RHODESIAN RUINS AND NATIVE TRADITION. 

 By Rev. Samuel S. Dornan, M.A., F.R.G.S., F.G.S. 



{Flairs 15-iS.j 



The ruins scattered over Rhodesia have given rise to a hot 

 •and somewhat acrimonious controversy regarding their origin, 

 uses, and age. Archccologists and popular writers have solved 

 the ])rohlem in two different ways. A halo of romance has 

 been woven around these ruins, and they have been projected 

 back to the age of King Solomon. On the other liand, they 

 have been reduced to late Middle Age in date, and degraded 

 to the level of a glorified Kaiir kraal. Bent and Hall drew 

 lively pictures of a lost civilisation Avhich IMacivcr rudely dis- 

 pelled. All these writers have dealt with the problem from 

 the archc'eological side. Imt none of them attacked it from the 

 side of native tradition. It would have been worth while to 

 have devoted some time to this line (jf investigation, and to have 

 endeavoiu-ed to discover if the natives now residing in the area 

 ■covered l)v these ruins had any traditions regarding their origin 

 and use. Dr. Alaciver, in his " Medieval Rhodesia." does not 

 raise the (juestion at all. while Air. R. N. Hall, in his " Prehistoric 

 Rhodesia," clo.ses the matter by stating that: — 



TIk' MakaraiiRa. who liave occujjicd ^rashonaland and Matabeleland 

 and the innnediate liinterland of Sofala tor the best part of a thousand 

 years, have no tradition or even legend of tlie erection of the Zimhahwe 

 Temple and its associated ruins, except that they say that tlie teiniik- 

 was Iniik liy the devil, just as their ancestors, more tlian five Inmch-ed 

 years ago, stated tliat the temple was erected hy the devil* 



He ((uotes De Barros. an old Portuguese chronicler, in 

 support of this .statement, and also gives other proofs that the 

 ]\rakaranga know nothing whatever about the origin of the old 

 ruins. I hoj)e to show in the course of this paper that these 

 assertions require very serious qualification. In other words, I 

 shall endeavour to ])rove that the natives have some traditions 

 regarding these buildings, whatever reliance may be j^laced upon 

 them. With regard to Hall's statement. I should like to make 

 the following observations. Everyone knows that, in dealing 

 with natives, one must have a thorough mastery of the language, 

 and their complete confidence, before one can obtain trustworthy 

 information, and then only with the greatest patience, care, and 

 caution. Statements have to be tested over and over agahi 

 before they are accepted, and even then one never knows how 

 much one mav have been told that the natives saw one wanted 

 to be told. After a fairly long experience in dealing with 

 natives, T can most i)ositively affirm that I know no class of 

 people more susceptible to suggestion in the way of imparting 



* Prehistoric Rhodesia," 149. 



