The Cognition of the F A€I at Zim
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
1998 ACSA INTERNATIONAL CON[-EKENCE 727 The Cognition of the F a€I at Zim ELLEN PHILLIPS SOROKA Arizona Stale University IN'I'RODUCTION ful gold mines in the African in~eriordue west of Sofala-conill-med the desire to identify the Gri:nL Zimbabwe with King Solomon'c The prospect of new world(s) sunimons us into o/ller. worlds. The mines. By the 17th century, such ruminations had become common tools with which we examine the unknown arc inevitably obsolete. enough currency for Milton in Prrr.irtli.te Lost to mahe reference to hampering our re-cognition of unexplored fields of knowledge. Sofala in Moqambique as "Sofala thought Ophir." Thercfosc, 19th- More often, the expectations surrounding the discovery and scrutiny ccntir~-yBritish settlers. led by Cecil Khodes, explored Zimbabwe of new worlds are saddled with proclivities, myth and lore which with predetermined assumptions about its identity and histol-y. compromise exploration. Through a narrative of the rnercantile and When the Great Zimbabwe \vas illst discovered by Mauch, it \\as political exploitation of the Great Zirnbabwc. this paper seeks to quickly acquired as a tcrrito~yby the 81-itishSouth Africa Company illustrate how predetmined hypotheses in the exploration of new -the only British colonial preservt. acquil-ed for the distinct purpose frontiers thwarted and continues to inipcde a rnore inclusive research in the case of the Great Zimbabwe, an historical monurnent on ICOMOS' register of world monuments. COGNITION The Great Zimbabwe has been at the center of sub-Saharan archaco- logical debate for over a century. Late 19th-century British settlers -believing that the Great Zirnbabwc w;~sthe"lost city ol'Ophir - the site of King Solomon's mines" - werc intent on exploring it for its mineral wealth. It is now an ancient symbol of a newly forrned nation. One ofthe few remaining stone pre-historic monuments on the African continent outside the pyramids, the Great Zimbabwe presented an opportunity to the British South Africa Company, led by Cecil Khodes, to exploit its mineral deposits. (Ke)tliscovered by Carl Mauch in 1871, Mauch published the impression that the monument was in fact the site of the Biblical "Ophir," despite the apparent dissonance between the Great Zirnbabwc and the descrip- tion of Solomon's temple in the book of Kings in the Bible. Published stories by Arab traders in the 10th century and Portuguese traders in the 16th century about stone fortresses protecting bounti- Fig. I Northwest entry to Great Enclosure Fig. 2. Acrial view of Great Enclosure. Fig. 3. Slioila h~itli~ade of wntt!c and daub Fig. 5. Beginning of procession 10 HnVc~ltlaHolr~estead in KI-LI~CI-Nation;ll P;u.h. SOLI~!~Africa. Fig. 4. "Slreet" at thc Great Zimbabwe. Fig. 6. Manyika stone house in Eastem Highlnnds of Zimbabwe 1998 ACSA INTLliNATlONAL CONf-ERENCF. 379 that built with dry stone architecture todisplay its power, rather than excavate gold. Theil- explanation for the entire disappearance of stone building amongst the contemporary MaShona. and tlie shift back to wattle arid daub, was tlic deterioration ofthat power 1111-ougli colonic11invasion. Howecer, there 31-eexisting Bantu cultur-es in the eastern highlands of Zimbabwe. northern South Africa and Mopnbicpc that contiliue to build in dry stone consti-uction with gl-eat similarity to the technical style at the Great Zinibabwe. Thcliistory and archaeology of settlement with dry stone architec- ture in moclern Zimbabwe. Mopnbique and South Africa, Zambia and Malawi has been, siuce theend ol'the I9thcentury and beginning of the 20th century, a fascinating and hotly debated research issue. The Great Zimbabwe has been at the center of th~sdebate because despite the presence of difl.ering types of stonc building throughout Zimbabwe, Moprnbique, northern South Africa, Malawi, Zambia and Botswana, the Great Zinibabwe is the nio,t draniatic and largest prehistoric site in sub-Sahal-an Africa. The myth that the Great Zimhab\~ewas tied to ancient gold mining motivated a sinplar Fi?. 8. Lll~des\edwm "lir~~al"\\.it11 dnsa a\ cclrlent and d,ya huts above in preconceivecl archaeological study of it - at first by amateur archae- Mauyika Eastern HlgI~lmd\.jl.lmh;~h\vc. ologists who stimulated iuterest in the stone ~nonumentby profes- sional arcliacologists as early as 1905.1 Therefor-e, much of the archaeological study of the Grcat Zimbabwe throughout the 20th century has separated it lrom three stone building types found in Mopnbique. northern South Africa and Zimbabwe: the lriyanga stone pit dwelling and dry stone terracing of eastern Zimbabwe, the zirnbabwe free standing dry stone building found in Zimbabwe, Mocambique xid northern South Africa, and dry stone retaining wall construction best rcpresentetl at sites like Khami and Dhlo- Dhlo, r~otOIS tiom the Grcat Zinibabwe. All in all, there are 500 known smaller dry stonc ruins througliout Zirnbabwe, northern South Africa, and Mopnbique varying technically and formally from one nnolhcr which have not been systematically studied in rclationsliip to the stone technology at the Grcat Zimbabwe or to one another. Dry stone construction has beer] labelled "~i~nbabwe" Fig. 9. Retaining dl-y stonc walls at Kl~a~rii,Zirr~babwr (spelled with a ~ed)due to the mcaning ol' the ~vorilzinihab\\e: "houses of stonc." Subscribc~-sto typing this stone construclicm and atti-ihuting formal differences to differing cultures of diifering time periods' h;we bcen challenged by contempomry in~erptetatiolithat PI-efers identifying stone construction in sub-Sahara Africa as part of au "encompming civilization."' Ironically, Randall blaclver wote in 190G4: There is no difference whatever in essential character hetween the rough buildiugs that are found in tlic Inyay clisrrict xicl those of the Monornotnpa Capilal: Grcat Zimlxlb~~~c.Ziinb:~- bwe reproduces every Seat111-eof the northern sites, only with more elaboration anti on a Iiuger scale. The "Elliptical Ternple"can be completely explained as a co~nbinationof the developed form of Inyanga hill-fort with such a stone-fenced krml as Nanatali. The lack of information aboul ethnological history aucl the sputty archaeological digging amongst the 1111-eetypes of huilil~n,0 'ti:~~e yielded inconclusive and conllicting theories about llir "/imh;lb\vc stone culture." Pre-colonial history is a young discipline. ROI-nin the l96O'a, much of what its sources del)ci~~lcdon in Zimbabw were oral tradition and written Arab and Pol-t~~gueseaccounts. Ry the 1 !)go's, prc-colonial history had become outclntcd and investisatins the political history of people shal-ing the sxne language was cor1side1-ed "tribalist" and "l-acist."As the contemporary Shona do Fig. 7. Sou~hdry stone and u~~dsesszdwall of GI-rutE~~closusc, hlasvingo not build in stone, ac;idemic ~~rclic~eologyin Zilnb:ibwe today prtj- Zilnhabwc. motes [lie study of the I-uinsas evidence 01.2 ubiquitous civilization 330 CONSTRUCTING NEW WORLDS with little physical or written evidence beyond the stone building of buttresses, platforms, pillars and hut mounds appear throughout. the Zimbabwe Kame culture and Moorish and Portuguese reports. The Great Enclosure's walls are characterized by masonry detailing By contrast, the Zimbabwe government has no interest in further that is allegedly several centuries later than the Hilltop Enclosure research connecting the Great Zimbabwe to stone building beyond and suggests, to those that think the same people built the Great it borders, sustaining pre-colonial historical conclusions which Enclosure as did the Hilltop Enclosure, that the later building marks separate the Shona from other Bantu cultures building in stone a clear development of "technological style."' In this sense, the outside Zimbabwe today, as well as Bantu cultures within Zimba- "style" of walling of the north-east wall of the Great Enclosure is bwe building typologically otherwise than free standing stone wall- probably the most impressive walling throughout the Great Zimba- ing. bwe. The conical towers that mark the Great Enclosure are com- On the other hand, the Great Ziniababwe has been exhaustively pletely solid and previous digs to probe them for treasure or to studied throughout the 20th century by a series of archeological and determine their function have all yielded virtually no understanding has remained the focus of archaeological scholarship in the 20th to date. (Archaeological analysis throughout the 20th century has century, intent on establishing its authorship. The present Zimba- remained speculative because, despite numerous amateur excava- bwean government continues to reinforce the claim that the Great tions and professionally organized digs, early looting by amateurs Zimbabwe was the locus of a Shona empire, a curiosity that and profiteers at the beginning of the 20th century removed five to promotes tourism. six levels of strata, leaving behind findings that had been shifted Consequently, differing written accounts -by Arab, Portuguese, around thus thwarting conclusive archaeological investigation.' English and Dutch profiteers in the loth, 16th and 19th centuries Inconclusive evidence has not stopped speculation, however. Four respectively, and 20th-century archaeological speculation marred professional archaeological digs, (includingcarbon dating) intended by political manipulation - have unremittingly sensationalized the to finally date the ruins have simply added more contention to the narration of the Great Zimbabwe, perpetuating expectations about it number of already abundant stories about the Great Zimbabwe, when it was discovered to some, while constructing narratives that while political oppression has precluded any further attempts to cannot be confirmed to others. draw parallels to stone building outside of Zimbabwe. Before independence and befhre it was fashionable to attribute the ICONOGRAPHIC RATIONALIZATION building of the Great Zimbabwe to the Shona people, Peter Garlake, African Shona and Rhodesian white Nationalists alike endorsed a local white archaeologist and architect, was deported for his contradictory and tnutually exclusive accounts of the origins of the assertions in The Great Zitnbnbrve of 1972, that the Shona built the ruins in order tojustify their rule.