RlLdUESiAX KI"1XS. 3O3 



information, so tliat anything in the \va}- of leading questions 

 must be avoided. 1 tlnnk that the natives who now hve in the 

 neighbourhood ct Ziivil)al)we, Thaba's ka Alambo Khan^.i, and 

 other ruins deak with here, do not know most about them, nor 

 are they most wiHing to teh what the_\- know. Everv native 

 fears every other. This was what led Hall astray. There 

 have been great mtn-ements of population in Rhodesia within 

 comparatively recent times, and we must go farther afield for 

 our information. Not only has there been a great immigration 

 into this country from across the Zambesi within the last ,^oo 

 or 500 years, but we have as well the various Zulu incursions 

 within the last century. .Ml this has led to a great shifting of 

 tribes and clans. Hence it is that in comparativelv unsus- 

 pected places, and amongst relativelv small tribes, the nK)st 

 important evidence has come to light. ^^'ith regard to the 

 veracity of the old Portuguese writers. ver\- dilterent opinions 

 have been held. Many of them are fairly trustworthy ; others 

 are full of unsifted and unveracious statements, which have to 

 he accepted with great reserve. Mr. Hall apparentl\- considered 

 them all as of equal value, and used them without caution. 

 I have read several of them, and do not attach more importance 

 to their information than T do to Haklttyt's "Voyages." for 

 example. 



There are two theories of the origin of the Rhodesian ruins 

 before the public. The first, identihed with Bent, Peters, and 

 more especially Hall, asserts that they are very ancient, pre- 

 historic in the sense of the term as applied to South Africa, 

 that they were built by Semites, or under Semitic influence, 

 ranging in })oint of time from something like 2000 B.C. down 

 to about (jOG .\.D. The natives are held to have been qitite 

 incajyable of erecting such buildings, and that they neither now 

 nor at any ])revious time did actually erect them. Further, 

 thev are stated to have attemi)ted to co])}- the designs of the 

 original architects in a ^'ery crude and ignorant manner. .A 

 formidable array of proofs, arch?eological, ethnological, 

 botanical, and architectural, are brought forward in support 

 of this theory, so that at first sight it a])pears quite irresistible. 

 But the statements are so general in their character, that, when 

 examined critically, they fail to convince. Taking a few 

 examples of so-called proofs of antiquity, this is what we tind. 

 It is commonl)- held by Hall and others that Zimbabwe is the 

 oldest and best of the buildings, and therefore the ]H-otot\pe 

 and pattern of all the others. Yet PTall asserts that Kliami 

 and Dhlo-Dhlo contain all styles of building, from the very 

 oldest Zimbabwe type down to the newest, and were erected 

 about 900 .\.D. liie fact is, there is no difference between 

 the style of arcliitecture at Khami and that of Zimbabwe 

 except size and better preservation. The valley ruins at 

 Zimbabwe are in much the same state as Khami. The signs 

 of later and decadent walls are similar in both instances, and 



