ABSTRACT
N ow here does the weight o f historiography press so insistently upon the study o f imperialism as in the case o f the partition o f Africa. So m uch has been w ritten on this theme on behalf o f so many competing theories that few interpretations, even o f points o f detail, can resist the absorptive pow er o f the existing literature.2 Given that the quality o f this research is as impressive as its weight, it m ight be thought that the subject now requires fine-tuning rather than thorough reappraisal. H ow ever, the growth o f knowledge has had the perplexing result o f making it easier to say what is w rong w ith current interpretations than what is right. Historians who wish to move beyond this point appear to face a choice betw een retreating to the high ground o f deductive certainty and taking shelter in the empirical undergrowth. Yet, as we shall try to show, the anomalies in the literature can be resolved once the assumptions underlying existing interpretations are removed.
