South African Archaeological Society

The Chronology of Great Zimbabwe

Author(s): Thomas N. Huffman and J. C. Vogel
Source: The South African Archaeological Bulletin, Vol. 46, No. 154 (Dec., 1991), pp. 61-70
Published by: South African Archaeological Society
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3889086 .
Accessed: 28/06/2014 15:58

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

South African Archaeological Society is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
The South African Archaeological Bulletin.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 91.220.202.116 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 15:58:06 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
South African Archaeological Bulletin 46: 61-70, 1991
THE CHRONOLOGYOF GREATZIMBABWE*
THOMAS N. HUFFMAN
Departmentof Archaeology, Universityof the
Witwatersrand,P 0 Wits, 2050
and
J. C. VOGEL
Natural Isotopes Division, Earth, Marine and Atmospheric
Science and Technology, CSIR, P 0 Box 395, Pretoria,
0001
ABSTRACT
A series of 21 radiocarbon dates are now available for
Great Zimbabwe. Within the limits of the technique, this
series provides precise chronological criteria for
interpreting the sequence of occupations at this famous
site. The main occupation of the Zimbabwe culture, the
one associated with the stone walls, can be bracketedto a
two hundred year period, ending in the mid-fifteenth
century.
* Received April 1991, revised August 1991
History of Dating
Great Zimbabwe, near present day Masvingo, is one of
the best known archaeologicalsites in sub-SaharanAfrica.
During its florescence, this stone-walled complex covered
some 78 ha and probablyhoused more than 18 000 people
(Huffman 1986). This makes it the largest settlement of a
culture that encompassed most of present-day Zimbabwe
as well as parts of Botswana, the northernTransvaaland
Mozambique.
The Zimbabwe culture was first reported to the
Western world in the sixteenth century by the Portuguese
(e.g. De Barros 1552 in Theal 1900:6:264-273), although
Great Zimbabwe itself was not described in detail until
Carl Mauch explored the ruins in the late nineteenth
century (Mauch 1872; Burke 1969). From the time of the
Portuguese, explanations of the Zimbabwe culture have
been interwoven with estimates of its age, and a brief
outline of earlier dating estimates helps put the new radio-
carbonchronology presentedhere into perspective
Carl Mauch, like other educated Europeans, had been
taught that the hinterland of Sofala (near modern Beira)
was the Biblical land of Ophir and that stone-walled
settlements such as Great Zimbabwe had been established
at the time of Solomon to exploit the country's gold
reserves. When Zimbabwe was colonized by Rhodes's
BSA company in 1890, virtually every investigator
embracedthis 'exotic hypothesis'. Some believed the ruins
had been built by Phoenicians, others by Arabiansand still
others thought the Egyptians were responsible (Bent 1892;
Wilmot 1896; Hall & Neal 1902; Hall 1905). This
hypothesis and correspondingancient dating was based on
such things as a superficial resemblance between Great
Zimbabwe and the ruins in southern Arabia, spurious
similarities inl names such as Ophir and Fura (also called
Mount Darwin), the false identificationof naturalmarksas
Himyaritic script and the belief that only ancient Rhodesia
This content downloaded from 91.220.202.116 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 15:58:06 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
61
could have yielded the amountof gold creditedto Ophir.
This 'exotic hypothesis' was not contested until a
professionally trained archaeologist, David MacIver,
investigated the ruins complex in 1905. MacIver had been
sent by the British Association for the Advancement of
Science to conduct researchand then reporton his findings
at its CommonwealthMeeting in Cape Town later in the
year.
The Association followed this procedure in order to
stimulateresearchthroughoutthe British Empire. MacIver
(1906) dated Great Zimbabwe to the mediaeval period by
establishing the stratigraphicalrelationship of the stone
walls with fourteenth to sixteenth century AD imports
from the Near East and China. This late mediaeval dating
completely contradictedthe 'exotic hypothesis' and helped
to form part of the foundation of MacIver's 'essentially
African' interpretation.
MacIver's interpretationwas strenuously rejected by
the public - a rejection still found today - and the British
Association commissioned Gertrude Caton-Thompsonin
1929 to resolve the debate. She vindicated MacIver in
most respects, particularly his 'essentially African'
interpretation and mediaeval dating (Caton-Thompson
1931).
The debate over the origins of the Zimbabwe culture,
however, involves emotion and politics as well as
scientific enquiry, and adherents of the exotic hypothesis
were not convinced.
Unfortunately, the first radiometric dates from Great
Zimbabwe only confised the issue further. Two wooden
lintels were found in 1950 in a wall in the Great Enclosure
(Summers1955), the large building in the valley below the
Hill Ruin (Fig. 1). The lintels originally supported the
wall over a drain built in its base, and so they were
unquestionably associated with its construction. Shortly
after their discovery, a piece of lintel I was sent to W. F.
Libby in Chicago, the originator of radiocarbondating,
who dated the wood to AD 535 ? 160. Since this result
was incompatiblewith the dated imports found by MacIver
and Caton-Thompson, Libby dated the lintel two more
times with comparableresults: AD 606 ? 16 and AD 674
? 260 (Libby 1952). As a furthercheck the second lintel
was then dated by Libby (1954) to AD 444 ? 35, and by
F. E. Zeuner (1955) at the University of London to AD
710 ? 80. These surprisingly early dates were either
rejected or placed in abeyance by most of the
archaeological community, although some people used
them as support for the exotic origins of the ruins. (We
returnlater to their true dates.)
In 1958 a large scale excavation programme was
conducted at Great Zimbabwe by Roger Summers, Keith
Robinson and Anthony Whitty to refine the ceramic and
architecturalsequences and to establish a firm radiocarbon
chronology (Summers et al. 1961). Their outline became
the framework of all subsequent research on Zimbabwe.
From the stratigraphyand radiocarbondates in the Hill
Ruin (Fig. 2), five periods of occupationswere correlated
with three architecturalphases (P, Q and R) developed in
the GreatEnclosure:
Period 1 Class I pottery no walling AD 100 to 300 unknownBantu-speakers
Period1I Class 2 pottery no walling AD 300 to 1085 early Karanga
Period111 Class 3 pottery P walling AD 1085 to 1450 Shorn (i.e. CentralShona)
Period lV Class 4 pottery Q walling AD 1450 to 1833 Roewi
PeriodV Class 5 pottery R walling AD 1833 to 1900 recentKaranga
Garlake(1968) substantiallyshortenedthis outlineby
 62 South African Archaeological Bulletin

./ * * ad * + N

#~'' 1 ~~-
' 'p

IN

4stone wall,-
., ', ,^ COURTr *

it *-*:*# *~- *
00"to b . GE,**** X r~

0 ~ vI'.'
OM
I

fF ..X ~>"""'4'".N

Fig. 1. Central area of Great Zimbabwe showing (WE), Great Enclosure (GE), Phillips Ruin (PR),
location of the Western Enclosure of the Hill Ruin Z1(1) and Z4(4).

demonstrating through an examination of the imported
ceramics that Great Zimbabwe must have been virtually
abandoned by the mid-fifteenth century, rather than
destroyed during the nineteenth century difaqane.
Summers,Robinson and Whitty held this other view even
though they did not have any sixteenth to eighteenth
century deposits because they thought earlier excavators
had removed the archaeologicalevidence.
Large areas of the site were again excavated between
1971 and 1976 by Huffman. As part of this investigation
several more samples from the 1958 project were dated,
and these together with dates from the 1970s excavations
allow a more precise interpretationof the sequence at
Great Zimbabwe. We now turn to this new interpretation.
For convenience we first present uncalibratedresults with
reference to the stratigraphyin the Western Enclosure of
the Hill Ruin (Figs 3-5), where Robinson developed the
five-Period sequence.

This content downloaded from 91.220.202.116 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 15:58:06 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
South African Archaeological Bulletin 63

Fig. 2. Western Enclosure of Hill Ruin, Great level to Period II and identified the associated pottery as
Zimbabwe. Courtesy Zimbabwe Department of his Class 2. At the time of the excavation, the seventh to
Tourism. tenth century Early Iron Age unit now called Zhizo had
not been defined or even recognized. From a re-
examination of the Hill Ruin collection, it is now clear
The Revised Chronology that Zhizo ceramicsoccur at least in level 3 of Tests V and
VI. CharacteristicZhizo sherds have also been recovered
from an open area below ZimbabweHill, and there seems
Period I
The earliest Iron Age occupation at Great Zimbabwe is
represented in the Western Enclosure by a layer of
ochreous hill earth, resting on bedrock, which contained
burnt fragments of pole-impressed daga (mud) and
Robinson's (1961b, 1961c) Class 1 pottery. Associated 61-
charcoal from the bottom of level 3 in Test V was dated by
the Michigan laboratory (M913) to AD 320 + 150.
Although the standard error of this date appears large, the
reliability of the result is not in doubt because Michigan at
the time doubled its standard errors, and similar pottery
(e.g. Robinson 1963) has been dated to the first half of the
.3K
first millennium AD in other parts of Zimbabwe. The
precise identification of Class 1 pottery, however, is
contested. Some believe it represents an early Kalundu (or
Western Stream) presence (Huffman 1982), while the
traditional view places it within the Gokomere unit
(Robinson 1961c). Whatever the case, these Early Iron
Age people pre-dated the growth of Great Zimbabwe as a 0 20 40 60feet
stone-walled settlement, for the Period I deposit in Test IV 0 10 20 metres
lies at least 3,3 m beneath the earliest stone walls.
The level immediately above this fourth century
deposit in Test VI has now been radiocarbon dated to AD Fig. 3. Location of Robinson's (1961b) Tests I-VI in
670 ? 40 (Pta-1983). Robinson originally ascribed this the WesternEnclosure.

This content downloaded from 91.220.202.116 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 15:58:06 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 64
1440?150 *.:~ fooora
1370?50 GdHu~tC 7
1310?45 lo
loor hz10
~~Class4b
1280? 45
1260? 45 * lozl__ -
Class 4a
110 40
Class 3
107S 150 Class 2
Class la
Fig. 4. Location of radiocarbon samples and revised
ceramic classes in Test I, Hill Ruin. Redrawn from
Robinson 1961b.
no reason to doubt the association between Pta-1983 and a
Zhizo occupation of the area. We refer to this Zhizo
occupation as Period lb and the lower Kalundu occupation
as Ta.
Period II
The level above the Period Lb deposit in Test VI
correlates with level 2 in Test V and level 14 in Test I.
These levels contain bone points, cattle figurines and Class
2 pottery and together form the Period II occupation.
Similar pottery, now known as Gumanye, has been radio-
carbon dated to AD 970 ? 35 (Pta-1919) and AD 1060
? 40 (Pta-1922) at Chiwova Hill (Hall & Vogel 1980;
Sinclair 1984) and to AD 1020 ? 35 (Pta-1916) at
Gumanye Hill (Hall & Vogel 1980). Although the
Gumanye levels at Great Zimbabwe have not been dated,
the level above (Test I, level 13) has been dated to AD
1075 ? 150 (M-914). According to Robinson, this level
marked the beginning of Period III. Some of the pottery,
however, is within the range of Class 2, and the level
could also mark the end of Period II. This last interpreta-
tion is strengthened by the fact that typical Period III hut
floors only occur above level 13 in Test I and above level
2 in Tests V and VI. Under the circumstances, then, the
eleventh century date from level 13 is probably best
considered as an interface between Period IL and III. This
point becomes clearer with a consideration of Period III.
Period III
Period III deposits are characterized by the remains of
substantial houses made with solid, red-daga walls and
bevelled curbs, distinct from the pole-and-daga huts of
Periods I and II. Besides the new type of daga structures
Robinson noted new elements in the ceramic assemblage.
For example, the paste of Class 3 pottery was finer, the
surface of some vessels were burnished brown and narrow
bands of triangles were incised on the shoulder of jars
characterized by a sharp neck/shoulder inflexion point.
Because these new ceramic elements coincided with the
new daga structures, Robinson believed Period III
represented the introduction of a new population. But
because many older ceramic types existed in the Class 3
assemblage, he believed the earlier people were absorbed
rather than replaced. Usually, such an interpretationis
justified when the ceramic intrusion is at the assemblage
This content downloaded from 91.220.202.116 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 15:58:06 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
South African Archaeological Bulletin
Lt_< 44 ~~~~~~~~~~~~1
280? 30
South wall PWDsection
1190?50
1 - L / \ Class1b 670?40
Class2/\
2Classslb
Class2b 3 Cas E m I;
Classla i Class
s9
330 150
Fig. 5. Location of radiocarbon samples and revised
ceramic classes in Tests IV-VI, Hill Ruin. Redrawn
from Robinson 1961b.
rather than the trait level (Rouse 1958). As a predictive
consequence of such an interpretation, the intrusive
assemblage should have also existed in another region
earlier.
Research since the 1958 project has not supported
Robinson's interpretation,and a new explanationis needed
to account for the changes between Periods II to III. The
new dates from Robinson's excavations clarify the
sequenceand natureof these changes.
Class 3 pottery first occurredwith the remainsof solid-
daga houses and bevelled curbs in Test 1, level 12 near
the in situ bases of two curved steps or stands.
Significantly, there is no evidence in this level of prestige
imports, gold or stone walls. A radiocarbonsample from
here has been dated to AD 1100 ? 40 (Pta-1984).
This twelfth century date shows that Period III was
contemporaneous with the floresence of Mapungubwe
(Hall & Vogel 1980; Meyer 1980; Eloff & Meyer 1981),
the well-known Iron Age site in the Shashi-Limpopo
Valley (Fouche 1937). At one time Mapungubwe was
thought to be an outlier of Great Zimbabwe, but the new
dates for Mapungubwe,and this Period III date, show that
Mapungubwepreceded Great Zimbabwe in economic and
political importance. Since the new structuraland ceramic
traits in Period III occur in a more elaborate form at
Mapungubwe, their presence at Great Zimbabwe is best
explainedby some form of diffusion. Whateverthe precise
mechanism,however, the new featuresin Period III reflect
the influence of Mapungubwe, rather than a new
population.
We now know that Mapungubwe was the place of
origin of the Zimbabwe culture (Huffman 1982). Among
the new traits that evolved at Mapungubwe, stone walls
were used to demarcate important areas and to provide
ritualseclusion for a sacred leader. The WesternEnclosure
in the Hill Ruin secluded the sacred leader at Great
Zimbabwe (Huffman 1986). Even though this function
was first developed at Mapungubwe, it is not clear
whether the style of walling there was the progenitor of
the earliest style at Great Zimbabwe. The earliest stone
wall in the Hill Ruin at Great Zimbabwe, the South Wall,
[built in Whitty's (1961) P-coursingJ was begun after
about 1 m of Period IIIdaga had accumulated.According
to Robinson's interpretationof the stratigraphy,the edges
of this daga deposit formed a sloping bank which
supported the inner foundations of the wall.
Unfortunately,a radiocarbonsample is not available from
South African Archaeological Bulletin
this slope, but a sample from the top of the bank in the
section above Test V (originally exposed by the Public
Works Departmentin 1915) was available for dating. The
result is AD 1190 ? 50 (Pta-2705). Although the
stratigraphicrelationshipof this sample to the earliest wall
is only approximatelyestablished, the result suggests that
the South Wall was not erected before the beginning of the
thirteenth century. Fortunately, a more definite date for
the earliest P-coursing in the Great Enclosure can be
established.
Period IV
In 1958 Summers (1961) found a midden in the Great
Enclosure in Trenches 3-8 (Figs 6-7) which was
contemporarywith the earliest daga lens and P-coursing in
Enclosure 1 (Summers & Whitty 1961). Charcoal from
this midden was dated some years ago to AD 1380 ? 90
(SR-47) by the Gulbenkianlaboratoryin Harare(Sheppard
& Swart 1966). More recently, a sample from the same
level was datedby Vogel to AD 1240 ? 45 (Pta-2693).
A Ruin, Robinson identified this pottery, along with some
o 50 lOfeet
0 10 20 30metres
A Class 4 pottery is known elsewhere. Since these specific
Fig. 6. Location of Trenches 3-8
Enclosure.
watt3
2A
1250?40
6Ita
"5f
~~o~~~~,a
Tr 8 Tr 7A
Fig. 7. Location of radiocarbon samples in the Great
Enclosure. Redrawnfrom Summers1961.
This content downloaded from 91.220.202.116 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 15:58:06 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
65
Summers believed the midden may have been divided
into earlier and later components, and so it is possible that
the CSIR and Gulbenkian dates apply to different phases
of the midden. To resolve this point, a sample from the
layer sealing the midden in Trench 8 was dated, with the
result of AD 1250 ? 40 (Pta-2694).
This last result makes it unlikely that the midden was
in use over a long period of time, and firmly dates the
contents to the mid-thirteenthcentury. Among other things
the contents include the earliest gold in the valley. The
stratigraphicposition of this midden, furthermore,corres-
ponds to a thin midden in Enclosure 1, abutting the
earliest stone construction(Summers'sstone structureC in
Trench 44), which yielded fragments of thirteenth to
fourteenth century Syrian glass (Hall 1905; Summers
1961). These basal levels reflect Great Zimbabwe's
development as an economically and politically important
settlement. Significantly, the sequence at Mapungubwe
indicatesthat it was no longer importantat this time.
The basic population involved in Great Zimbabwe's
initial growth is reflected in the ceramics from the Great
Enclosuremidden. On the basis of his sequence in the Hill
associated with the nearby Number 1 Ruin, as 'Class 3
influenced by Class 4'. Diagnostic features of these
assemblagesinclude well burnishedrecurved- and straight
- neckedjars, as well as large triangles, bevelled rims and
poorly applied graphite. These diagnostic features also
appearto be present on the Hill in levels 10 and 11 of Test
I and their equivalent in other areas. Like the midden in
the Great Enclosure, these levels on the Hill have yielded
the earliest gold, and they are stratigraphically
contemporary with the early South Wall. Three
radiocarbonsamples from these Hill levels have now been
dated:
Pta-1985 AD 1260 ? 45 Level 11 floori
Pta-2704 AD 1280 ? 45 Level 11 floorhi, carbonized
sorghum
Pta-745 AD 1280 ? 30 PWDface aboveTestVI
Robinson believed his 'Class 3 influenced by Class 4'
pottery reflected the absorption of Period III people by a
new population. This interpretationsuffers, however, in
the same way as his explanation for the change between
Class 2 and Class 3: the new pottery differs only in
specific elements, and not whole assemblages; the new
elements only gradually become dominant; and no earlier
elements were not a featureof Mapungubwepottery or any
in the Great other known ceramic unit at that time, the changes were
most likely due to internal factors involved with the
2
31 walt 30 X wall 6 1 watt 1
4
- - 4B
2 ~ - - -~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
2~~~~ t~intets
Projected 2
- 1240?45
I--10
10
11 rck
Tr 6 Tr 5 Tr 4 Tr 3
Watl6
Enclosure
lintets {1300?50
66
development of Great Zimbabwe's social and political
complexity.
Because this new pottery was probably the result of
internaland not external causes, we designate this material
as Class 4a and Robinson's original Class 4 as 4b.
Robinson's original Class 4 sample was small because
most of the relevant deposit in the Western Enclosure had
been removed by Hall. A large sample of this pottery was
recovered in the 1970s from several areas, and it is now
clear that Class 4b first appearsin Test I by levels 7, 8 and
9, rather than level 5 as Robinson thought. Two
radiocarbon samples from these lower levels have now
been dated:
Pta-1986 AD 1310 ? 45 Test I floor g
Pta-2706 AD 1370 ? 50 Test I level 7
Two radiocarbonsamples for Class 4b assemblages in
residentialunits near the Camp Ruins (Figs 8-9) have also
been processed:
Pta-1208 AD 1350 ? 50 Z1 House35
Pta-2423 AD 1400 ? 50 Z4 Midden 1 (30-43cm)
Fig. 8. Location of carbonized post (Pta-1208) on
innerwallnext to fireplace in House 35, Z1.
1W~~~~~:
0.2
Fig. 9. Midden in Z4 yielding Pta-2423 and Wits 774
in upper centre, left of circularhut.
A charcoal sample from Level 4 (7 1-83cm) of the
middenin Z4, underneathPta-2423, has been dated to AD
1350 ? 40 (Wits 774) by Verhagen at the University of
the Witwatersrand.These last three dates help confirm the
new identification of the ceramics from Test I, while all
these 4b dates show that the duration of 4a was short.
This content downloaded from 91.220.202.116 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 15:58:06 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
South African Archaeological Bulletin
Class 4a is also rare, in contrast to 4b which is associated
with Zimbabwe culture sites over a wide area and long
time span, dating from AD 1310 ? 40 (Pta-1920) at
Montevideo (Hall & Vogel 1980; Sinclair 1984) near
Great Zimbabwe to AD 1580 ? 100 (N-1 145) at
Nhunguza (Garlake 1973) near Harare. Consequently
Class 4a was a true transitionalphase.
As the stratigraphicalevidence in the Great Enclosure
shows, this transitional phase coincided with the
development of stone architecture. During the 1958
project, Whitty (1961) demonstrated that his P-P/Q-Q
sequence was indeed chronological, for some Q-walls
leaned against P-walls, some Q-coursing was placed on
top of P-coursing and some Q-style entranceswere added
onto P-walls. The new dates associated with the South
Wall in the Western Enclosure (in particularPta-2705 and
1985) and Enclosure 1 in the Great Enclosure (Pta-2693
and 2694) place the beginning of P-coursing at
approximatelyAD 1250. Most of the Western Enclosure
was also built in this style, and a date of AD 1310 ? 50
(Pta-1192) from a lintel of mopani (Huffman & Vogel
1979) in the covered passage at the back shows that the
style was well developed by the end of the thirteenth
century.
The two lintels from the Great Enclosure, originally
dated by Libby and Zeuner, had been built into Wall 6
categorizedby Whitty as P/Q. The controversialdating of
these lintels was resolved a few years ago when Vogel
redatedthem to the fourteenthcentury (Huffman & Vogel
1979). Their true dates are AD 1300 ? 50 (Pta-792) and
AD 1310 ? 40 (Pta-1594). Although these lintels were
made from heartwood (Androstachys johnsonii and
Spirostachys africana respectively), so little sapwood
appearsmissing that the dates can be regardedas accurate
estimates of when the beams were used. P/Q walling
thereforewas in use by AD 1300. The deposits associated
with the bases of P/Q walls, such as the y2 daga in
Trenches 4 and 5, contain Class 4b pottery, and
consequently, this pottery correlates with P/Q and
probablyP, whereas Class 4a correlatesonly with P.
The base of Q-walls in the Great Enclosure lay at a
higher level than Wall 6, and the Q-style had thereforenot
been developed before AD 1300. Whitty believed the best
Q-sections of the outer wall were built first, but as Garlake
(1973) notes the low west end is actually P/Q in style and
therefore earlier. Garlake's reassignment of this portion
means the Q style was developed during the construction
of the outer wall. Unfortunately, no samples are available
to date this event directly. We know, however, that this
style had evolved by the time of Robinson's Hut A in the
Western Enclosure because a Period IV house at the same
level, 10 m to the west incorporatedradial walls built with
Q-coursing.
The relative position of the last architecturalstyle -
Whitty's R-coursing - was not firmly established in the
1958 project because it mostly occurred in areas of little
importance for the overall sequence. Within the central
zone, for example, R-walls generally formed lanes or
boundaries of relatively large areas while Q-style walls
helped define royal residences and ritual areas.
Nevertheless, Whitty and most other investigatorsbelieved
that R was a relatively late and decadentstyle.
As an alternativeto his main hypothesis, Whitty also
consideredthe possibility that R-coursing developed out of
P and was used for less significant functions at the same
time as Q-walls were employed for more prestige areas.
Partial support for this view comes from the Nemanwa
Ruins, one of the many R-style buildings on the outskirts
of Great Zimbabwe. These peripheralruins are commonly
South African Archaeological Bulletin 67
, >Nemanwa

:~~~~~~~~~~~~(>

Mtero v : ...................... ...

. .. .:.:.::......

.... .. .
Meo-0.. \*c .g .. | ; ............*
....... East

~~~~~~~~~~..<....,,^.-,,,,,-ss0--::.... .... .. .....I

,?
.....0'"w-'
*

o n t o u r
'~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.
. 'b . . .....**' ........
* *1..... o5OUthE
st/
c ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~..... ......
.... .... .....:.:

............. ............. ......

...building......Chenga
**-* ~~~...... ... ...

outerbuilding
K> Mtuzu

0 500M

Fig. 10. Schematic plan of Great Zimbabwe showing contemporaneouswith Q-coursing. Other R-walls are also
location of the Nemanwa Ruin. associated with 4b pottery, including the Ridge Ruins, the
South East Ruins and the Outer Perimeter wall. They
show, along with the evidence from Nemanwa, that R-
.~~~~ walling was an integral part of Period IV, rather than a
later, decadentphase.
The similarity between P and R led Whitty to consider
2 > loose black
the possibility that R developed out of P. At the time, it
will be remembered, the significance of Mapungubwewas
not appreciated, and Zimbabwe culture walling was
) 50 red
thought to have evolved at Great Zimbabwe. Two kinds of
adz id
/
/ ) 7 - floors
walling, however, were used at Mapungubwe - prestige
walling similar to P and rough perimeterwalling similar to
/ '> ~~~~~100
gre-y-& 1410?40 R - and so the two kinds may have also existed together at
4 ' yellow
ash
Great Zimbabweat the very beginning of Period IV.
Support for this possibility comes from the Outspan
if
1-1 > 7777=140 rock Ruin, forming the entrance to the 'Ancient Ascent'. This
gateway incorporatesboth P- and R-coursing, and since it
was constructed as a unit, R-coursing must have been
0 5 10M contemporaneouswith P here as well as with Q later. This
continuous use is probably why some R-walls resemble P
and others incorporateelements of Q. Whatever the case,
Fig. 11. Plan of Nemanwa Ruin and section of Trench 3.
R-walling was used in parallel to the P-Q sequence
throughoutPeriod IV.
We turn now to the final stages of this Period.
thought to be seventeenth or eighteenth century imitations, Abandonment
but a new date from Nemanwa (Figs 10-11) alters this
view: Unfortunately, the top 1-2 m of deposit were removed
Pta-2429 AD 1410 ? 40 Nemanwa3A8 from the Great Enclosure and the Hill Ruin by Hall at the
This sample came from between basal daga floors beginning of this century (Hall 1905), and several more
which mark an early stage in the use of the building. A metres were removed from the Western Enclosure in 1915
thin lens with Class 3 pottery underlies the east wall in by the Public Works Department (Douslin 1922).
Tranch IV, but the pottery associated with the building Consequently, the final stages of Period IV were only
belongs to Class 4b, including the ceramics in a midden scantily represented in Robinson's test trenches. By
resting against an R-wall in Trench II. This R-style comparing the levels recorded by Hall and Douslin, the
building, then, was clearly occupied during Period IV, director of the PWD excavations, Robinson, showed that

This content downloaded from 91.220.202.116 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 15:58:06 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 68
Hut A in Test I represented the last Zimbabwe culture
occupation on the Hill. Charcoal from level 5 immediately
below this house was dated to AD 1440 + 150 (M-915),
but the house itself remains undated. The only other
radiocarbon date related to the end of Period IV comes
from a late house in the ZI residential unit (Fig. 12),
dated to AD 1580 ? 50 (Pta-2711).
To consider these two dates in relation to the
abandonment of Great Zimbabwe, and the short
chronology based on imported ceramics, it is necessary to
adjust the radiocarbon chronology to the historic calendar.
'I
Fig. 12. House 10 in Z1. Charcoal sample Pta-2711
came from under the entrance step on the right.
Calibrated Chronology
A disparity exists between radiocarbon years and
calendar years at certain periods because the C-14
concentration in the atmosphere has fluctuated (De Vries
& Barendsen 1954). As a result, neither the absolute
values nor the spacing between radiocarbon dates is
necessarily correct. Several correction charts have been
established from the radiocarbon dating of tree ring
samples with known ages. Vogel's research in this field
indicates that 30 to 40 years should be subtracted from the
radiocarbon age before calibration to accommodate the
effect of the oceans on C-14 absorption in the southern
hemisphere (Vogel et al. 1986). Recently the Stuiver and
Pearson (1986) calibration curve has won widespread
approval, and within the limits of the technique calibrated
South African Archaeological Bulletin
unlikely that this structurecould have been used for more
than 50 years, perhapsno more than 25. If this is so, then
the Hill Ruin (the King's quarters) was probably
abandonedin about the mid-fifteenthcentury.
Garlake(1968) reachedthis same conclusion, it will be
remembered,from a study of imported ceramics. Most of
the imports at Great Zimbabwe consist of different types
of celadon manufactured between the thirteenth and
fifteenth centuries in China. Missing completely was
evidence for Chinese blue-on-white porcelain, which was
first brought to the East Coast in about AD 1450 and then
traded inland by the Portuguese after AD 1500. Because
this porcelain frequently occurs in later Zimbabwe
capitals, such as Khami (Robinson 1959, 1961a) and Dhlo
Dhlo (Maclver 1906; Caton-Thompson 1931), but
apparentlynot in Great Zimbabwe, Great Zimbabwe must
have been unimportantat this time, Garlake argued, and
thereforealreadyabandoned.
Since Garlake's study, some pieces of blue-on-white
porcelain have been found at Great Zimbabwe. Mrs L.
Hodges, then Curatorof the Monument, found a piece in a
ditch in the Park's camping ground, and Huffman
recovered another fragment, possibly from the same
vessel, in the post-abandonmentlevel of the Z4 residential
area. More recently, D. P. Collett (pers. comm. 1991)
excavated an almost complete in situ blue-on-white plate,
dating to the beginning of the sixteenth century, from a
large hut in the Phillips Ruin (the royal wives' area) in the
lower valley. These imports were most likely part of the
same occupation represented by the sixteenth century
radiocarbondate from House 10 in the Z1 area. This
radiocarbondate calibratesto between AD 1470 and 1640
(Table 1) and along with the chinese porcelain forces a
revision of the short chronology. We call this later
Zimbabwe culture occupation after the Hill was
abandoned,Period IVc.
The calibrationcurve also affects interpretationsof the
beginning of Great Zimbabwe. Pta-2705, pre-dating
Period IVa in the Western Enclosure, becomes AD 1270,
and the date for the first use of the Great Enclosure (Pta-
2693) calibrates to AD 1280 (Table 1). Given the
limitations of radiocarbondating, the best estimate for the
origins of Great Zimbabwe is AD 1275. Thus, as the
revised chronology indicates, the rise and fall of Great
Zimbabweas a capital occurredin less than 200 years:
PeriodV Refuge pottery no walling nineteenthC (Class 5)

results provide a reliable estimate of the associated PeriodIVc Zimbabwepottery Q&R walling AD 1450 - 1550 (Class 4)

historical events. PeriodIVb Zimbabwepottery P/Q-Q & R walling AD 1300-1450 (Class 4)

We apply the Stuiver and Pearson curve to a range of PeriodIVa Transitionalpottery P&R walling AD 1275-1300 (Class 3 in-

radiocarbon dates from Great Zimbabwe (Table 1). The fluencedby 4)

two youngest corrections (Pta-2711 and M-915) affect the PeriodIII Class 3 pottery no walling AD 1220-1275

interpretation of the end of Great Zimbabwe. Hut A below PeriodII Gumanyepottery no walling AD 1150-1220 (Class 2)

M-915 in Test I contained only two or at most three floor Periodlb Zhizo pottery no walling eighth C
Periodla Early IronAge pottery no walling fifth C (Class 1)
levels, and on the basis of the sequence underneath, it is

Table 1. Some radiocarbondates from GreatZimbabwe, calibratedby the PretoriaLaboratoryfollowing Stuiver

and Pearson (1986) and adjustedfor the southernhemisphere.
Lab. No. BP + 1 sigma Cal-age BP- 1 sigma
Pta-2711 AD 1580 + 50 1474 1516, 1584, 1624 1643
M-915 AD 1440 ? 75 1406 1432 1461
Pta-2423 AD 1400 + 50 1402 1419 1436
Pta-2706 AD 1370 + 50 1391 1409 1426
Pta-1208 AD 1350 + 50 1311 1402 1419
Pta-I 192 AD 1310 + 40 1298 1317, 1345, 1387 1402
Pta- 745 AD 1280 ? 30 1292 1302 1387
Pta-2693 AD 1240 ? 45 1275 1289 1302
Pta-2705 AD 1190 ? 50 1259 1275 1289

This content downloaded from 91.220.202.116 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 15:58:06 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
South African Archaeological Bulletin
Summary and Conclusions
In parallel with earlier investigations, the new series of
radiocarbon dates provides the chronological basis for
reinterpretingthe sequence at Great Zimbabwe. First, a
previously unrecognized Zhizo level between the Period I
and II deposits in the Western Enclosure has been dated to
the seventh to eighth century AD. Furthermore,Period III
is now dated to the thirteenth century, contemporaneous
with Mapungubwe, while the initial growth of Great
Zimbabwe as a major centre can be firmly dated to the
third quarter of the thirteenth century, after Mapun-
gubwe's decline.
These radiocarbondates are crucial to establishing the
ethnic identity of the original builders. The Period I dates,
underlying the earliest stone walls, eliminate the
possibility of the Phoeniciansor Sabaeo-Arabiansfavoured
by nineteenth century investigators. The Period II
evidence likewise eliminates the pre-Muslim Arabs
favoured in more recent fringe literature.The radiocarbon
dates and imports fully support instead the 'essentially
African' hypothesis proposed by MacIver. As part of this
hypothesis the ceramic continuum, beginning with Class 2
and extending into the Portuguese Period, definitely
establishesa Shona identity.
Even though Mapungubwewas earlier, the possibility
of an influx of people from there can be rejected. Instead
of a new population, the transitionalceramics - Robinson's
'Class 3 influenced by 4', our Class 4a - reflects a gradual
internaltransitionthat took a few decades before Class 4b,
the diagnostic pottery of the Zimbabwe culture, became
crystallized. The transitional process was probably
completed by the beginning of the fourteenth century.
Sometimeafter this, Q-coursing appearsto have developed
out of P, probably towards the middle of the century. R-
coursing, however, was contemporaneouswith P and Q,
ratherthan a late phase.
By the middle of the fifteenth century, Great
Zimbabwe had lost its economic and political importance
to Khami and other centres, although it continued to be
inhabited.
The new Period IVc data clarify a formerly enigmatic
Portuguese document. In 1552 Joao de Barros recounted
what is generally regarded as a description of Great
Zimbabwe(Theal 1900:6:267-8):
There are other mines in a district called Toroa, which
by another name is known as the kingdom of Butua,
which is ruled by a prince called Burrom, a vassal of
Benomotapa, which land adjoins that aforesaid
consisting of vast plains, and these mines are the most
ancient known in the country, and they are all in the
plain, in the midst of which there is a square fortress,
of masonry within and without, built of stones of
marvellous size, and there appears to be no mortar
joining them. The wall is more than twenty-five spans
in width, and the height is not so great consideringthe
width. This edifice is almost surroundedby hills,
upon which are others resembling it in the fashioning
of the stone and the absence of mortar, and one of
them is a tower more than twelve fathomshigh.
In the next paragraph De Barros continues as if Great
Zimbabwewas still inhabited:
The natives of the country call all these edifices
Symbaoe, which according to their language signifies
court, for every place where Benomotapamay be is so
called; and they say that being royal property all the
king's other dwellings have this name. It is guarded
This content downloaded from 91.220.202.116 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 15:58:06 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
69
by a nobleman, who has charge of it after the manner
of a chief alcaide, and they call this officer
Symbacayo, as we should say keeper of the Symbaoe;
and there are always some of Benomotapa's wives
therein, of whom this Symbacayotakes care.
Until now it has been generally thought that De Barros
- a chronicler rather than an eyewitness himself - had
either conflated Great Zimbabwe with another settlement,
or he was making a general point, or his informationwas
several decades out of date. The Period IVc evidence,
however, shows that Great Zimbabwe was indeed
inhabited at this time. The document in its turn supports
Garlake's main point that after the mid-fifteenth century
GreatZimbabwewas no longer the seat of power.
Perhaps a better estimate for the abandonment and
subsequentuse of Great Zimbabwe is possible with a few
more dates, but it is unlikely that a more precise
radiocarbon sequence can be established for its
flouresence.
Acknowledgements
We thank C. K. Cooke - formerly Director of the
Historical Monuments Commission - and the National
Museums and Monuments Administration of Zimbabwe
for their continued support of research at Great
Zimbabwe. The late K. R. Robinson clarified the
provenienceof dating samples, and Mrs B. Wardhelped to
preparethe drawings.
References
Bent, T. 1892. The ruined cities of Mashonaland.
London: Longmans, Green & Co.
Burke, E. E. (ed.) 1969. The journals of Carl Mauch.
Salisbury:National Archives of Rhodesia.
Caton-Thompson,G. 1931. The Zimbabwe Culture:ruins
and reactions. Oxford: ClarendonPress.
De Vries, H. & Barendsen,G.W. 1954. Measurementsof
age by the Carbon-14technique. Nature 174:1138.
Douslin, H. B. 1922. Recent explorations at Zimbabwe.
Proceedings and Transactions of the Rhodesia
Scientific Association 20:12-15.
Eloff, J. F. & Meyer, A. 1981. The Greefswald sites. In:
Voigt, E. A. (ed.) Guide to archaeologicalsites in the
northern and eastern Transvaal: 7-22. Pretoria:
TransvaalMuseum.
Fouche, L. (ed.) 1937. Mapungubwe: ancient Bantu
civilization on the Limpopo. Cambridge: University
Press.
Garlake, P. S. 1968. The value of imported ceramics in
the dating and interpretationof the Rhodesian Iron
Age. Journalof African History 9:13-33.
Garlake, P. S. 1973a. Excavations at the Nhunguza and
Ruanga ruins. South African Archaeological Bulletin
27:107-143.
Garlake, P. S. 1973b. Great Zimbabwe. London: Thames
& Hudson.
Hall, M. & Vogel, J. C. 1980. Some recent radiocarbon
dates from southernAfrica. Journalof African History
21:431-455.
Hall, R. N. 1905. Great Zimbabwe. London: Methuen.
Hall, R. N. & Neal, W. G. 1902. The ancient ruins of
Rhodesia. London: Methuen.
Huffman, T. N. 1972. An Arab coin from Zimbabwe.
Arnoldia (Rhodesia) 5(32):1-7.
Huffman, T. N. 1982. Archaeology and ethnohistory of
the African Iron Age. Annual Revue of Anthropology
11:133-150.
 70
Huffman, T. N. 1986. Iron Age settlement patterns and
the origins of class distinction in southern Africa. In:
Wendorf, F & Close, A. (eds) Advances in World
Archaeology 5:291-338. New York: AcademicPress.
Huffman, T. N. & Vogel, J. C. 1979. The controversial
lintels from Great Zimbabwe. Antiquity53:55-57.
Libby, W. F. 1952. Chicago radiocarbon dates, III.
Science 116:673-681.
Libby, W. F. 1954. Chicago radiocarbon dates, V.
Science 120:741-742.
MacIver, D. R. 1906. Mediaeval Rhodesia. London:
Macmillan.
Mauch, C. 1872. Carl Mauchs Entdeckung der Ruinen
von Zimbaoe, September 1871. Petermanns Geogr.
Mitteilungen4:121-126.
Meyer, A. 1980. 'n Interpretasie van die Greefswald
potwerk. Unpublised MA thesis: University of
Pretoria.
Robinson, K. R. 1959. Khami Ruins. Cambridge:
CambridgeUniversity Press.
Robinson, K. R. 1961a. Dated imports from Khami
Ruins, Southern Rhodesia. South African
ArchaeologicalBulletin 16:66-67.
Robinson, K. R. 1961b. Excavations on the Acropolis
Hill. Occasional Papers of the National Museums of
SouthernRhodesia 3(23A): 159-192.
Robinson, K. R. 1961c. Zimbabwe pottery. Occasional
Papers of the National Museums of SouthernRhodesia
3(23A): 193-226.
Robinson, K. R. 1963. Further excavations in the Iron
Age deposits at the Tunnel Site, Gokomere Hill,
Southern Rhodesia. South African Archaeological
Bulletin 18:155-171.
Rouse, I. 1958. The inference of migrations from
This content downloaded from 91.220.202.116 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 15:58:06 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
South African Archaeological Bulletin
anthropologicalevidence. In: Thompson, R. H. (ed.)
Migrations in New World culture history: 63-68.
Tuscon: University of Arizona Press.
Sheppard, J. G. & Swart, E. R. 1966. Rhodesian
radiocarbonmeasurementsII. Radiocarbon8:423-429.
Sinclair, P. 1984. Some aspects of the economic level of
the ZimbabweState. Zimbabwea1:48-53.
Stuiver, M. & Pearson, G. W. 1986. High-precision
calibrationof the radiocarbontime scale, AD 1950-500
BC. Radiocarbon28(2B):805-838.
Summers, R. 1955. The dating of the Zimbabwe Ruins.
Antiquity29:107-1 11.
Summers, R. 1961. Excavations in the Great Enclosure.
Occasional Papers of the National Museums of
SouthernRhodesia 3(23A):236-288.
Summers,R. & Whitty, A. 1961. The developmentof the
Great Enclosure. Occasional Papers of the National
Museums of SouthernRhodesia 3(23A):306-325.
Summers, R., Robinson, K. R. & Whitty, A. 1961.
Zimbabweexcavations 1958. Occasional Papers of the
National Museums of Southern Rhodesia 3(23A):157-
332.
Theal, G. M. 1900. Records of South Eastern Africa
6:264-273. London: Governmentof the Cape Colony.
Vogel, J. C., Fuls, A., Visser, E. & Becker, B. 1986.
Radiocarbon fluctuations during the 3rd millennium
BC. Radiocarbon28(2B):935-938.
Whitty, A. 1961. Architecturalstyle at Great Zimbabwe.
Occasional Papers of the National Museums of
SouthernRhodesia 3(23A):289-305.
Wilmot, A. 1896. Monomotapa (Rhodesia). London:
Unwin.
Zeuner, F. E. 1955. Radiocarbondates. AnnualReportof
the Instituteof Archaeology in London 11.