Hostname: page-component-7c8c6479df-r7xzm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-03-28T11:40:27.680Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Pastoralism and Zimbabwe

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 January 2009

P. S. Garlake
Affiliation:
University College, London

Extract

Excavations at the Zimbabwe (enclosure) of Manekweni, in southern coastal Mozambique, have shown that it belongs to the Zimbabwe Culture which was centred on the Rhodesian plateau. Occupation levels have been dated to between the twelfth and eighteenth centuries. The faunal evidence indicates that a section of the population benefited from intensive beef production through transhumant pastoralism on the seasonally-fluctuating fringes of tsetse fly infestation. The settlement pattern of Rhodesian Zimbabwe suggests that their siting was determined by the demands of a similar system of transhumance. This model provides a basis from which to begin to reconstruct some aspects of the economies of early Zimbabwe. It is already clear that Zimbabwe were not simply the products of long-distance trade; rather, their economies integrated farming and cattle-herding as well as gold production and foreign trade.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1978

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

1 Zimbabwe is used here for later Iron Age enclosures built and occupied by Shona ruling groups. Madzimbabwe is the more correct plural form.

2 G. Barker, ‘Economic models for the Manekweni Zimbabwe, Mozambique’, Azania, forthcoming.

3 dos Santos Junior, J. R., ‘On the prehistory of Mozambique’, Moçambique, xxviii (1941), 2372.Google Scholar

4 Garlake, P., ‘An investigation of Manekweni, Mozambique’, Azania, xi (1976), 2547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

5 Wieschoff, H. A., The Zimbabwe-Monomotapa culture in south-east Africa (Menasha, 1941)Google Scholar and Roza de Oliveira, O., Amuralhados da cultura Zimbáuè-Monomatapa de Manica e Sofala (Lourenço Marques, 1963)Google Scholar give details.

6 The full Manekweni dates, in the order in which they appear in this text, are: 1180 a.d. ±90 (HAR-1240), 1200 a.d.±100 (HAR-1285), 1170 a.d.±80 (HAR-1255), 1460 a.d.± 70 (HAR-1814), 1520 a.d.±70 (HAR-1815), 1360 a.d.±70 (HAR-1252), 1350 a.d. ± 70 (HAR-1254), 1450 a.d.± (HAR-1253), 1380 a.d.±70 (HAR-1816), 1540 a.d.±70 (HAR-1813), 1600 a.d.±80 (HAR-1812), 1600 a.d.±70 (HAR-1818), 1700 a.d.±70 (HAR-1817), and 1610 a.d.±70 (HAR-1250).

7 The excavations were based on a 2.50 metre grid. All excavated squares mentioned here had sides of 2 m.

8 Cf. Garlake, P. S., Great Zimbabwe (London, 1973), 133–4Google Scholar; Vansina, J., ‘The Bells of Kings’, J. Afr. Hist. x (1969), 187–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar

9 6411 stratified sherds were recovered, 504 of them decorated. 141 of the latter came from Phase 3 deposits.

10 The total number of bone fragments recovered was 11,626 of which 3,279 were identifiable. These represented a minimum number of 471 individual food animals.

11 Fagan, B. M., Iron Age cultures in Zambia, i (London, 1967), 6585Google Scholar; Welbourne, R. G., ‘Tautswe Iron Age site: its yield of bones’, Botswana Notes and Records, 7 (1975), 116.Google Scholar

12 Their relevant letters and reports appear in Anon, ., Documentos sobre os Portugueses em Moçambique e na Africa central, vii (Lisbon, 1969), 463511.Google Scholar

13 Compare Fuller, C. E., ‘Ethnohistory in the study of culture change in Southeast Africa’, in Bascom, W. R. and Herskovits, M. J. (eds.), Continuity and change in African cultures (Chicago, 1959)Google Scholar; de Matos, L. C., ‘Origens do povo Chope segundo a tradição oral’, Memórias do Instituto de Investigação Cientifica de Moçambique, x (1973), 1827Google Scholar; and Smith, A. K., ‘The peoples of southern Mozambique: an historical survey’, J. Afr. Hist. xiv, 4 (1973), 573.Google Scholar

14 Fagan, B. M., ‘Vertebrate fauna from Harleigh Farm’, S. Afr. Arch. Bull., xxi, 82 (1966), 7880Google Scholar; and Pellatt, A. in P. S. Garlake, ‘Excavations in the Nhunguza and Ruanga ruins in northern Mashonaland’, S. Afr. Arch. Bull., xxvii, 107 (1972), 139–40.Google Scholar

15 For example, Garlake, , ‘Excavations in the Nhunguza and Ruanga ruins’, 136.Google Scholar

16 Brain, C. K., ‘Human food remains from the Iron Age at Zimbabwe’, S. Afr. J. Sc., lxx (1974), 303–9Google Scholar

17 Garlake, P. S., ‘Rhodesian ruins—a preliminary assessment of their styles and chronology’, J. Afr. Hist, xi (1970), 495513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

18 Ford, J., The role of the trypanosomiases in African ecology (Oxford, 1971).Google Scholar

19 Garlake, , ‘Rhodesian ruins’, 499500.Google Scholar

20 Ibid., 500–1.

21 Hall, R. and Neal, W. G., The ancient ruins of Rhodesia (London, 1904).Google Scholar

22 Summers, R., Ancient ruins and vanished civilizations of southern Africa (Cape Town, 1971), 157–60Google Scholar; and idem, Ancient mining in Rhodesia (Salisbury, 1969), 137–41.Google Scholar

23 These territories may be compared with those of ‘Early state modules’ in Renfrew, C., ‘Trade as action at a distance: questions of integration and communication’, in Sabloff, J. A. and Lamberg-Karlovsky, C. C. (eds.), Ancient civilization and trade (Albuquerque, 1975).Google Scholar

24 Ford, , Role of the trypanosomiases, 334.Google Scholar

25 Beach, D. N., ‘Traditions and dynastic movements of the Shona’, seminar paper, 25 June 1975Google Scholar, Centre for African Studies, S.O.A.S., London, 9.

26 Summers, R., ‘Archaeological distributions and a tentative history of tsetse infestation in Rhodesia and the northern Transvaal’, Arnoldia, III, 13 (1967), 1213.Google Scholar

27 Beach, , ‘Traditions and dynastic movements’, 89.Google Scholar

28 Cf. Mudenge, S. I., ‘The role of foreign trade in the Rozvi empire: a reappraisal’, J. Afr. Hist, xv (1974), 389.Google Scholar

29 Huffman, T., ‘The rise and fall of Zimbabwe’, J. Afr. Hist, xiii (1972), 353–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar