The Mystery of Great Zimbabwe
Throughout the ages, whispered reports of the Queen of Sheba's stone palace were passed from sailor to sailor through the Portuguese ports. The later discovery of the ruins labelled Great Zimbabwe and their subsequent excavation has resulted in a wider respect for African sites. Moreover, the grave inaccuracies and miscalculations that took place in the excavation of Great Zimbabwe, has shocked the world into the realisation that prejudices and bigotry can be detrimental to the development of historical and archaeological knowledge.The great stone ruins were first uncovered by Portuguese traders in the 16th Century. Sailors continued to visit the site, declaring it to be the remnants of the Queen of Sheba?s palace. For nearly 400 years romantic speculation as to the true heritage of the mysterious stonewalls was passed from word of mouth until it reached the coastal trading ports of Mozambique. In 1552, Joćo de Barros wrote of ?a square fortress, masonry within and without, built of stones of marvellous size and there appears to be no mortar joining them?. The actual ?discovery? of the site was in 1871, by Carl Mauch a young German who had heard the fabled tales of the Queen of Sheba?s palace, and was eager to substantiate the t
However illogical Mauch?s reasoning may seem in today?s context, at the time his point of view was widely accepted. So much so, that it encouraged others to take part in the mystery of Great Zimbabwe. Cecil Rhodes, a member of the British South Africa Company (BSA) in 1890, on his first visit to the site informed the local Karanga chiefs that ?the Great Master? had come to see ?the ancient temple which once upon a time belonged to white men.? Unfortunately, the racist viewpoint that had been detrimental to Mauch?s visit had once more surrounded the discovery. In order to produce concrete evidence of its white-man ancestry, Rhodes and his team sponsored J. Theodore Bent, a widely travelled, but as yet unqualified archaeologist, he, like his predecessors was adamant of the city?s non black foundation, but was sceptic about the link to the Queen of Sheba. The site itself is located in an open plain, surrounded by hills. It consists of a number of interlocking walls and granite boulders, forming intricate patterns including those of chevron and herringbone. The discovery of Great Zimbabwe has astounded archaeologists for decades because, despite the dry-stone technique used in its construction (the bricks are joined with no mortar), the site stands over 10 metres tall and has done so for centuries. Unfortunately, due to lack of government funding, much of the mystery surrounding Great Zimbabwe is doomed to remain there. The question of which African built it, whether or not it was utilised as a religious centre and why it was eventually abandoned are all question unable to be answered. The only fact that is supported by every new piece of evidence is that Whites did not build Great Zimbabwe, blacks did, but this definite answer only seems to deepen the mystery regarding the other as yet unanswerable questions. Bent uncovered pottery shards, spindle whorls, spearheads of iron and copper; axes, adzes, hoes and various other tools crafted in gold. Interestingly enough, the majority of artefacts found beared a great deal of resemblanc
Some common words found in the essay are:
Queen Shebas, Peter Garlake, South African, Sheba Bent, Queen Sheba's, Company BSA, Queen Sheba, Nicklin Hall, Despite MacIvers, Randall-MacIver Halls, local karanga, queen shebas palace, queen sheba, independence britain, site immense, archaeological deposits, country zimbabwe, shebas palace, peter garlake, visit site, queen shebas,
Approximate Word count = 1382
Approximate Pages = 6 (250 words per page double spaced)
|
