is that of these buildings are referable to 
an earlier period than mediaval or post-medizval 
times. He argues that none of the objects hitherto 
discovered in excavating within the area of the ruins 
would be recognised by an archeologist ““ more 
than a few centuries old; and that the objects, when 
not immediately medizeval imports, 
are of characteristically African type.’’? Inyanga and 
the Niekerlx ruins do not appear to have produced any 
but native African objects, and a Umtali a fragment 
of glazed stoneware was the only foreign object found. 
tion none 
as 
recos enisable as 
At the better-known sites, Dhlo Dhlo, Kami, Nanatali, 
and Zimbabwe, a fair number of imported objects 
have been found, but here again Dr. Maclver holds 
that in no case is there evidence of a pre-medizval 
antiquity. As far as possible, he endeavoured in his 
excavations to reach the lowest strata, and to explore 
the levels which must be contemporary with the 
earliest portions of the walls of the buildings, and 
the obiects found therein were naturally considered by 
him of the highest importance. : ; 
Fic. 1.—China and Ivory and Shell Beads found at Dhlo-Dhlo. 
biom **‘ Medizval Rhodesia.” 
It was at Dhlo Dhlo that he discovered his most 
valuable piece of evidence. The absence of objects of 
foreign workmanship and of known date at the 
Inyanga, Niekerk, and Umtali sites rendered impos- 
sible the assignment of any definite period to the 
buildings there, although the negative evidence may 
be held to indicate the lack of near influence, which 
itself may possibly be regarded as pointing to these 
being than 
sites earlier the others which were 
examined, a view which is held by the author on 
structural grounds. At Dhlo Dhlo, on the other 
hand, numerous imported objects were found, and in 
excavating one of the platforms upon which a dwell- 
ing had been erected, and which Dr. Maclver asserts 
most positively is contemporaneous with the earliest 
portion of the building, he came across a piece of 
blue and white Nankin china in the unbroken cement 
floor of the dwelling. This fragment is shown 
If this cement 
cted at the same time 
(No. 20) in the illustration reproduced. 
floor was, as he maintains, 
NO. 1946, VOL. 
erec 
5| 
oa 
/ 
NATURE 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| FEBRUARY 14, 1907 
as the oldest walls of the main building, we must 
certainly admit the validity of his contention that the 
building cannot antedate the fragment of porcelain, 
and that the date of erection, therefore, cannot be 
pushed back beyond late mediaeval times. His critics 
appear willing to admit the validity of his argument 
as regards Dhlo Dhlo, but they urge that the build- 
ings on this site are relatively late, and that this 
dating will not hold good in the case of the buildings 
at Great Zimbabwe, which they regard as much 
earlier. 
Dr. Maclver regards the principal buildings, such 
as the so-called ‘* Elliptical Temple ’’ at Zimbabwe, as 
being fortress-kraals, and urges that the ‘‘ Elliptical 
Temple ’’ itself was the fortified residence of the 
Great Chief, or Monomotapa, whose sway extended 
over an enormous area and a very extensive popula- 
tion. To understand how architectural feats, such as 
the finer Rhodesian buildings at Dhlo Dhlo, Nanatali, 
and Zimbabwe, can have been achieved by the pre- 
cursors of the modern South African natives, it is 
necessary to assume that in those days there was 
organisation far higher character than has 
obtained in years, organisation under great 
chiefs whose power and intelligence were of a re- 
latively high order. This would appear, from the 
Portuguese and other records, to have been the case 
in the » days of the Monomotapan empire of the Middle 
Ages down to the close of the sixteenth century. The 
Monomotapa, or paramount chief, may well have re- 
sided at Zimbabwe, and he is recorded to have had 
of a 
recent 
captains in various fortresses elsewhere. The organ- 
isation of labour implied by the elaborate and 
decorated stone architecture is certainly remarkable, 
more particularly when we compare these edifices with 
the results of the constructional efforts of the modern 
Kafir peoples; but under an intelligent and powerful 
ruler, and under stable conditions of life, a degree 
| of culture may have been reached far higher than it 
is possible for smaller communities under lesser chiefs 
to maintain. It seems well within the bounds of 
probability that under such conditions even the finer 
buildings may have been erected by the more pro- 
gressive and united precursors of the present native 
inhabitants of Rhodesia. 
Even more remarkable, in some respects, than the 
huge “‘ fortified kraals’’ are the terrace walls on the 
Niekerlx site described by Dr. Maclver. These stone- 
built walls form irregular concentric rings round the 
hills upon which the villages were situated, and 
although structurally simple, cover an enormous area 
extending in close formation over a space of upwards 
of fifty square miles. They do not appear to have 
been erected as supporting walls for agricultural 
terraces, nor to have been connected with an irriga- 
tion system, and, in the absence of evidence to the 
contrary, one must assume that their purpose was 
defence, though one accepts this view somewhat 
reluctantly, for, when regarded as an elaborate system 
of defensive girdle walls, one cannot but admit that 
their practical value is hardly commensurate with 
the enormous labour expended upon them. They 
recall to one’s mind the sementera walls of Luzon, in 
the Philippines, which also form long, irregular, 
though concentric alignments up the slopes of the 
hills, following their contours, covering, too, a very 
large extent of country. In the case of the sementeras 
there are transverse walls dividing up the terraces 
into sections. They are purely for agricultural pur- 
poses, and are mostly, though not all, connected with 
a wonderful system of irrigation. It might be of 
use to compare the sementera system with the 
Niekerk terrace walls, on the chance of a clue to the 
