Introduction :
In the preface, the writer Jan Vansina put forward his consideration of Oral Traditions not only as the documents of past, but also the expressions of present as the Oral Traditions carries a message that are told in the present. To convey this idea of Oral Tradition as a fusion of past and present , he used an African proverb “Tete are ne ”(ancient things are today), which beautifully depict his idea. Keeping the view in mind that “all human thought and memory operates in the same way everywhere and at all time”( p XIII), Jan Vansina wrote that the book “stress the unity of processes of thought among all the humans and hence avoid limitations of place and time”
Yet, he also acknowledges that the book in practice, mostly deals with the practices and study of the Twentieth century people of the world. He states that “This is so because we have here sufficient information to enable historians to evaluate the reliability of many traditions, which is not the case for many traditions that reached us in writing from the distant past.” He also mentioned that this book is different from his previous work on Oral history which was originally written in French Language. This book plans to guide the reader smoothly from one idea to the next one without repeating things.
About the Author :
In the words of Prof. Florence Barnault, “A pioneering figure in the study of Africa, Jan Vansina is considered one of the founders of the field of African History in the 1950s and 1960s. His insistence that it was possible to study African history in the era prior to European contact and his development of rigorous historical methods for doing so, played a major role in countering the then prevalent idea that cultures without texts had no history. He remained a trailblazer in the field for more than five decades”( about Jan, University of Wisconsin-Madison)
.webp)
Image source : University of Wisconsin-Madison, England
Jan Vansina was born in 1929 in Antewerp, Belgium. Extensively worked in the unveiling of African history to the world and spent most of his life. He laid the foundation for the study of African history and made the path for the new researcher. His prime works included Oral Tradition. A Study in Historical Methodology (Translated from the French by H. M. Wright in 1965), Kingdoms of the Savanna(1966), The Children of Woot: A History of the Kuba Peoples, Oral Tradition as History (985), Living With Africa (1994) etc. Vansina got wide recognition and was awarded many times for his excellent work in the field of African history, including 'Distinguished Africanist Award, Melville J. Herskovits award, American Historical Association's award for Scholarly Distinction etc. Vansina died on 8th February, 2017 ( An Interview with Jan Vansina, Neil L Whitehead, Ethnohistory 42:2, Spring 1995).
Inside the book :
The first chapter named “Oral Tradition as Process” mostly deals with the concept and meaning of Oral Tradition and Oral History and its key elements.
The writer discusses the origination and transmission of messages- the core of Oral Tradition in the first chapter. According to Vansina(1985), “Oral Tradition applies to both the process and its product. The products are oral messages and the process is the transmission of such messages by word of mouth over time until the disappearance of the messages”( p 3). Here, Vansina traces the origination of messages through eyewitness,hearsay, visions, dreams and hallucinations etc. While most of the historians laid stress upon the fact that the eyewitness accounts are the most reliable source of history John Vansina denies the fact. According to Vansina(1985), “ Eyewitness accounts are always a personal experience as well and involve not only perception, but also emotions”(p.3). Vansina also criticised the historian's perspective about the eyewitness that the witness should have been able to see , able to understand what he saw and not put their own thought in order to be reliable. He put forward his argument with the example of a war scenery, where a soldier though a witness only sees a fraction of real happenings and often through the screens of smoke. In this context, Vansina states that in order to understand the total scenery, the witness should have to apply his own logic thus a coherent whole understanding would be possible for him. So, Vansina strongly opinioned that the eyewitnesses are not really so reliable, rather particularly. He also talks about the other ways of the generation of messages. The writer addressed the 'Rumour or Hearsay’ as the process by which a collective historical consciousness is built.
He also describes how these messages are interpreted in different ways and grouped those into categories like reminiscences (memories of actual events the speaker witnessed), commentaries (explanations or rumors about the past) and verbal art (poems, songs, or myths that are imaginative rather than factual). This is interesting because it shows we can’t treat every oral story as literal history; many serve as allegories or gossip. For example, Vansina points out that fairy tales and praise poems aren’t meant to be taken as factual accounts but rather as forms of expression.
Vansina then covers how oral tradition evolves over time. He notes that some traditions are memorized exactly (like epic poems or prayers that are repeated the same way every time), while others keep changing with each telling. For instance, genealogies or royal histories may aim to stay word-for-word accurate, but folktales or sayings can shift depending on the teller. He highlights categories like group accounts (stories known by everyone in the clan) and traditions of origin (myths about where a people came from). A notable point is that some of these (like origin myths) are often shaped by how a society sees itself at that time. Vansina states that oral tradition itself is a source of history, meaning historians can use it, but cautiously. One must differentiate between what’s factual and what’s added meaning. Vansina essentially suggests: if it’s news, treat it like current events; if it’s interpretation, recognize the underlying purpose. This chapter realises us that oral history isn’t just “old stories” but a whole process of how people remember and share information.
The second chapter named “ Performance, Tradition and Text” shows that oral tradition isn’t just words on a page, it’s a performance. Vansina emphasizes that telling an oral story is an event between the speaker and the audience. Storytellers use gestures, voice tones, music, or drums—essentially whatever it takes to keep people engaged. He gives examples like a magician telling tall tales at markets, royal praise-singers performing at coronations or elders quietly sharing news in a village circle. The key aspect is that the audience is active, they might laugh, cry, nod or even help finish lines and the storyteller can change the story on the spot to fit their reactions. In one example Vansina provides, a researcher only understood an account correctly after realizing it was told by a slave—knowing the speaker and setting changed the meaning entirely. This shows who is speaking and where matters significantly.
Vansina also points out that some storytellers are specialists. For instance, West African griots or royal court historians had specific roles and training to remember and perform certain traditions. He describes how a king of the Yoruba made official praise-singers memorize family histories and could punish them for lying.
Then, Vansina asks how oral traditions survive at all. He notes that in many traditions, repetition and ritual help people remember things. For example, performing at regular festivals (like annual funerals or harvest ceremonies) keeps a story alive. Storytellers often use memory aids. Vansina explains that not all performances aim for exact accuracy. Many folktales, jokes or parables intentionally vary each time to keep the audience engaged. However, things like dynastic chants or prayers strive for exact preservation. It was interesting to learn that in some societies, people even discouraged too much change. For example, Vansina mentions one Babanki village where priests would shout at villagers trying to retell an important myth in their own words.
Vansina treated oral tradition as a living practice, not just static text. The context and performance shape what an oral message truly is.
The third chapter named as “Getting the messages” focuses on interpreting oral messages. Vansina warns that even if you have the words, you might not grasp the real meaning. He distinguishes between apparent meaning (what the words seem to convey) and intended meaning (what the speaker actually meant). For instance, a phrase might contain a metaphor or wordplay that locals might only understand. Vansina shares an example where “donkey” and “summer” in a Somali song were misinterpreted plant names. If taken literally, you’d think they’re discussing animals and seasons when they were actually using coded language!
To dig deeper, he explains metaphors and allusions. All of this means a historian has to act like a detective: searching for double meanings.
Finally, he discusses the purpose behind the message. Essentially, why the story was told. He reminds us that storytellers often had a goal (to praise someone, teach a lesson, warn, etc.) and finding that goal is part of grasping history. If an epic was meant to glorify a king, it might inflate his actions; if a tale was meant to teach humility, it might highlight human flaws.
The fourth chapter is named as “The Message is a Social Product”. In this chapter, Vansina emphasizes that oral tradition is shaped by society. People tell stories not just randomly, but for social reasons. First, he looks at the social functions of messages. He explains that stories often support institutions like governments, religions, clans. For instance, kings might use histories to legitimize their rule or tribes might employ origin myths to unite members. Vansina gives an interesting example of how Malawian Ngoni historians made their people feel special by stressing their differences from neighboring groups- essentially using history to build a national identity. He also points out that traditions can be weapons or tools. If two chiefs are rivals, one might spread stories that portray the other poorly. Or religious leaders might share miracle stories to strengthen their faith community.
Vansina also discusses how traditions tend to idealize and select. Over time, ancestors transform into larger-than-life heroes. He says history “performs an exemplary function.” For example, decades after a Kuba king’s death, storytellers remembered him as a perfect ruler, ignoring any flaws. People forget the messy bits. He notes that in many cultures, only certain histories count as “real” history. Often, that means royal or religious history gets recorded, while the stories of ordinary people are regarded as less important. He shows that historically, those in power decided which accounts became “official” and which were overlooked.
The last part is called “Tradition Mirrors Society.” Here, Vansina compares traditions in different societies, showing that they usually reflect the society’s structure. The most striking example is Rwanda versus Burundi: they share culture and language, but Rwanda’s centralized monarchy fostered a rich tradition of royal poetry and genealogies, while Burundi’s fragmented power led to people generally “forgetting the past.” He quotes a Burundian saying that history held no interest at court, resulting in practically no historical accounts. In Rwanda, on the other hand, the king and chiefs wanted histories to justify their authority, leading to an abundance of epic songs and chronicles.
Chapter five “The Message Expresses Culture” Vansina explains that to interpret oral messages, we need to understand the culture’s worldview. He begins with basic concepts like space and time. For example, he describes how many African groups think in terms of “upstream” and “downstream” instead of north and south. The Kuba of Congo believed their world started at the mouth of a river (downstream), so their ancestors all migrated upstream from there. “Upstream” for them became the most sacred direction, linked to origin and sacred places. While this may sound strange to us, it meant that in their stories, every reference to space in a tradition may hold cultural significance.
Time represents another cultural concept. Vansina mentions that people combine linear and cyclical time. He cites the Maya, who believed in four worlds that become more perfect with each cycle and the Ainu of Japan, who saw the cosmos as consisting of cycles (with a golden age followed by decline). In some cultures, time could be measured by events (like “the year after the great flood”) rather than numbered years.
Finally, he discusses causality. He states that Western historians presume slow change and multiple causes, but in oral thinking, change often just “appears” suddenly. Institutions or customs are seen as arising fully formed at a point in the past. For example, an oral tradition might claim a king invented something out of nowhere, rather than detailing its gradual evolution.
In the sixth chapter, Jan Vansina explains that oral tradition is a shared storehouse of remembered information. He says that an individual’s memory of the past soon becomes part of the collective memory of the community. This happens because people constantly talk, perform, gossip and share stories. In this way, traditions become common knowledge, known and retold by many members of society. For example, in Kuba, even royal histories from the colonial period were remembered and told by many court informants, not just one person.
Vansina adds that this collective memory is alive and changing. Stories move from one group to another through conversation or travelling storytellers and get reshaped each time they are remembered or retold. Over time, memory organizes these stories into larger patterns, such as genealogies of heroes, tales of founding ancestors, or successions of rulers. This helps people remember and relate their past more easily. Vansina also points out that oral traditions generally do not record exact dates. They remember the order of events, not the calendar years. Therefore, historians must use social tools like lists of rulers or family genealogies to place these memories in sequence.
The seventh chapter named as “Oral tradition assessed” Vansina examines how far oral tradition can be trusted as a source of history. Vansina talks about its limitations. He says that because oral traditions lack exact dating and often turn into origin myths, it is difficult to connect them directly with outside evidence like archaeology or written records. Sometimes, such evidence supports part of a tradition, but often the match is not exact.
He also explains that oral tradition is selective and interpretative. Storytellers tend to highlight events or ancestors that are important for the present society and reshape older stories to fit modern beliefs or values. This process means that some details are forgotten and what remains often reflects current concerns..
Therefore, he advises historians to treat oral traditions as working hypotheses , ideas to be tested and compared with other evidence, not blindly accepted. Despite their weaknesses, Vansina believes oral traditions have a unique value. They give the insider’s view of a society, its local life, customs, and beliefs which written records, often created by outsiders, fail to show.
He concludes that oral traditions are not substitutes for written records but are equally important wherever they exist. They add the local or indigenous viewpoint and can even correct outside biases. However, one should not expect them to provide detailed or exact information like written archives. They give a broader and sometimes broken picture, but they are still crucial for understanding cultures that depend on memory. .
Strength and weaknesses of the book :
The book gives respect to Oral Stories as a source of history. Before this book, many historians in the West thought oral stories were just "myths" and not real history. Vansina's biggest strength is that he shows oral tradition is a serious and valid source of history. The book is like a manual for historians. It doesn't just say "use oral stories." It teaches how to use them. It gives a method to collect, understand, and check the stories properly. We often think "seeing is believing." But Vansina smartly points out that even an eyewitness (someone who saw the event) can be wrong. Their memory can be shaky or their emotions might change the story. This is a very strong, practical point. Vansina shows that oral tradition is not a dead, old story. It is a "living" thing. It is a "process" and a "performance." The meaning changes based on who is telling it, why they are telling it and who is listening. This is a very deep insight. The book's biggest strength is showing that stories are not just stories. They are connected to society. A king's story is told to make him look strong. A village's origin story is told to unite the people. Vansina teaches us to ask: "Why is this story being told now? What is its purpose?" Vansina is not a blind supporter. He is very honest. He clearly lists all the problems and weaknesses of using oral stories. This honesty makes his argument more powerful, not less.
Though the book is a classic, it has some weaknesses too. The book was written in an overly rigid and "Mechanical" method. Vansina's main goal was to prove that oral tradition could be a serious, scientific source, just like a written text. To do this, he created a complex system for classifying traditions (e.g., "official," "private," "tales," "poems") and a rigorous method for finding the "original" message. Later critics argued this approach was too rigid and "mechanical” and Vansina's method missed the human element. The book is a masterpiece of African history and Vansina's fieldwork was primarily in the Congo, Rwanda, and Burundi. The book's examples and case studies are overwhelmingly African. Critics have questioned whether his highly structured model, built for Central African societies (often kingdoms or clans), can be applied to other cultures. It may not work as well for understanding the traditions of nomadic peoples in Asia, Indigenous communities in the Americas or folk traditions in Europe, which have different social structures and purposes for their stories. Vansina (especially in his early work) focused on the "message" or "text" of the tradition. Later scholars, like David William Cohen argued that the performance is everything. The way a story is told (the gestures, the audience's reaction, the singer's tone) isn't just decoration; it is the meaning. While Vansina's 1985 book includes a chapter on performance, this was a major update to his 1961 original. One reason he updated it was to respond to this very criticism. The book was written for a high-level academic audience to win a methodological argument. The field of oral history later moved in a different direction. Scholars like David Henige became more interested in "Oral History" as the personal memories of individuals about their own lifetimes. Vansina's book was more focused on the societal context.
Conclusion :
In short, Vansina's book is a classic. Its strength is that it gives historians the tools and confidence to use oral traditions, while also giving them strict warnings about the difficulties. It's a must-read for understanding the "unwritten" past. The book made a pathway for the study of oral traditions to use as a source of history. The extensive narration of each element related to oral history makes the book the best one on the topic. It shows the path to historians to accept that oral stories are real historical evidence, just like old documents.Vansina created a step-by-step method for checking if an oral story is believable. This method made the study of oral tradition scientific. The book clearly showed that oral tradition is not just a bunch of facts, but a "process." It explained that a story's meaning depends on who tells it and why it is told. Even with the criticisms, this book is the foundation of the whole field. It proved that history is more than just reading books, it's about understanding how people remember their past.