Inside and outside the dry stone walls: revisiting the material culture of Great Zimbabwe Shadreck Chitikure! & Innocent Pikiray Uny study of Great Zimbabwe has to rely a great deal on re-examining and re-asessing the work of early investigators, the men who removed all the most important finds from the ruins and stripped them of so much of their deposin’ (Garlake 1973: 14). The authors have here done us «great service in reviewing the surviving archaeological evidence from this world famous st. They challenge the srcturalis interpretation ~ in which different parts of the site were allocated 40 kings, priests, wives or to circumcision rituals ~ and ute the archisectural, srasigraphie and wouRWoD vais? yp walle = BVP vera ONG 661 aH FH s1oy yp) wnaBoxg wopesq% aoqie PE 1661 PHO, 27 MeMMEY WOH poyIpoWY GouNPY Ta PUE RAMS "W SOOT-986T MAKdOD “Tors ‘ap Sino poreaqyye ououe sovep woqreoorpes aq smqequitz s¥oxg) WOH s2IEP GOGROOIPEY. “7 A1qCL, 982Shadreck Chirihure & Innocent Pikivayi ypaeasoy, 1661 804 por weugynyy 1661 eq pur uraagymgy 1661 PReq poe wey 1661 PA pur weexynyy 1961 stewsumg een ‘prowropun (UP E612) {P99 apprar “yz ‘sammy dames) Se emnopy 1z ‘summy dewey )-0€ “wapprar 47 ‘surmy due, crm eanrewayy 79) eser-srer “¢ ppuayy, “s100y ayzop Azeem aspirtser Lamsopug Suypeacg pa susp you somes 6 aa] '¢ yous, HOEL-OLZI ‘appt Bupeos rode 9 asp 'g you, zeer-eazt styr-osct Tans ‘Somes pe susy nyrup 3 otst-aszr (9686) 1821 froog Tose, (92) TLTETOIL Sunyem g Aye (9682) 681 Sumep TE TIMES "AVL ORY (ONL) FEE ovFoser put osFocer a0 OS Foor eepe-ta OFF owt Garena ‘opprotyt seamonns peroydised par dajes ayy, SrF ove — eoorma OFF oset poset (9681) oovi-8cer (cz) o9¢' OS Fog z6L-"E OpFor! —p6sta (9618) opei-ozer 06 Foser ores _qyom Barus 269 fo suo tof yous pr org sgpuady, aunsopurg wei ayy, Oy Foot — pasted SEVEETT OS Fost — sozema 983Inside and outside the dry stone walls: revisiting the material culsre of Great Zimbabwe Figare 3, Monumental wali the Hill Comple Theatr wallofthe Western Enclesare bordering the Fate Enclsure and Q walling on both the hill and in the valley, tentatively suggesting that both pasts of the site were buile according to a preconceived plan, which was then elaborated over time. The P and PQ walls ate supposed to have been built in Period [Va (Robinson 1961as Huffman 2007) while the Qualls were constructed in Period IVb (Whitty 1961). On thehill, Chipunza (1994) concluded that P and PQ courses of the Western Enclosure mark the focus of settlement before it expanded to the Eastern Enclosure (Figure 5). Chipunza (1997) also considered the spatial connectivity, construction affinity and stylistic succession of the walls con the hill and concurred with Whitty (1961) that these structures had evolved over time, AA similar architectural development is noted in the valley. According to Summers and Whitty (1961), the construction of the Great Enclosure developed in stages as shown by the mixture of P and Q coursing (Figure 6). Wall construction began around the P-coursed enclosure (no. 1 on the plan) and ftom this initial core atea, additional PQ walls were built over time (e.g. no. 15), In contrast to these early features, the most architecturally elaborate walls in the Great Enclosure such as the girdle wall and the conical tower were built in Q style (Figure 7). These Q walls have butted joints, revetments and rounded entrances, Adjacent to the Great Enclosure, the Upper Valley enclosures were almost exclusively buile in P and PQ style (Collett ¢t a, 1992), but the Lower Valley enclosures were exclusively built in Q style and contain typical Q walling features. Therefore, these Lower Valley 986Shadreck Chirikure & Innocent Pikivayi THE GREAT ENCLOSURE Figure 6. Han ofthe Great Encorre shosing the cotituent rin afer Lance Posy (National Mascon and Monuments ‘ef Zinbabee) enclosures are late additions to the ste (Collett eta. 1992). Interestingly, they reproduce on a sinaller scale the trademark features of the Great Enclosure and in particular the conical towers, curved batter walls and round entrances {Caton-Thompson 1931: 15). Some ofthe walls of Great Zimbabwe were decorated with motifs which give them astrong visual appeal. For example, the girdle wall of the Western Enclosute of the Hill Complex is capped with stone monoliths and conical towers (Garlake 1973; Huffman 1996). There isa herringbone design inside the Water Gate, and a dencelle pattern in the Western Enclosure (Hill Complex). Vertical grooves (see Huffiman 1996) also exist in the same enclosure and are fairly common in the valley enclosures, Pethaps the most spectacuilat decoration isthe chev- ton design richly adorning the exterior girdle wall ofthe Great Enclosure (Figures 6 and 8). On the missing link: the material culture of Great Zimbabwe (periods Ml and IV) The assemblages of artefacts and other cultural matetial are crucial, not only for endorsing the architectural and stratigraphic sequences, but for the proper interpretation 985 Research.Inside and outide the dry tone walls revisiting the material culture of Great Zimbabiee of the differenc activities in each part of the site. However, this key aspect has been relatively neglected up to now. Only the material culture relating directly to the builders of Great Zimbabwe, ic. belonging co Periods IIT and IV, will be considered here. Rr age Petiod lL pottery (Class 3) was aes only found on the hill. Ir was well fired, finely polished, with occasional graphite burnishing (Caton-Thompson 1931; Robinson 19616; Garlake 1973). The most characteristic vessel types were shouldered jars with everted rims ort necks, Decoration is very rate. With time, Class 3 pottery developed new features and this has been designated Class 4a or transitional pottery (Period IVa). Class 4a was found in virtually all the P and PQ walled enclosures. Eventually, transitional pottery gave way to Zimbabwe Pottery (Class 4b) which was prevalent during the state's lorescence. Class 4 pottery is lavishly burnished with graphite and ic consists of shouldered pots with tall necks and flared rims and spherical pots with very shore necks and heavily rolled rims (Garlake 1973: 112; Huffiman & Vogel 1991). Metalworking evidence and metal objects hhave also been recovered fiom differenc ateas. An iron smelting furnace (Hall 1905) and a gold melting furnace (Bent 1892) were recovered on the Hill Comples. Iron slag was recovered on the hill (Robinson 19612), in the Great Enclosure (Willoughby 1892; Hall 1905; Caton-Thompson 1931) with the Valley Enclosures yielding both iron slag and iron blooms (Collett et ad 1992). Crucibles, ingots and casting spills were also found in Great Zimbabwe's walled enclosures (Bent 1892: 221). Additional evidence of metalworking includes tuyeres, iron hammers, chisels, pincers and wire drawing equipment (Maclver 1906; Hall 1910; Caton-Thompson 1931). Iron tools (chisels, knives, hoes, arrowheads, spearheads and axes) form patt of the inventory of utilitarian objects. The assemblage of copper, bronze and gold objects largely consisted of beads, thin sheets and other objects used for ceremonial and decorative purposes. Therefore, metalworking evidence and metal objects were present in most of the constituent walled enclosures making up Great Zimbabwe. A wide array of soapstone objects range from the famous birds to bowls (Figure 9), some imitating the architectural motifs already mentioned. Fragments of decorated and undecorated soapstone bowls have been found on the hill (Bent 1892) and within the Great (Willoughby 1892) and Valley enclosures (Caton-Thompson 1931). Pethaps the most important category of soapstone finds is the collection of eight soapstone Figure 7. The conical rower i the Great Encore in Q. ‘ie (cnet of lace Pir) 386Shadrech Chirikure & Innocent Pikinayi Figie 8, The decored exe gine wall, Great Encore showing the heron design (cure of Tancen kira) Figure . Suapstone bow from Great Zr: 8a) eo ape sogpeane bowl decor withberinghnepatrn (ito ‘Man of South Afi) 9) fgonent of apne boul deored with animal moi il Complex (homed fa Mascon ef Seats Apic) Photgrphsy Satish Citar birds. Seven of the birds were recovered fiom the Hill Complex while the eighth was recovered in the Valley Enclosures (Matenge 1998). On the hill, only one bird was found in the Western Enclosure while the remaining six were recovered from the Eastern Enclosure. The Eastern Enclosure yielded meagre amounts of cultural debris and the existence of platforms and monoliths has suggested the use of this enclosure for priestly functions (Garlake 1973; Chipunca 1994; Huffman 1996). The flakes of worked soapstone found in the Hill Complex middens would suggest that soapstone working was practised here. The recovery of spindle whorls suggests weaving was an imporcane activity carried ‘out at Great Zimbabwe, Pottery and soapstone spindle whorls were recovered in varying proportions on the hill, and in the valley and Great Enclosures, 987 Research.Inside and outside the dry stone wna: revisiting the material culture of Great Zimbabwe SST REL HUTA oT ‘ie 10. Povo las bas Gret Zinbaecnrt of Marie Wad Imported artefacts constitute a significant part of the material culture recovered at Great Zimbabwe. Glass beads (Figure 10) have been recovered in fair amounts atthe site with the largest number being associated with the hoard found in the Renders Ruin in the valley (Hall 1905; Caton-Thompson 1931; and see below). Modest amounts of Chinese celadon and Near Eastern carthenvrare were found across the site. However, Arabian glass was only recovered in the Great and Valley Enclosures. The Lower Valley Enclosures are the only places to have yielded sixteenth-century Ming Dynasty pottery. Overall, the distribution of imports suggests chat the occupants of the stone walls had access to exotic goods Material culture also includes immobile features. Gravel fleors make their fist appearance towards the end of Period IIT en the hill (Robinson 1961a), and become an integral feature ‘of virtually ll che stone enclosures in Period IV. A deep succession of such house floors was excavated in the Western Enclosure on the hill (Douslin 1922; Robinson 1961; Figure 3) Despite coming in different sizes, some common features of the house floors include low benches, fre places and pot stands (Huffman 1996). Because of the history of plundering on the site, one cannot establish the development of house types used over time. House loors similar to those on the bill were found in the Great Enclosure and in the adjacent valley (Maclver 1906; Hall 1910; Caton-Thompson 1931; Summers et al. 1961). While these categories of material culture were found in almost every enclosure, Richard Hall (1905) discovered a spectacular hoard in the Renders Ruin which contained gold wire, iron spoons, a lamp stand, copper box, two finger rings, several hundred thousand lass beads and several kilograms of wise, cowrie shells and coral, This probably signifies the presence of a resident trader at Great Zimbabwe. This practice has been historically documented in the Mutapa state, one of the successors to Great Zimbabwe (Pikirayi 1993; Chirikure er al. 2001). By extension, this hoard represents royal control over trade and exchange relationships in the Zimbabwe state Discussion According to Huffman (1981; 1982s 1985), itis possible o understand the spatial correlates of Great Zimbabwe's dry scone walls using a binary-coded cognitive framework supported by ethnography. Huffman concluded that the kings at Great Zimbabure resided in the Western Enclosure of the Hill Complex while the Eastern Enclosure served as a ritual centre. The Great Enclosure in the valley was interpreted as a centre for initiation (see Huffman 1985), while the Valley Enclosures were the residences of the royal wives (Huffman 1996), Huffiman's model has been criticised for presenting the picture of a society in stasis for 200 years (Beach 1998), Like Sinclair (1987), Beach (1998) made recourse to Shona ethnography and history of political succession co argue that the rulers residences had more 988Shadreck Chivikure & Innocent Pikirayi likely changed during Great Zimbabwe's 20-year forescence. Thus the Great Enclosure 12s not an initiation centre nor were the valley enclosures residences for royal wives: they were centres adopted by successive ruler. However, Sinclair and Beach did not support their hypothesis with archacological evidence. IF we were to do so, we can bring both the archacological sequence and the ‘archaeological spatial distribution to bear in order to create a new model. This does indeed endorse the idea of a shifting focus during the Great Zimbabwe periods III and IV and effectively eliminates Huffman’ structuralst hypothesis. The combined archaeological sequence and architectural chronology is consistent with an expanding and shrinking settlement. Because no other pact of the site has Petiod IIf remains, the early foundations of Great Zimbabwe must be located on the hill, The earliest ‘monumental walls at Great Zimbabwe are the P and PQ walls of the Western Enclosute (Hill Complex) (Chipunza 1994; 1997). Because the contemporary walls in the valley were less monumental (Summers & Whitty 1961), this is where the first rulers of the state lived. Prom this formative area, setdlement then expanded into the areas with Petiod IVa occupation, including P and PQ walling in the Great Enclosure and the Upper Valley. The exclusively Qtyle Lower Valley enclosures were added in Period IVb, Over time, the development of the elaborate and monumental Q styled girdle walls of the Great Enclosure suggest that political succession was passed to an individual living there, Thus, there was a shift in the centre of power from the hill to the Upper Valley, and from the Upper Valley to the Lower Valley (Summers 1961; Gaslake 1973). Tewould seem thatthe rulers who were based in the Great Enclosure presided over the state during its most affluent period. Subsequently, the centre of power moved to the exclusively Q walled Valley Enclosures (Collett e¢ al. 1992). This was the last place to be abandoned, long after the Great Enclosure and the Hill Complex had been deserted, ot were serving lesser scaely functions (Pikirayi 1993; Chirikure etal. 2001). Oral traditions claim a direct link between Great Zimbabwe and the Mutapa state. Therefor, the sieenth-century Ming Dynasty porcelain from the lower valley would suggest chat a small population in the valley ‘continued to occupy the site after most of the inhabitants had moved to other areas (Collett etal. 1992). The thesis of changing rulers’ residences is adequately supported by the distribution of ‘matcrial culture found inside the stone walls of Great Zimbabwe. Although the dates of the ‘assemblages change, there is a remarkable similarity in the range of objects and activities carried out in the earlier and later enclosures. Fach assemblage covers not only utilitarian and ceremonial objects but also ritual and craft production activities. Imported material culture also has an all-encompassing distribution, just like the locally-produced objects. This almost homogenous distribution of imports in all the major arcas would suggest some form of equal access to resources on the part of those living there. Ifthe residences of rulers changed over time as we contend, then this similarity in assemblage is hardly surprising. In the Shona world, political succession does not follow the principle of primogeniture Bourdillon 1976). Instead, succession follows the system of houses’ whereby ifthe founder of a state has many sons, political succession alternates in all chese houses starting from the eldest to the youngest, and then reverts back to the house of the eldest son (Holleman 1952; 1969). Often, when a ruler dies, his successor does not move into the deceased's 989 i 4Inside and outside the dry sone walks revising the material culeue of Great Zintbabwe residence. He usually rules ftom his present homestead and depending on his power and tence can extend its grandeur. Therefore, ic would seem that the Hill Complex, the Valley and Great Enclosures were, at one time or another, residences of rulers duzing the 200-year long orescence of the state. The homestead of the founder of the state invariably assumes a religious significance (Ghuckman 1937) and this probably explains why the Hill Complex has always remained the sire ofan important shrine (Ndoro 2001; Fontein 2006). Te can be noted that the hypothesis of a changing centre of power is also applicable ro other Zimbabwe type sites on the plateau. In northern Zimbabwe, the stone-walled enclosures are actually named afer particular rulers such as Mutora (Mutora’s Zimbabwe) and Rusvingo waKasekete (after Kasekete) (Beach 1980). So fat, the story presented by the material cultute from Great Zimbabwe is consistent ‘with the major parts using identical marerial culture and being spaces for typical male and female pursuits. Ths is at odds with structuralise interpretations ofthe site. Huffman (1996) confidently argued that royal wives occupied the valley forthe duration of Great Zimbabwe's Mlorescence. He based his argument on the existence of female symbols’ which primarily take the form of vertical grooves on some of the stone structures. In a more recent publication, Huffman (2007: 405) argues that royal wives lived together under the authority ofthe first, wife, and maintained thatthe valley complexes best served this function. The expectation is that the material culture recovered from within the Valley Enclosures should be consistent with an exclusively female domain. Yer, the material culture reveals the presence of both male and female activities, es is common in Karanga societies (Aschwanden 1982). In particulay, the presence of metalworking slag and ion blooms all falling within the domain ‘of male activities show that there was a sizeable male presence in the lower valley enclosures, Furthermore, thar the lower valley enclosures were the last place to be abandoned raises setious questions regarding why royal men would leave royal wives behind when abandoning thesite. This further casts doubts on the royal wives hypothesis and strengthens the point that the lower valley housed the rulers ata time when Great Zimbabwe’ influence was waning. Using Venda ethnography, Huffinan (1996; 2007: 407) also argues thae the Great Enclosure was used for circumcision and acted as a pre-marital school for boys and gitls known as the Domba. He cited the existence of symbols for different age groups from the young co the old and ritual objects that supported his initiation centre hypothesis. Nevertheless, an examination of the distribution of material culture at Great Zimbabwe shows that the so-called ritual objects are found in stratigraphic contexts in the valley and con the hill (Matenga 1998). Apart from containing modest amounts of metalworking evidence such as wire drawing plates, some slag, gold cake and utilitarian and non- uuciltarian objects, the Great Enclosure also possessed a fair share of imports, some of which have never been recovered on the hill (for example the Islamic glass) (Summers & Whiy 1961). More importantly, the Domha did not take place regularly because it was dependent on the number of young people teady ro participate and the nature of the harvest (Stayt 1931), Assuch, initiation centres tended to be impermanent structures built of perishable materials. ‘The objects of instruction consisted of symbolic objects which were kept in the chief's hut when not in use (Stayt 1931). Archacologically, the Domba institution is unlikely to have lefesignificane fingerprints. By contrast, the Great Enclosure is a permanent building whose 990Shadreck Chirikure & Innocent Pikinayé construction took place over a long tite. Ic had a broad-based material culture that included local porery, spindle whorls, symbolic objects, metalworking evidence and lavish imports. This assemblage i similar to that found on the Hill Complex and in the valley; areas which Huffman agrees were not initiation centres, The presence of placforms and figurines (which Huffman used to support his hypothesis) is equally consistent with Shona cultura beliefs in Which each household has a place to propitiate the ancestors (Bourdillon 1976; Aschwanden 1982; Gelfand 1973), dentifying the ceremony and rituals of initiation among the ancient Karanga also remains tenuous in the absence of supporting written and oral evidence (see Ashwanden 1982) Although the Venda, who settled in northern South Aftia inthe seventeenth century were ‘once part of the Karanga people, they soon interacted with neighbouring Sotho-Tswana communities, creating a Vends identity which isin many ways diferent fiom the Katanga (each 1980). According to Scayt (1931: 125), the cultural practice of circumcision was not an indigenous institution amongst che Venda (see also Blacking 1985). Ie was introduced through centuries of interaction with the Lemba and Sotho-Tswana societies, As such, the Doma had no historical derivation from the Karanga, north of the Limpopo (Aschwanden 1982; Blacking 1985; Beach 1998). Nevertheless, the Venda retained some elements of the Karanga such as the concepr of sacred leadership. This must question the suitability of a hybrid Venda culture as an analogy for the Karanga worldview. Holl (1996) suggested that che structuralist interpretation should be synchronised with the chronological development and by implication, the material culture of the site. While Great Zimbabwe's expansion was probably situated in existing mental templates (Huffman 1986; Holl 1996), its dificule to apply a structuralst model to understanding the meaning of space at different periods during the site's development. For example, che model cannot be used to understand the organisation of space while the lower valley was the only area inhabited, Docs this mean that interpretations based on scructuralise theories have no future at Great Zimbabwe? Far from it, but they must be supported by artefuers, architectural history and chronology. Conclusion A critical assessment of the chronology, architectural history and material culture has shown that Great Zimbabwe emerged from local farming communities asa series of aristocratic cen ‘tes succeeding each other in a manner consistent with Shona systems of political succession and chiefly politics. The focus of power moved from the Western Enclosure on the hill in the owelfth century, to the Great Enclosure, the Upper Valley and finally the Lower Valley in the early sixteenth century, where Great Zimbabwe's prominence was destined to end. ‘This sequence invalidates structuralist hypotheses which assume that different parts ofthe ruin were active at the same time and could thus be dedicated to different activites, rituals ‘or genders. Symbolic beliefs are pare of the broad social structure which connects disparate facets of human experience within a chronological and cultural framework (Hodder 2007). The priority at Great Zimbabwe is to give more value to the existing data and finds. Great Zimbabwe's archaeology is currently clite archaeology; more work needs to be done on the commoner areas that formed part of the settlement. We still awaic the publication 1 3 2Aside and outside the dry tone walls revisiting the material culsure of Great Zimbabwe of the excavations conducted during the ear on issues of production and the circulation of residences, Pursuing some of these issues will awake ly 1970s. These results will chrow some light f goods, as well as the use of space in non-elite the archaeology of Great Zimbabwe from its temporary siesta of the last 30 or so years, Acknowledgements ‘This poper benefited from ideas Gillere Pwic, Judith Sealy and Joseph Vogel (Altai sha by Simon Hall, Edward Matenga, Munyacadsi Manyanga, Webber Ndoco, ira Press). We would like to unreservedly thank them for 388 which created an arena for heleh of Antiquity offered suggest y academic that improved che scope ofthis paper Lastly, ag their choughcs with us. We ae also indebred othe Ite David Beach, Tom Hilfinan and Paul Sine debates, Paul Lane, an anonymous referee and the edvor ‘we thank our students past and presen Fr the ively discusions that we have bad over the years References Ascitwan DEN, H, 1982. Spabl of if an anes ofthe conscious ofthe Kerang Gwent: Mambo Pes BEACH, DN. 1980. The Shona and Zimbabwe ‘900-1850, Grea: Mambo Pes, 1998. Copitve archaeology and imaginary history at ‘Great Zimbabwe comment and veply. Current Anthropology 1: 47-72, Bro, J.T, 1892. The rane cts of Maonlend, London: Longmans, Buackrn, J. 1985, The Great Enclosure and Domb ‘Ma 20: 5423. BOURDILON, M.EC, 1976. The Shona Peoples. Gweru: Mambo Press BRUWER. AJ. 1965. Zimbaber: Risdetids ancient _greatne Johanoesburg: Hugh Keartand. Bunks, EE, 1969. The journal of Kan! Mach. Salsbucy: Nacional Archives of Rhodes. (CaToN-THoMrs0N, G. 1931. The Zimbabwe Calee ruin and reactions. Oxford: Clarendon Pes, (Chuvunza, K. 1994. A diachronic anes ofthe sanding serchue ofthe Hill Complex ae Goat Zimbabwe (Seudies in Afican Archacology 8). Uppraa Socitas Archaeologica Upalenss. “1997. A diachronic analy ofthe standing stuctres ofthe Hill Complex at Great Zimbabwe, in Pw ed) Caves, monementr and tx Limbaboean a aay (Studies in Afican ‘Aechacology 14): 125-41. Uppsala: Deparmene of Archacology and Ancient History, Uppsala Univesity (Commnasre, 5. 2007. Archecology beyond bordes: Zimbabwean archaeology in regional pespectve Keynote address, National Forum on Zimbabwean Archacology, 68 September 2007, Hare 20076. Metals in sociey ton production and its positon in lon Age communities of southern Alia. Journal of Sorel Archaeology 7: 72-100. (Cunnasune, S. & G. Pwr. 2008, Community ‘participation in achaeology and heiage ‘anagement: ease studies from southern fica and tsewhere Goren Anthrpoley 4909): 467-85 (Commorune, S.J Paseayt &G. Perr. 2001. A ‘comparative sudy of Khami pottery, Zimbabwe, in E Chami & G. Pwit (ed) Souther Ace and he Sutil world (Seaies in ABiean Pest 2), Dares, Salaam: Dar es Salaam Univesity Pes, (Comers, DP, A. Vives & G, HUGHES. 1992, Dating tnd chronologies of the Valley Enclosures: implications fr the interpretation of Great, Zienbabwe. Afien Archaeolegy Reviw 10: 139-61 ‘Dar R. 1955, Fregn iafluenceson the Zimbabwe and pre-Zimbabwe eras. Nave Afi Deperement Ansa 32: 19-30 Dousuny H. 1922. Recent explorations at Zimbabwe Proccdings ofthe Rhodesen Seentife Aetation 20 sn Foxrans J. 2006, Silene of Greet Zinhb: contested landcapes and tbe poster of bertge, London: UCL. Pes, GaRLAKe, PS. 1970, Rhodesian euinesa preiminary ‘assessment of thee sys and chronology. Juma of Apion Hitory 1: 495-513, 1973. Great Zimbabwe, London: Thames te Hudson, 1982. Greet Zimbabwe described and explained. Gweru: Mambo Pres (Gu, R 1972. The ovgins of Zibebucen celation Salsbury: Gali. Gexeayv, M. 1973. The genuine hone. Grer: ‘Mambo Pres Guucieun, M. 1937, Morwary customs and the belief in survival afer deach among the South-Eastern Banc Bantu Ser 11s 117-36. HALL, M. 1987. The banging pat: farmers, bingy and ‘hades southern Aen 200-1860, Cape Town: David Philip, 992Shadreck Chirikure & Innocent Pikirayi 1995, Great Zimbabwe and dhe Lose City: dhe aleural colonisation ofthe South Aftcan pas, BJ Ucko (cd) Tear in archaclogy a world perspective London: Rowledge. Haut, RIN. 1905. Grit Zimbabwe, London; Methuen. 10. Prebisorc Rhodes. London: Fther Unwin Hau, RN. 8 WIG. Neat, 1902. The ancien rains of ‘bodes. London: Methven, Hopes, 1.2007. Symbolic and srucural archaeology. Cambridge: Cambsidge University Pr. Hou, ALEC. 1996, A diachronic analyse ofthe auchitectue ofthe Hill Complex at Great Zimbabwe by KT. Chipunaa. African Archeological Review V3). 77-85, HOLM, JP 1952. Shona cntomay late sith refrence to kinshi, marrage, te foil and the ‘tate Cape'Town: Oxford Univesity Pees 1969. Chie Council and Cammnisoner: me probleme ofgonernmen in Rode. Asser: Aiea Stidiencentram, ‘Hurrieoy, TN. 1981, Snakes and beds expresine space at Great Zimbabwe. Afcan Stites 40: 15150, 1982, Archaclogy and ethnohistory of the Avian Tron Age Ama Review of Ancroplogy 1 13350, 1985. The Great Enclosure and Dombs. Mar 20: SAB. ~1986, Cognitive sais ofthe Ion Age in southern ‘Aca, Wid Archaeology 18: 84.95 1996, Snakes and crocodiles poner and symbol in «ancient Zimbabwe, Johannesburg: Wiesterrand Univesity Press. 2007, Handbook ote rn Age the achecloy of _precolonil farming sce in Sentbem Aft Scousvill: University of KvaZulu-Neral Press ‘Huriua, T.N. &[.C. Yost, 1991. The chronology ‘of Great Zimbabwe, South Aficen Archaeological Bulletin 46,6170, {JeFFHBS, M.D.W. 1954. Zimbabwe and Galla culture, South African ArccoogcalBultin 9. 132, MaclVeR, D. 1906, Mediwel Rlodeta. London ‘Machin Marca, E1998. The soapstone binds of Great Zimbabwe, Hacate: Nica Pablishing House, Nooo, WW, 1994, The preservation and presentation of Great Zimbabwe. Anuiguity 68: 617-23 2001. Your Manaonent, cur shrine: he preraton and _proanttion of Great Zimbabwe (Stade in Aiea ‘Archaeology 19). Uppal Depastment of “Acheclogy and Ancient History, Uppsala Universe 993 PUIRA T1993. The Achteologied idei of the ‘Mutepa Se: tarda ioral identi of norter Zimbabue (Seuies in Afican Archaeology 6) Uppsala Scitas Archaeologica Upaiess -2001. The Zimbabee clare origins aed dene of sauther Zambexan sate. Wes Crk (CA) Arabi Dwar, 1996 Canny end change ica study of fring comma norte Zimbabse AD 500-1700 (Stacies in ‘Aican Archaeology 13). Uppsala: Department of Archaeology, Uppsala Unive Rosson, KR. 196la, Excavations of the Acropolis ll Ocestnal Piper of be National Maser of Southern bodes 923A): 159-92 ~1961b, Zimbabwe porery. Ocaonal pape ofthe ‘Nation Mase of Souther Bho 3238). 193-226 ~196te, Zimbabwe beads, Oxsional Papers ofthe ‘National Meseans of Southern Rhoda (230) 22735. SCHORELD, LF 1926. Zimbabwe: 3 eel ‘examination of the building sles employed. South Aficen journel of Since 28: STV.B6, Siucta, BJ. 1987. Sc, te and soil firmaton: terval approach tbe of Zomba ‘and Mozambique 01700 AD (Aen 8). Uppal Societas Archaeologica Upeitinsis. ‘Son HLA. 1931. The Bavende. London: Oxford UnivescyPreifinternatioal Inte of Afican Langu 8 Caltres Sunn, R 1961, seavatons in the Great Bloat. Orcaione Paper of the National Masurs of Seuthon Rosa 323A): BEB, Swsouets, R&A, WhrrTy 1961. The development of the Great Enclosure, Occaional Paper ofthe [National Miacins of Southern Rodaie 123A): 306.25, Sonpues, R, K. RomDwoN Be A. Wear. 196 Zimbabwe excavations. Osainal Papers ofthe Navonel Macins of Rhoda 3(238) 15.332. “THOR C. 1998, King and commoners a Grae Zimbabwe (National Museune and Monsen oF Zirnbabwe Memoin). Harae: Trustees ofthe [Navional Maseum and Monuments of Zimbabwe \WaINGHT G.A, 1949. The founders of Zimbabwe isin, Man 49: 6266. Wurrry A 1961, Architectural sel at Zimbabwe, Orcsional Papers ofthe National Maacus of Seuthern Phase 323A) 289-305. Wot) 1892. Aman offi etn {2b Lis Ge Hap Research