Great Zimbabwe

Great Zimbabwe was a city in the south-eastern hills of the modern country of Zimbabwe, near Masvingo. It was settled from around 1000 CE, and served as the capital of the Kingdom of Great Zimbabwe from the 13th century. It is the largest stone structure in precolonial Southern Africa. Major construction on the city began in the 11th century until the 15th century, and it was abandoned in the 16th or 17th century. The edifices were erected by ancestors of the Shona people, currently located in Zimbabwe and nearby countries. The stone city spans an area of . Population estimates vary. Earlier estimates suggest a peak population of around 20,000 people. A recent study using archaeological, ethnographic, and historical evidence, along with statistical modeling suggests that the sites population did not exceed 10,000 people. The Zimbabwe state centred on it likely covered 50,000 km² (19,000 sq mi). Great Zimbabwe and surrounding sites were looted by European antiquarians between the 1890s and 1920s. Some later studies of the monument were controversial, as the white government of Rhodesia pressured archaeologists to deny its construction by black Africans. Its African origin only became consensus by the 1950s. Great Zimbabwe has since been adopted as a national monument by the Zimbabwean government, and the modern independent state was named after it.

The word great distinguishes the site from the many smaller ruins, known as "zimbabwes", or "houses of stone", spread across the Zimbabwe Highveld. More than 400 sites have been identified across Southern Africa, such as Bumbusi in Zimbabwe and Manyikeni in Mozambique, with monumental, mortarless walls.

The name contains , the Shona term for 'houses'. There are two theories for the etymology of the name. The first proposes that the word is derived from , translated from Shona as 'large houses of stone' ( = plural of , 'house'; = plural of , 'stone'). A second suggests that Zimbabwe is a contracted form of , which means 'venerated houses' in the Zezuru dialect of Shona, as usually applied to the houses or graves of chiefs.

History and description

right|thumb|Overview of Great Zimbabwe. The large walled construction is the Great [[Enclosure (archaeology)|Enclosure. Some remains of the valley complex can be seen in front of it.]]

thumb|Plan of the complex (first published in J.T. Bent's Ruined Cities of Mashonaland, London, 1892, after p. 121).

Settlement

The Great Zimbabwe area was previously settled by the San, dating back 100,000 years, and, starting around 150 BCE, by Bantu-speaking peoples, who formed agricultural chiefdoms starting in the 4th century CE. These are the earliest Iron Age settlements in the area identified from archaeological diggings, and the later Gumanye people are considered the ancestors of the Karanga (south-central Shona), who would construct Great Zimbabwe.

Construction and growth

Construction of the stone buildings started in the 11th century and continued for over 300 years. Agriculture and cattle played a key role in developing a vital social network, and served to "enfranchise management of goods and services distributed as benefits within traditional political and social institutions", while long distance trade was crucial for the transformation of localised organisations into regional ones. The ruling dynasty used their wealth to make houses out of thick (earthen daub), rather than and poles, and built stone walls to shield themselves from public view. The aforementioned process advanced rapidly in the 13th century, and saw the construction of large dry-stone walls.

The ruins at Great Zimbabwe are some of the oldest and largest structures located in Southern Africa. Its most formidable edifice, commonly referred to as the Great Enclosure, has walls as high as extending approximately . Its growth has been linked to the decline of Mapungubwe from around 1300, or the greater availability of gold in the hinterland of Great Zimbabwe. The institutionalisation of Great Zimbabwe's politico-religious ideology served to legitimise the position of the king (), with a link between leaders, their ancestors, and God. According to Ken Mufuka the shrine in the Hill Complex was the home of spirit mediums () who were tasked with acting as the conscience of the state, and preserving the traditions of the founders, who he says were Chigwagu Rusvingo (the first ), Chaminuka, Chimurenga, Tovera, and Soro-rezhou among others (see ).

thumb|Aerial view of the Great Enclosure and Valley Complex, looking west

Traditional estimates are that Great Zimbabwe had as many as 18,000 inhabitants at its peak. However, a more recent survey concluded that the population likely never exceeded 10,000. The ruins that survive are built entirely of stone; they span . Great Zimbabwe covered a similar area to medieval London; while the density of buildings within the stone enclosures was high, in areas outside them it was much lower. The Great Enclosure is composed of an inner wall, encircling a series of structures and a younger outer wall. The Conical Tower, in diameter and high, was constructed between the two walls. The Valley Complex is divided into the Upper and Lower Valley Ruins, with different periods of occupation. The focus of power moved from the Hill Complex in the 12th century, to the Great Enclosure, the Upper Valley and finally the Lower Valley in the early 16th century. The alternative "structuralist" interpretation holds that the different complexes had different functions: the Hill Complex as an area for rituals, perhaps related to rain making, the Valley complex was for the citizens, and the Great Enclosure was used by the king. Structures that were more elaborate were probably built for the kings, although it has been argued that the dating of finds in the complexes does not support this interpretation.

Dhaka pits were closed depressions utilized by inhabitants of Great Zimbabwe as sources of water management in the form of reservoirs, wells and springs. Dhaka pits may have been in use since the mid-2nd millennium CE and the system could hold more than of water storage.

Notable artefacts

thumb|right|Copy of Zimbabwe Bird soapstone sculpture

The most important artefacts recovered from the monument are the eight Zimbabwe Birds. These were carved from a micaceous schist (soapstone) on the tops of monoliths the height of a person. Slots in a platform in the Eastern Enclosure of the Hill Complex appear designed to hold the monoliths with the Zimbabwe birds, but as they were not found in situ, the original location of each monolith and bird within the enclosure cannot be determined. Other artefacts include soapstone figurines (one of which is in the British Museum), pottery, iron gongs, elaborately worked ivory, iron and copper wire, iron hoes, bronze spearheads, copper ingots and crucibles, and gold beads, bracelets, pendants and sheaths. Glass beads and porcelain from China and Persia among other foreign artefacts were also found, attesting the international trade linkages of the kingdom. The extensive, remaining stone ruins of the great city include eight monolithic soapstone birds. It is thought that they represent the bateleur eagle – a good omen, protective spirit and messenger of the gods in Shona culture.

Trade

thumb|Map of trade centres and routes in precolonial Zimbabwe.

Great Zimbabwe became a centre for trading, Regional networks were expansive, and salt, cattle, grain, and copper were traded as far north as the Kundelungu Plateau in present-day DR Congo. A significant portion of Great Zimbabwe's wealth came from the domination of trade routes from the goldfields of the Zimbabwean Plateau to the Swahili coast. Traders travelled the Save and Runde rivers, possibly using locally-produced canoes. Through Swahili city-states such as Sofala, they exported gold and ivory into the Indian Ocean trade. The Swahili coastal trading cities acted as intermediaries that linked inland African trade networks with merchangs who were operating across the Indian Ocean.That international commerce was in addition to the local agricultural trade, in which cattle were especially important.

Gold working

In archaeological research, Great Zimbabwe was a significant site for gold working in Southern Africa. Such discoveries indicated how gold production was a skill and needed practice rather than a common activity. Recent studies released evidence of debris left behind from gold working which confirmed that gold was processed in certain areas of the site. This acknowledged that gold working was a meaningful part in craft traditions and its value in economy. The excavations had revealed clay containers, crucibles, and tools which were used to heat gold and turn it into wire, beads, or decorative accessories. It is plausible the aquifer Great Zimbabwe sat on top of ran out of water, or the growing population contaminated the water.

From the early 15th century, international trade began to decline amid a global economic downturn, reducing demand for gold, which adversely affected Great Zimbabwe. In response to this, elites possibly expanded regional trading networks, resulting in greater prosperity for other settlements in the region. By the late 15th century, the consequences of this decision would have begun to manifest, as offshoots from Great Zimbabwe's royal family formed new dynasties, possibly as a result of losing succession disputes. According to oral tradition, Nyatsimba Mutota, a member of Great Zimbabwe's royal family, led part of the population north in search for salt, and founded the Mutapa Empire. By the 16th century, political and economic power had shifted away from Great Zimbabwe to the north and west. The site likely continued to be inhabited into the 17th century, before it was eventually abandoned. Mired in racial prejudice, Rhodesians found it inconceivable that the structures could have been built by indigenous Africans, stipulating that archaeological discoveries of Persian bowls and Chinese celadon were the result of pre-Bantu settlement. The colonial government pressured archaeologists to deny that the structure was built by indigenous Africans, because acknowledging it would have dismantled their "civilising mission" rationale. The refutation of various fantastical and dehumanising theories ascribing the construction to Jews, Arabs, Phoenicians, and anyone but the Shona, along with other activities of the antiquarians, dominated the historiography of Great Zimbabwe throughout the 20th century. Its African origin only became consensus by the 1950s.

From Portuguese traders to Karl Mauch

The first European visit may have been made by the Portuguese traveler António Fernandes in 1513–1515, who crossed twice and reported in detail the region of present-day Zimbabwe (including the Shona kingdoms) and also fortified centers in stone without mortar. However, passing en route a few kilometres north, and about south of the site, he did not make a reference to Great Zimbabwe. Portuguese traders heard about the remains of the medieval city in the early 16th century, and records survive of interviews and notes made by some of them, linking Great Zimbabwe to gold production and long-distance trade.

In 1506, the explorer Diogo de Alcáçova described the edifices in a letter to Manuel I of Portugal, writing that they were part of the larger kingdom of Ucalanga (presumably Karanga, a dialect of the Shona people spoken mainly in Masvingo and Midlands provinces of Zimbabwe). João de Barros left another such description of Great Zimbabwe in 1538, as recounted to him by Moorish traders who had visited the area and possessed knowledge of the hinterland. He indicates that the edifices were locally known as Symbaoe, which meant "royal court" in the vernacular. As to the actual identity of the builders of Great Zimbabwe, de Barros writes:

Additionally, with regard to the purpose of the Great Zimbabwe ruins, de Barros asserted that: "in the opinion of the Moors who saw it [Great Zimbabwe] it is very ancient and was built to keep possessions of the mines, which are very old, and no gold has been extracted from them for years, because of the wars ... it would seem that some prince who has possession of these mines ordered it to be built as a sign thereof, which he afterwards lost in the course of time and through their being so remote from his kingdom". who had been living with a local tribe. In 1871 he showed the ruins to Karl Mauch, a German explorer and geographer of Africa. Karl Mauch recorded the ruins and immediately discounted any possibility of native construction and claimed a wooden lintel at the site must be Lebanese cedar, brought by Phoenicians. The Sheba legend, as promoted by Mauch, became so pervasive in the white settler community as to cause the later scholar James Theodore Bent to say,