The dating of the Zimbabwe Ruins

Abstract

Like many other spectacular monuments, Zimbabwe Ruins has attracted more attention through speculation than through research. Many of the so-called ‘archaeological excavations’ in the early days were little more than licensed treasure hunts, whilst the amount of unauthorized fossicking for gold which went on until 1902 (when the ruins were protected by legislation) destroyed acres of archaeological deposits. Two people only have published reports of widespread excavations on scientific lines at Zimbabwe: the late Dr D. Randall-Maclver, who dug there for a few weeks in 1905 and Miss G. Caton-Thompson, whose careful work during the dry season of 1929 forms the basis of our present archaeological knowledge of this site. Considering the great area involved—about 100 acres of actual buildings—and the obvious importance of the site, surprisingly little is really known about it. For the past 18 years the site has been under the protection of the Southern Rhodesian Monuments Commission and excavation has been very wisely discouraged, although on the other hand the exploration and excavation of other sites has proceeded apace. Both Maclver and Caton-Thompson agreed that the building was African. Maclver dated the ‘Temple’ (the principal single structure) as ‘not earlier than the 14th or 15th century’, but admitted that an earlier settlement prior to the present buildings was a possibility. Miss Caton-Thompson gave as her earliest date for the whole complex the 9th century A.D., or possibly a little earlier, and also considered a pre-ruin culture not unlikely. Wieschhoff after reviewing all the preceding evidence and undertaking excavations at a number of other sites found himself fully in agreement with Maclver as regards dating whilst the present writer, with still more field evidence from other Rhodesian sites, felt inclined to shorten Wieschhoff's dating still more.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 11 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.