Zimbabwe Cavalcade

Published in 1957 (republished I think, it also has a 1950 publication date) I anticipated that this would be a dated view on the early history of Zimbabwe. In the end, it wasn't as out of date as I expected, but a short google informed me there was a decision over the primary disagreement...

This is a desktop study of historic writings, from what I can tell there was no personal investigation in-situ by the author. It has a many page bibliography, and quotes many, many passages from the source books. It got a little bogged down in some repetition around the middle, but finished strongly.

Essentially, there is a ruin in Zimbabwe known generally as Great Zimbabwe. It is constructed from stone - close fitting, dry (no mortar) featuring a curved wall and a round tower. It is foreign to the constructions of more recent local cultures, and differs significantly in quality from some far more modern stone walls constructed within it to ‘repurpose' the ruin. They were of very poor quality. The origins of the ruin, and who the constructors were, is unknown. There are also large scale excavations or mines throughout the area, and it is unclear who the miners were.

If I was to simplify (and I need to, as I won't be in a position to be too detailed) at the time of writing there were two hypotheses for the above, known as the ancient and the Mediaeval.

The adherents to the ancient theory who date the ruins from 1200-900 BC believe the city was built as a pioneer settlement by foreign people (Sabaeans from Southern Arabia, Phoenicians from the eastern shores of the Mediterranean, Egyptians from the Nile Valley, or Dravidians from estuary of the Indus, who employed slave labour and mined for gold. These inhabitants would predate the Bantu movement from the north overtaking the Bushmen in the south.

The Mediaeval prescribers, consider the ruins date not more than from 900AD, and were not only occupied at various times by the Bantu peoples, but were of native origin.

The issue, of course, is that the evidence does not entirely agree with either group. There is much contradictory evidence, and much that has been interpreted with a preconceived outcome. Both groups champion the evidence that supports their claim, and dismiss the evidence that does not fit.

As I say it becomes a series of quotations from previous books in contradiction. Thankfully it picked up towards the end with a chapter on the physical artifacts found on the site (and usually taken away to Europe), and a chapter titled ‘Mines, Metals and Mystery' on the topics of the mines and what metals and minerals were being extracted.

Essentially this book can't draw a conclusion, due to the factors outlined above.
Wikipedia will disclose which faction has gone on to be proven correct!

3.5 stars, rounded down.