anthropologists were notably active in field research on African topics by that date. But as compared with the venerable tradition of oriental studies, or even with pre-World War II area instruction and research on Latin America, the African field was only just opening up as a subject of concerted academic attention.

At the same time, it was clear that the postwar burgeoning of area studies programs had as much relevance to Africa as to Russia or India, and a few programs -- notably those at Northwestern and Boston -- had by this time displayed a serious intention of developing offerings of a scope comparable to those of the older fields. Indeed, the area approach had special pertinence for African studies, for with the exception of anthropology virtually none of the conventional departments inmost institutions included African specialists. The area approach was not an alternative to disciplinary modes of university organization, but rather a means of both focusing and reinforcing disciplinary competence with reference to a particular world region. The device helped to strengthen departments by reminding them of neglected fields and opportunities, and its corollary of multi-disciplinary emphasis helped to enable the social sciences and humanities to address themselves more effectively to the many contemporary scholarly problems lying on the periphery of individual disciplines. Thus, if East Asian or East European subjects of instruction and research could gain by the use of the area approach, the still more neglected African field was the more in need of such fortification. Moreover, African studies could, in the usual fashion of relative latecomers, avoid some of the pitfalls of the earliest area programs, e.g., needless tension between disciplinary and area interest or loyalty.

The Economic Commission for Africa (ECA) with its headquarters at Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, was established in 1958 under resolution 67aA (XXV) of the Economic and Social Council.

It is one of the four regional commissions of the United Nations, the other three, which were established much earlier, being the Economic Commission for Europe (ECE) with headquarters in Geneva, the Economic Commission for Asia and the Far East (ECAFE) with Bangkok, Thailand, as its headquarters and the Economic Commission for Latin America (ECLA) at Santiago de Chili.

The establishment of these regional commissions was a result of the need and desirability to decentralize United Nations activities, not only on a functional but also on a geographical basis.

The second meeting of the Canadian Committee on African Studies was held in conjunction with the annual assembly of the Canadian Political Science Association and the Learned Societies at l'Université Laval, Quebec City, during June 1963. There were two programs of research papers -- the first in Canada devoted wholly to Africa -- and a business session. Professor Ronald Cohen of McGill University, who is leaving Canada, resigned as chairman and was replaced by Professor Donald Wiedner (Alberta). Professor Clare Hopen (New Brunswick) was appointed chairman of the program committee for the third meeting of the Committee, which will be held at Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, in June 1964.

A special committee with broad powers was appointed to investigate the problems and possibilities of establishing an African Research and Study Centre for Canada. A major part of its responsibility will be to recommend a specific location and to negotiate for support by as many universities and institutions as possible within the country. The special committee, composed of Professors Edgar Efrat (British Columbia), Albert Trouwborst (Montreal), Wiedner (Alberta - chairman), and D. M. Young (New Brunswick), envisions encouragement of undergraduate interest in Africa in all universities which will focus upon a coordinated, advanced program in the proposed Centre.

Ever since the Twentieth Congress of the CPSU, 1956, Soviet interest in the countries of Africa has steadily increased. This interest has manifested itself in a growing number of books and articles published in the Soviet Union dealing with the peoples and problems of the “Dark Continent.” A prolific contributor to this body of literature has been the noted Soviet Africanist I.I. Potekhin, whose works first appeared in 1932 and continued until his death in 1964. Potekhin survived and continued to publish during the repressive Stalinist years of the thirties, post-World War II Stalin-Zhdanov period of foreign policy, the years of transition, and the period of reassessment and innovation in Third World policy under Khrushchov. This general review of the life and works of I. I. Potekhin is intended to provide information and insights which may prove of value to students of Soviet policy toward the countries of Africa.

Born in 1903 to peasant parents, Ivan Izasimovich Potekhin worked in a Siberian factory at the age of fourteen. From 1921 to 1929 he attended a provincial school and was extremely active in local party activities, becoming a Communist Party member in 1922 at the age of nineteen.

In 1930, following the 1928 Comintern decision to opt for an “independent native republic” in South Africa, Potekhin was sent to study in the African studies program of the University of Leningrad. This opportunity was probably a result of Potekhin's Siberian successes as a party worker, and the party's need for active members with some knowledge of Africa. Potekhin's main area of interest, as reflected in the majority of his works published between 1932 and 1935, was, not unexpectedly, South Africa, more specifically, the problems of class structure and of agriculture. He contributed sixteen pieces to various publications during this period. Six of these were in English and appeared in the Negro Worker (Hamburg). Interestingly enough, he frequently used the pseudonym John Izotla and on one occasion, H. Jordon. Potekhin spent the next several years preparing his doctoral dissertation, submitted in 1939, on the agrarian relations of the eastern Bantu.