{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.016700066800267203, 'fraction_numerical': 0.002004008016032064, 'mean_word_length': 5.062753036437247, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Preface to special series

The papers that make up the first set of this special series on community archaeology and heritage studies in Africa are a natural outcome of the influence of Prof. Merrick Posnansky’s work in African archaeology and heritage. Posnansky’s ‘Reflection’ here captures the verve and commitment he brought to the inclusion of local Africa residents in the museum programmes that he supervised, as well as research that he initiated in rural areas of Uganda. His integration of oral traditions into archaeological narratives marked a new departure for African archaeology. It privileged local views of history while also examining material and archival evidence. Posnansky went on to inspire me and my peer group to be mindful of what indigenous voices could add to the fabric of history. As a university teacher with similar disposition, I shared such views with my students, among them Kathy Weedman Arthur, John Arthur, and Matt Curtis (all co-authors of a contribution in this issue) focused on Ethiopia. So, three intellectual generations of community archaeology are represented here and in future papers – an extraordinary legacy that speaks to the long-term engagement that Africanists have had with African communities. Posnansky shares his background in English archaeology and extramural engagements with local people, a perspective that he took with him to Uganda with brilliant results that challenged conventional practices some 60 years ago. It was my good fortune to study with him at Makerere University in Kamapa in the mid-1960s, visiting many sites that had rich oral traditions associated with them. His methods were very much ethnographic, digging into local beliefs and practices to gain more diverse and powerful insights into the African past. Given his influence on our practice, it is only natural that ethnographic inquiry – with guidance from local participants – is central to research among the Haya in northwestern Tanzania. So, too, it is the primary method used by the group of co-authors (including Ethiopian collaborators) who examine sacred space and belief systems among the Gamo of Ethiopia. Much of the richness of these studies arises from the knowledge systems of those among whom we work and study, for we become students of local history. Only by becoming participants in local culture can we hope to gain an appreciation of what heritage means to local people. We must rub shoulders with them as they live their heritage in sacred places and daily activities, listening to their discourse about what they mean by heritage. Other papers in this series will follow. Some will have a different flavour, and step away from longterm engagement with communities to assess community needs for professional assistance in archaeological inquiry and heritage development. Together, the entire set of papers will provide a broad spectrum of how archaeologists and heritage managers are approaching community participation in Africa today.