The Sunday News
* Students are expected to focus on the following controversies: 1.Who; 2.When; 3.Why.
* Students should use scholarly views to argue
Arguments to consider
1. Time theory
Debate has been given on when Great Zimbabwe was built. Controversy concerning time or dating of Great Zimbabwe shows that Great Zimbabwe existed between 1100, 1300 , 1340 and 1350 AD through the use of radio-carbon dating machines. S I Mudenge is of the view that the ruins were built in the 11 century completed in 13 century and declined in the 15th century. The dating of Great Zimbabwe credits the Shona people as the constructors of Great Zimbabwe since the prints of European imperialism cannot be traced. Not only but also the first foreigners to visit and account for the origins of Great Zimbabwe visited after the great work was done for instance Vicente Pegado (1531) when he visited Zimbabwe he described the area as follows: among the gold mines of inland plains there is a fortress built of stones of marvellous size and there appears to be no mortar joining them. This description cemented the argument that the Shona people built the Great Enclosure not the Europeans since they were amazed to discover such great work in an “uncivilised” area as they propounded. From a closer scrutiny, it can be therefore argued that Great Zimbabwe emerged between 1100 AD- 1450 AD, and the dating holds much water to classify locals as builders of G Z, since Europeans entered in the plateau after the great work was completed.
2. Building controversy
The building controversy has created water fighting debates among historians. The Euro centric views wanted to justify their reasons for colonisation. However, it is beyond doubt to support the view that the Shona were the real builders of the Great Zimbabwe as this is supported by a number of reputable prominent scholars.
Afrocentric point of view
Great Zimbabwe
Afro-centric theorists like James E Mullan give credit to locals, for example, the Lemba who were multi-skilled particularly the Tavakare clan who were masons and it is believed that they were designers and builders of stone structures. Certain evidence appears to support the Lemba claim. For instance, unlike other Bantu tribes, who bury their dead in a crouched posture, the Lemba bury theirs in an extended position, as did the ancient Zimbabweans. One of the strongest pieces of evidence concerns trade, Parfitt says. “Great Zimbabwe was a civilisation that was constructed very largely on wealth generated from cattle and trade. And given that for hundreds of years we know the Lemba were the great traders of southern Africa, it seems almost certain that their ancestors would have been involved in this trading nexus between Great Zimbabwe and the Indian Ocean.” Hence If the Lemba contention is true, does this mean that outsiders that is, not native Africans built Great Zimbabwe? After all, the Lemba have Semitic origins. The answer is no, because by the time Great Zimbabwe was built in medieval times, the Lemba had become decidedly African which approves the origins of Great Zimbabwe as a local skill. P E N Tindal who collected the history of Africa further propounded that the ruins had a complicated history and the Shona had a role to play.
Succinctly, Journals of the Arab traveller Ibn Said (1214-1286) revealed that the builders of Great Zimbabwe were the Shona. K Mufuka and P Garlake also affirm the Shona origins. Indeed, the more contentious part of that question “who built it” has finally been put to rest almost 450 years after João de Barros and others first propounded it. ‘‘Whites did not build Great Zimbabwe, blacks did,’’ and this fact only deepens the sense of mystery enveloping the site. As archaeologist Gertrude Caton-Thompson declared back in 1931: ‘’Examination of all the existing evidence, gathered from every quarter, still can produce not one single item that is not in accordance with the claim of Bantu origin and medieval date. The interest in Zimbabwe and the allied ruins should, on this account, to all educated people be enhanced a hundred-fold; it enriches, not impoverishes, our wonderment at their remarkable achievement for the mystery of Zimbabwe is the mystery which lies in the still pulsating heart of native Africa.’’ Hence showing the local origins Subsequently, S Mutsvairo, A Hodza, AS Chigwedere concluded that the artefacts at the Great Zimbabwe indicate Shona traditional culture. David Randall-MacIver, the first archaeologist to study Great Zimbabwe, declared it unequivocally of African origin, with its heyday in medieval times. Archaeology also proved extremely important in solving the controversy concerning the identity of founders of the Great Zimbabwe state. Shona traditions spoke of the ancestors of the Shona as the builders of the impressive stone structures at Great Zimbabwe and so many other sites around and outside present-day Zimbabwe. Because of archaeology there is more overwhelming evidence which is of indigenous type. D N Beach noted a ritual bowls, divining objects , eight soapstone excavated in the Great Zimbabwe can be enough evidence to support that the Great Zimbabwe is of the Shona origins.
To be continued in the next issue.
Manners Msongelwa is the president of History Teachers of Zimbabwe and Association of History Teacher’s and Lecturers in Africa. Follow All his lessons on YouTube channel Manners Msongelwa.
