Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T09:11:50.371Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Bayesian chronology for Great Zimbabwe: re-threading the sequence of a vandalised monument

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Shadreck Chirikure ,
Mark Pollard ,
Munyaradzi Manyanga  and
Foreman Bandama
Shadreck Chirikure
Affiliation:
1Department of Archaeology, University of Cape Town, Private Bag, Rondebosch 7701, Cape Town, South Africa
Mark Pollard
Affiliation:
2Research Laboratory for Archaeology and the History of Art, University of Oxford, South Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3QY, UK
Munyaradzi Manyanga
Affiliation:
3University of the Witwatersrand, 1 Jan Smuts Avenue, Braamfontein 2000, Johannesburg, South Africa
Foreman Bandama
Affiliation:
1Department of Archaeology, University of Cape Town, Private Bag, Rondebosch 7701, Cape Town, South Africa
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Great Zimbabwe is one of the most iconic sites in southern Africa and indeed the world, but like so many famous monuments it has suffered from the attention of early excavators who have destroyed key categories of evidence. Chronology is crucial to understanding the development of the various elements of Great Zimbabwe and its relationship to other important regional centres such as Mapungubwe. A number of radiocarbon dates are available, however, and in this study they have been combined with the limited stratigraphic information and with datable imports to provide a Bayesian chronology of the site and its structures. Construction of the stone walls probably began at the end of the twelfth or beginning of the thirteenth century AD, reaching its peak in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, although occupation continued up to at least the sixteenth and probably into the seventeenth century AD. These results indicate that occupation at Great Zimbabwe must have overlapped with that at Mapungubwe, and argue for a polycentric model of sociopolitical complexity in this region of southern Africa during that crucial formative period.

Keywords

Great ZimbabweMapungubwesociopolitical complexitychronologyBayesian analysis
Type
Method
Information
Antiquity , Volume 87 , Issue 337 , September 2013 , pp. 854 - 872
Copyright
Copyright © Antiquity Publications Ltd 2013

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bent, J.T. 1892. The ruined cities of Mashonaland. New York: Books for Libraries.Google Scholar
Bronk Ramsey, C. 1994. Analysis of chronological information and radiocarbon calibration: the program OxCal. Archaeological Computing Newsletter 41: 11–16.Google Scholar
Buck, C.E., Kenworthy, J.B., Litton, C.D. & Smith, A.F.M.. 1991. Combining archaeological and radiocarbon information: a Bayesian approach to calibration. Antiquity 65: 808—821.Google Scholar
Burke, E.E. (ed.). 1969. The journals of Carl Mauch, 1869 — 72. Salisbury: National Archives of Rhodesia.Google Scholar
Caton-Thompson, G. 1931. The Zimbabwe Culture: ruins and reactions. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Chipunza, K.T. 1994. A diachronic analysis of the architecture of the Hill Complex at Great Zimbabwe. Uppsala: Societa Archaeologica Uppsaliensis.Google Scholar
Chirikure, S. & Pikirayi, I.. 2008. Inside and outside the dry stone walls: revisiting the material culture of Great Zimbabwe. Antiquity 82: 976—993.Google Scholar
Chirikure, S., Manyanga, M. & Pollard, A.M.. 2012. When science alone is not enough: radiocarbon timescales, history, ethnography and elite settlements in southern Africa. Journal of Social Archaeology 12(3): 356—379.Google Scholar
Collett, D.P., Vines, E.G. & Hughes, G.. 1992. The chronology of the valley enclosures: implications for the interpretation of Great Zimbabwe. African Archaeological Review 10: 139—161.Google Scholar
Dickens, J. & Walker, P.. 1992. An engineering study of dry stone monuments in Zimbabwe. Vols. 1 and 2. Loughborough: Loughborough University.Google Scholar
Fontein, J. 2006. The silence of Great Zimbabwe: contested landscapes and the power of heritage. London: UCL Press.Google Scholar
Garlake, P.S. 1968. The value of imported ceramics in the dating and interpretation of the Rhodesian iron Age. Journal of African History 9: 13—33.Google Scholar
Garlake, P.S. 1970. Rhodesian ruins — a preliminary assessment of their styles and chronology. Journal of African History 11:495—513.Google Scholar
Garlake, P.S. 1973. Great Zimbabwe. London: Thames & Hudson.Google Scholar
Hall, M. 1987. The changing past: farmers, hunters and traders AD 200 — 1860. Cape Town: David Philip.Google Scholar
Hall, M. & Vogel, J.C.. 1980. Some recent radiocarbon dates from southern Africa. Journal of African History 21: 431—455.Google Scholar
Hall, R. 1905. Great Zimbabwe. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
Hall, R. 1909. Prehistoric Rhodesia. London: Fisher Unwin.Google Scholar
Huffman, T.N. 2007. Handbook to the Iron Age: the archaeology of pre-colonial farming societies in Southern Africa. Scottsville: University of KwaZulu-Natal Press.Google Scholar
Huffman, T.N. 2009. Mapungubwe and Great Zimbabwe: the origin and spread of social complexity in southern Africa. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 28: 37—54.Google Scholar
Huffman, T.N. & Vogel, J.C.. 1991. The chronology of Great Zimbabwe. South African Archaeological Bulletin 46: 61—70.Google Scholar
Mccormac, F.G., Hogg, A.G., Blackwell, P.G., Buck, C.E., Higham, T.F. & Reimer, P.J.. 2004. ShCal04 Southern Hemisphere calibration, 0 — 11.0 cal kyr BP. Radiocarbon 46: 1087—1092.Google Scholar
Pikirayi, I. 2001. The Zimbabwe culture: origins and decline of southern Zambezian states. Walnut Creek (CA): AltaMira.Google Scholar
Prinsloo, L.C., Tournié, A. & Colomban, P.. 2011. A Raman spectroscopic study of glass trade beads excavated at Mapungubwe hill and K2, two archaeological sites in southern Africa, raises questions about the last occupation date of the hill. Journal of Archaeological Science 38: 3264—3277.Google Scholar
Pwiti, G. 1996. Continuity and change: an archaeological study of farming communities in northern Zimbabwe AD 500—1700. Uppsala: Societa Archaeologica Uppsaliensis.Google Scholar
Randall-MacIver, D. 1906. Medieval Rhodesia. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Robertshaw, P., Wood, M., Melchiorre, E., Popelka-Filcoff, R. & Glascock, M.D.. 2010. Southern African glass beads: chemistry, glass sourcesand patterns of trade. Journal of Archaeological Science 37: 1898—1912.Google Scholar
Robinson, K. 1961a. Zimbabwe pottery, in Summers, R., Robinson, K. & Whitty, A. (ed.) Zimbabwe excavations (Occasional Papers 3: 23A): 193—226. Salisbury: National Museums of Southern Rhodesia.Google Scholar
Robinson, K. 1961b. Excavations on the Acropolis Hill, in Summers, R., Robinson, K. & Whitty, A. (ed.) Zimbabwe excavations (Occasional Papers 3: 23A): 159—192. Salisbury: National Museums of Southern Rhodesia.Google Scholar
Robinson, K. 1961c. Zimbabwe beads, in Summers, R., Robinson, K. & Whitty, A. (ed.) Zimbabwe excavations (Occasional Papers 3: 23A): 227—229. Salisbury: National Museums of Southern Rhodesia.Google Scholar
Summers, R. 1961. Excavations in the Great Enclosure, in Summers, R., Robinson, K. & Whitty, A. (ed.) Zimbabwe excavations (Occasional Papers 3: 23A): 236—288. Salisbury: National Museums of Southern Rhodesia.Google Scholar
Summers, R., Robinson, K. & Whitty, A. (ed.). 1961. Zimbabwe excavations (Occasional Papers 3: 23A). Salisbury: National Museums of Southern Rhodesia.Google Scholar
Whitty, A. 1961. Architectural style at Zimbabwe, in Summers, R., Robinson, K. & Whitty, A. (ed.) Zimbabwe excavations (Occasional Papers 3: 23A): 289—305. Salisbury: National Museums of Southern Rhodesia.Google Scholar
Wood, M. 2011. A glass bead sequence for southern Africa from the 8th to the 16th century AD. Journal ofAfrican Archaeology 9(1): 67—84.Google Scholar