History and Design of Great Zimbabwe

HISTORY AND DESIGN OF GREAT ZIMBABWE ARPL 512 – Spring 2022

DAVID STEPHEN

David Stephen

History and Design of Great Zimbabwe

5/1/22

Introduction In modern day south-central Zimbabwe exists a complex of stone ruins which provide evidence of a great medieval African empire and embody a remarkable history of the subSaharan people. Still to this day stone walled sites can be found throughout an area spanning over 700 hectares, and at its center lies an African architectural monument, the icon known as Great Zimbabwe.1 This paper will explore the history of how these structures came to built and provide architectural analysis to theorize their not fully understood use and design intention.

Cultural and Architectural Precedent The origin of the Great Zimbabwe Kingdom begins around the year 1000 AD in the neighboring Kingdom of Mapungubwe to the south where the Shashe and Limpopo rivers meet.

Here several hundred years before Great Zimbabwe’s construction a powerful empire known as the Kalanga ruled from atop a central hill. While rather low and flat-topped, this hill which still stands today is surrounded by steep smooth impassable rock faces with only one entry slope which was guarded. It was here that the Mapungubwe leaders ruled over their population of roughly 5,000 who were bounded by stone walls. Boulder outcroppings with rocky caves scatter this area of sub-saharan Africa, and exploiting these natural geologies for shelter and possibly defense was not a new concept. However, the human manipulation of stonework into not just functional use but a distinct anamorphic masonry style can be first seen by the Kalanga.2 In some ethnicities of the region Mapungubwe means “the place where rock turns into liquid”, and it is here we can begin to see the veneration of natural stone in a way that far exceeds simple

Pikirayi, Innocent. “Great Zimbabwe in Historical Archaeology: Reconceptualizing Decline, Abandonment, and Reoccupation of an Ancient Polity, A.D. 1450-1900.” Historical archaeology 47, no. 1 (2013): 26–37.

2 Meyer, Andrie and Chris E. Cloete. “Architectural traditions of Mapungubwe and Bambandyanalo (K2).” The Journal for Transdisciplinary Research in Southern Africa 6 (2010): 33.

1

1 of 15

David Stephen

History and Design of Great Zimbabwe

5/1/22

architectural purposes.3 Somewhat analogously to scholarly comparison of Mount Meru’s inspiration for Angkor Wat, the Mapungubwe Hill form and stonework was clearly the precedent and origin of the Great Zimbabwe structures4 (see citations #30 – Mapungubwe Stonework and citation #31 – Mapungubwe Hill).

Lasting about 80 years, the Kalanga empire eventually dispersed, and it’s believed a portion of these people travelled north to settle the Karanga tribe, which would grow into possibly sub-saharan Africa’s most established native society in regards to architectural planning and economic reach at the time. Between the 13th and 15th centuries this empire rose to an urban dwelling population of 20,000 who constructed labyrinths of meticulously fitted granite whose purpose to this day cannot be fully explained5 (see citation #17 - Great Zimbabwe Site Plan).

Ruin Construction Analysis The reason the stone ruins alone presents a mystery to their architectural intention is likely because they abutted less-permanent structures and are all that remains of a cohesive, albeit amoebic, organizational plan. These lighter enclosed structures probably made use of wood, but it is undoubtably the washed away daga which created the aesthetic unification of the site’s stone skeletons seen today. Daga is referred to as Africa’s most common indigenous building material of wet clayey soil which binds together a fine decomposed granite aggregate and can be used to create hard pack floors, plaster walls, and even burnt into longer lasting bricks (although there’s no evidence of this latter method being used at the Karangan sites). This daga

Huffman, Thomas N. “Mapungubwe and Great Zimbabwe: The Origin and Spread of Social Complexity in Southern Africa.” Journal of anthropological archaeology 28, no. 1 (2009): 37–54.

4 Huffman, Thomas N. “DEBATING GREAT ZIMBABWE.” South African archaeological bulletin 66, no. 193 (2011): 27–40 5 Chirikure, Shadreck, Thomas Moultrie, Foreman Bandama, Collett Dandara, and Munyaradzi Manyanga. “What Was the Population of Great Zimbabwe (CE1000 - 1800)?” PloS one 12, no. 6 (2017): e0178335–e0178335 3

2 of 15

David Stephen

History and Design of Great Zimbabwe

5/1/22

was locally abundant in a variety of colors including rich reds and yellows, and appears to be dug from several pits over 200’ across and 20’ deep just outside the walls of Great Zimbabwe6.

An examination of one Great Zimbabwe’s more modest ruins sheds light on the integral architectural nature the impermanent daga structures had with the stonework remaining today.

The Maund Ruin lies independently in the central valley just over a quarter mile northeast of the famed Great Enclosure, and at first observation it is series of unconnected haphazardly placed walls which don’t have any purposeful origin, termination, or relation to each other. However, excavations have discovered daga deposits in a configurations which formed circular daga structure between 15-37’ across. These structures are believed to have been roofed with wood and thatch, and when added to the understanding of Maund stone walls these abutments form nine distinct courtyards with purposeful doorways left for entry. Peter Garlake intuitively posits that “The same architectural system, in which stone walls enclosed external courtyards outside circular dwellings of daga and form a single functional unit was the planning basis for all the enclosures at Great Zimbabwe. Once this is recognized, the apparent meaningless gaps and discontinuities in the surviving stone walls become comprehensible”7 (see citation #17 – Maund Ruins Plan) Another puzzle when examining the extensive Great Zimbabwe ruins is the varying stonework style and technical sophistication that in places heavily intermix. At its most rudimentary these techniques relied on rough stone piles forming low uncoursed walls, where larger rocks were stacked and smaller stones used to fill in gaps. A range of intermediate level craftsmanship is also observed where some regularity is given to the fitting of stones which are

6

7

Garlake, Peter S. Great Zimbabwe. London: Thames and Hudson, 1973, p19 Garlake, Peter S. Great Zimbabwe. London: Thames and Hudson, 1973, p20

3 of 15

David Stephen

History and Design of Great Zimbabwe

5/1/22

coursed in a wavy pattern that fades in and out of consistency along its length. There is no evidence of prepared foundations for these intermediate walls, their faces endeavored to be plumb, and vertical joints frequently cross multiple courses, all making them less structurally advanced than other examples at Zimbabwe. These poorly coursed walls utilized distinct architectural features, specifically angled corners and doorways openings with low thresholds usually without steps. The less advanced of these intermediate walls are located on rock bases usually in-filling gaps between natural bolders, where the more advanced poorly coursed walls generally surrounded large open areas or infilled sections of the less advanced style8.

These rudimentary and intermediate styles are then interspersed with a marvel of medieval stonework which has given Great Zimbabwe its renown. Many structural developments can be seen in this sophisticated method, with foundations excavated for these walls at times in steps which followed the topography of the earth. In this advanced style blocks were carefully sized and matched, laid in regular long spanning courses, and dressed on the exterior face for a smooth and consistent composition. The courses each gradually set back in an almost imperceivable step to give the wall a definite sloped curvature from the base to the top.

Remarkably these walls were made with drystone only, using no mortar or binding elements.

However the approach of wide base tapering walls with meticulously fitted coursework generated fundamentally resilient structures whose height in places reached over 11m. A distinct style of sweeping curves can be seen across the features of this most advanced style, where natural irregular bends replace all edges to give the masonry itself a smooth boulder like quality similar to the exposed local geology9 (see citation #24 and #25 – Images of Rounded Features

8

Garlake, Peter S. Great Zimbabwe. London: Thames and Hudson, 1973, p23 Chirikure, Shadreck, and Innocent Pikirayi. “Inside and Outside the Dry Stone Walls: Revisiting the Material Culture of Great Zimbabwe.”

Antiquity 82, no. 318 (2008): 976–993.

9

4 of 15

David Stephen

History and Design of Great Zimbabwe

5/1/22

and Curved Tectonics). Doorways are formed simply from the wide curved ends of walls as if they were somehow organically faceted into the mass of the rock wall which itself is geomorphic along its length and height.

When finally studying the exact load transfers between the abutments of differing styles of wall at Great Zimbabwe, Anthony Whitty discovered an unquestionable chronology of the design progression of the Karanga. By determining which walls “leant against which” he demonstrated that the poorly coursed walls all predated more regularly coursed walls, and that the last walls built in-fact were the rudimentary uncoursed piles of stone.10 This suggests that perhaps the Karanga possibly arrived to the area with already some understanding of coursework and developed this into a masterful masonry style. Perhaps the later uncoursed stone piles were built intentionally in way as to not compete architecturally with the advanced style but simply add basic function. However the adaptation from sophisticated stone work to a more basic practice that consistently postdates the more advanced also suggests this knowledge may have been lost near the end of the Karanga’s occupation of Great Zimbabwe.

Medieval Monuments and National Icons Although there are numerous stone ruins spanning a large area across Zimbabwe, the center of the Karanga civilization was clearly focused around two sites: the Great Enclosure located in a valley which is presided over by the cliffs of the Hill Ruin a half mile to the north.

The bare granite of the northern hill rises steeply from the valley floor to form a 300’ high ridge which is littered with large freestanding boulders about its top. This Hill Ruin site was

10

Clarke, T. (1963). ZIMBABWE EXCAVATIONS, 1958. By Roger Summers, K. R. Robinson and Anthony Whitty. Occasional Papers of the National Museums of Southern Rhodesia. Vol. 3, no. 23a. 1961. pp. 332, 11 tables, 79 text figures, 1 plate. 40s. Antiquity, 37(145), 76-78. doi:10.1017/S0003598X00037108

5 of 15

David Stephen

History and Design of Great Zimbabwe

5/1/22

called the “Acropolis” by the early European travelers, but according to the Karanga people living there in the 19th century it is the only portion of the complex properly called Zimbabwe11.

The natural topography of the hill and its boulders was used to create three distinct enclosed areas. The largest western enclosure is the bounded by stone walls over 30’ high which are capped with monoliths and created an area which likely housed 14 or so daga dwellings12. There are then narrow walled passages and steps which weave between the mammoth boulders providing a circuitous route to the smaller Eastern Enclosure where circular stone platforms appear to have displayed monoliths and relics that include carved soapstone birds (see citation #28 – Soapstone Bird Artifacts). Tight passageways continue between the boulders to allow access to The Balcony, the highest walled platform at the site with views of the valley below (see citation #19 – Hill Ruin Plan, #21 – Hill Ruin Entrance, and #22 – Balcony View of Valley Below).

To the south of the Hill Ruins in the shallow valley below lies the largest single prehistoric structure in sub-Saharan Africa, the Great Enclosure which is encircled by an outer wall 17’ thick and 32’ high to create a space nearly 300’ in diameter (see ciation #22). There are many unique aspects of the Great Enclosure and only speculation can be made as to the designer’s true intent. However, an architectural analysis based on the masonry technique chronology above provides a theory which begins with the only fully walled interior courtyard within the Great Enclosure. This completed interior stone courtyard is roughly 70’ across housing 5 daga dwellings, and with its irregular coursework style seems to have been the first element constructed here. It then appears the Karanga likely looked to expand this enclosure to

11

Garlake, Peter S. Great Zimbabwe. London: Thames and Hudson, 1973, p25

12

Garlake, Peter S. Great Zimbabwe. London: Thames and Hudson, 1973, p26

6 of 15

David Stephen

History and Design of Great Zimbabwe

5/1/22

the southeast with what is today called the Inner Wall, a mix of poorly coursed and regularly coursed stone. Subsequent to the Inner Wall work began on the Outer Wall where the real growth of the Karanga masonry skill and architectural ambition can be viewed along its gradual curvature. With construction likely beginning at the thinnest northwest segment using lesserquality coursework, it develops into tighter coursing along the south side until the wall size and craftsmanship reaches its apex in the southeast section displaying simple triangular chevrons13.

From here the builders appear to have encountered a connection point with the earlier inner wall, however rather than making the splice between their old practices and new abilities the Outer Wall begins to follow the Inner, duplicating its curvature along the northeast side to create the Parallel Passage. This passage is architecturally astonishing in the shear scale of structure used to create such a small space whose function can’t be explained (see citation #26 – Parallel Passage). The architectural ostentation achieved by the builders along the length of the Outerwall appears to have been driving the overall complex design at this point with possibly even a disregard for logical function14 (see citation #20 – Great Enclosure Plan and citation #29 – Artistic Rendering of Great Enclosure Construction).

The culmination of this centricity on masonry prowess as a means of program can certainly be seen in the final touches the Karanga made to the Great Enclosure. In the southeast of the now walled enclosure between the southern opening of the Parallel Passage an irregular and truncated cone, 18’ in diameter and 30’ high was constructed, known as the Conical Tower.

Serving no apparent purpose other than to display the most beautifully developed Karangan

13 14

Mallows, E. W. N. The Mystery of the Great Zimbabwe : a New Solution. 1st ed. New York: Norton, 1984. p 57-67 Garlake, Peter S. Great Zimbabwe. London: Thames and Hudson, 1973, p29

7 of 15

David Stephen

History and Design of Great Zimbabwe

5/1/22

coursework, this solid structure and its viewing platform with closely bounded walls create almost a shrine of what can only be called sacred stonework15 (see ciation #27 – Conical Tower).

Conclusion When Europeans first discovered the ruins at Great Zimbabwe and for nearly a century after theories that these structures could not have been built by Africans were not only proposed but actively pursued with what can only be described as deep racial bias. The country was improperly given the name Rhodesia after the British magnate that demarcated the territory for the west in 1890. It wasn’t until radio-carbon dating technology became available in the 1950’s that scientific consensus proved these medieval ruins could have only been constructed by a great African civilization. The importance of recognizing these monuments as natively built cannot be understated as it returned to these people a rich history and ethnic identity that had been denied them.

Stemming from their historical appropriation, the term Zimbabwe as an African chosen national namesake was first adopted by the nationalist movement in the 1960’s, and formally established in 1980. This is the word given by the Shona people of the region for their medieval city of Great Zimbabwe and its surrounding stone sites. Depending on the modern-day dialect of Bantu the name is likely either derived from dzimba dza mabwe meaning “house of stone” or dzimba woya meaning “venerated house”16. Today the importance of these structures as a cultural symbol of African history, national pride, and architectural achievement can still be seen with the Hill Ruin’s iconic soapstone bird statue proudly displayed on the Zimbabwean flag.

15

Mallows, E. W. N. The Mystery of the Great Zimbabwe : a New Solution. 1st ed. New York: Norton, 1984. p 68-83

16 Garlake, Peter S. Great Zimbabwe. London: Thames and Hudson, 1973, p11

8 of 15

David Stephen

History and Design of Great Zimbabwe

5/1/22

17

18

17 18

Stephen, David. Great Zimbabwe Site Plan. iPad Drawing. April, 2022.

Stephen, David. Maund Ruins Depicting Original Daga Huts. iPad Drawing. April, 2022.

9 of 15

David Stephen

History and Design of Great Zimbabwe

5/1/22

19

20

19

Stephen, David. Hill Ruins (Fortress) Plan at Great Zimbabwe. Ipad Drawing. April, 2022.

20

Stephen, David. Great Enclosure Plan at Great Zimbabwe. Ipad Drawing. April, 2022.

10 of 15

David Stephen

History and Design of Great Zimbabwe

5/1/22

21

22

21 22

Shea,Griffin. Photograph. CNN.com Shea,Griffin. Photograph. CNN.com

11 of 15

David Stephen

History and Design of Great Zimbabwe

5/1/22

23

24

23 24

Scott, Christopher. Photograph. National Geographic Gudorf, John. Photograph. Tripatini.com

12 of 15

David Stephen

History and Design of Great Zimbabwe

25

27

25 26 27

Gray, Martin. Photograph. Sacredsite.com Gray, Martin. Photograph. Sacredsite.com Bester, Rory. Photograph. CNN.com

13 of 15

5/1/22

26

David Stephen

History and Design of Great Zimbabwe

5/1/22

28

29

30

31

Great Zimbabwe Bird – One Still Remains. Africaglobalnews.com Gray, Martin. The Building of Great Zimbabwe – Artist Drawing. Sacredsite.com 30 Fouché, L. (ed.) 1937. Photographs from Mapungubwe: ancient Bantu civilization on the Limpopo. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 31 Zyl, JJ van. Photograph of Mapungubwe Hill. WorldHistory.org. 2019 28 29

14 of 15

David Stephen

History and Design of Great Zimbabwe

5/1/22

Bibliography •

Books o Garlake, Peter S. Great Zimbabwe. London: Thames and Hudson, 1973. o Mallows, E. W. N. The Mystery of the Great Zimbabwe : the Key to a Major Archaeological Enigma. London: Hale, 1985.

•

o

Fontein, Joost. The Silence of Great Zimbabwe : Contested Landscapes and the Power of Heritage. Abingdon, Oxon, UK ;: UCL Press, 2006.

o

Vogel, Joseph O. Great Zimbabwe : the Iron Age in South Central Africa. New York: Garland, 1994.

Articles o “Construction of Great Zimbabwe Begins.” Global Events : Milestone Events Throughout History, 2014. o Huffman, Thomas N. “DEBATING GREAT ZIMBABWE.” South African archaeological bulletin 66, no. 193 (2011): 27–40. o

Chirikure, Shadreck, Thomas Moultrie, Foreman Bandama, Collett Dandara, and Munyaradzi Manyanga. “What Was the Population of Great Zimbabwe (CE1000 - 1800)?” PloS one 12, no. 6 (2017): e0178335–e0178335.

o Meyer, Andrie and Chris E. Cloete. “Architectural traditions of Mapungubwe and Bambandyanalo (K2).” The Journal for Transdisciplinary Research in Southern Africa 6 (2010): 33. o

Huffman, Thomas N. “Mapungubwe and Great Zimbabwe: The Origin and Spread of Social Complexity in Southern Africa.” Journal of anthropological archaeology 28, no. 1 (2009): 37–54.

o Chirikure, Shadreck, and Innocent Pikirayi. “Inside and Outside the Dry Stone Walls: Revisiting the Material Culture of Great Zimbabwe.” Antiquity 82, no. 318 (2008): 976–993. o

Pikirayi, Innocent. “Great Zimbabwe in Historical Archaeology: Reconceptualizing Decline, Abandonment, and Reoccupation of an Ancient Polity, A.D. 1450-1900.” Historical archaeology 47, no. 1 (2013): 26–37.

15 of 15