Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-k7p5g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-10T02:23:12.689Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Popular Fiction and the Zimbabwe Controversy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 May 2014

Daniel Tangri
Daniel Tangri*
Affiliation:
University of Sydney
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The “Zimbabwe controversy” is a name by which disputes over the origins of the people who produced stone ruins and mines in southern Africa are known. Those disputes occurred between informed and lay opinion; informed opinion being represented by archeologists, and lay opinion by local cult archeologists and, at the turn of the century, explorers and excavators. One aspect of lay opinion that has seldom been discussed is the role of popular fiction. Popular novels are often mentioned in works on the Zimbabwe controversy as representing particular viewpoints, but there have been no detailed analyses of their role in that controversy. This paper will set popular novels into the context of the ideologies that influenced them, and gauge their influence on lay opinion and the degree to which they reflected viewpoints that were expressed in political disagreements over the site of Great Zimbabwe.

There are four major nineteenth-century novels that are pertinent to the Zimbabwe controversy: H. M. Walmsley's The Ruined Cities of Zululand, and three works by H. Rider Haggard—King Solomon's Mines, She, and Elissa? The first novel was published in time to incorporate knowledge of recently-reported stone ruins and gold mines. In the 1820s and 1830s stone kraals were known to have been built by black people. By the 1860s, however, when other explorers “discovered” stone ruins, they argued that black people could not have built them. Their arguments were based on prevalent systems of classifying humanity. It was generally believed that races were tied to discrete levels of culture by their average intelligence and their blood. Consequently, races could be characterised in terms of a set number of items of culture. It was also generally accepted that the overall record of humanity was one of cultural progress, or step-by-step advancement toward ever better and more complex cultures. Racial characters were thought to set a limit on the level that each race could reach. It was argued, for instance, that black Africans had reached the limit of their potential progress, whereas Europeans were still undergoing advancement. Consequently, Europeans were seen to belong to the most advanced races in the world; other races were ranked below them, and were thought to represent primitive stages through which Europeans had already passed.

Type
Research Article
Information
History in Africa , Volume 17 , January 1990 , pp. 293 - 304
Copyright
Copyright © African Studies Association 1990

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

1. See, for example, Garlake, P. S., Great Zimbabwe (London, 1973)Google Scholar, and Summers, R., Zimbabwe, A Rhodesian Mystery (Johannesburg, 1963).Google Scholar

2. Walmsley, , The Ruined Cities of Zululand (2 vols.: London, 1869)Google Scholar: Haggard, , King Solomon's Mines (London, 1885)Google Scholar; She (London, 1886)Google Scholar; and “Elissa,” The Long Bow, (2 February - 8 June 1898), parts 1-19.

3. A stone kraal in the eastern Transvaal that had been built by the Tswana was recorded by Campbell in 1820, and Moffat described a similar kraal in 1829 (Summers, , Ancient Ruins and Vanished Civilisations of Southern Africa [Cape Town, 1971], 52–54.Google Scholar) Cooley recorded a native stone kraal in 1833 (Mason, R., Prehistory of the Transvaal [Johannesburg, 1962], 379Google Scholar).

4. Summers, Ancient Ruins, 454-56. An exception that seems to have escaped notice is Hübner, A., “Uber alte Befestigungen im Reich der Matabelen (Mosili Katses Reich) in Süd-Ost-Afrika,” Zeitschrift für Ethnologie, 3 (1871), 53–56.Google Scholar

5. The theories alluded to here are those of polygehism and social Darwinism, which influenced early archeologists and historians in southern Africa: see Rosa, P., “Physical Anthropology and the Reconstruction of Recent Precolonial History in Africa,” HA, 12 (1985), 281–305.Google Scholar On the theories and their influence in the western world, see generally Hunt, E., “The Old Physical Anthropology,” American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 56 (1981), 339–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Lorimer, D. A., Colour, Class and the Victorians, (Leicester, 1978)Google Scholar; and Stepan, N., The Idea of Race in Science: Great Britain 1800-1960 (Houndmills, 1982).CrossRefGoogle Scholar For the influence of the theories in southern Africa, see Elphick, R., Kraal and Castle (New Haven, 1977)Google Scholar; Freund, B., The Making of Contemporary Africa (London, 1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Schrire, C., “An Inquiry into the Evolutionary Status and Apparent Identity of San Hunter-Gatherers,” Human Ecology, 8 (1980), 9–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

6. Tylor, E. B., Primitive Culture (New York, 1958), 26–27.Google Scholar

7. Freund, , Contemporary Africa, 2–3Google Scholar; Garlake, , Great Zimbabwe, 12Google Scholar; and Thompson, L., The Political Mythology of Apartheid (New Haven, 1985), 59.Google Scholar

8. Tylor, , Researches into the Early History of Mankind (3d. ed.: London, 1878), 220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

9. Hall, R. N., Great Zimbabwe (London, 1905), 100–01CrossRefGoogle Scholar; idem., Pre-Historic Rhodesia (London, 1909), 11-15; Johnston, K., Africa (London, 1884), 447Google Scholar; Hall, R. N. and Neal, W. G., The Ancient Ruins of Rhodesia (London, 1902), 126Google Scholar; Mennell, F. P., “The Zimbabwe Ruins, Near Victoria, Southern Rhodesia: Proceedings of the Rhodesia Scientific Association, 3 (1902), 69–70Google Scholar; and Selous, F. C., Travel and Adventure in South-East Africa (London, 1893), 333–335.Google Scholar

10. Hall/Neal, Ancient Ruins; Selous, Travel; and generally, Seligman, C. G., Races of Africa (2d ed.: London, 1939), 96.Google Scholar

11. Walmsley, , Ruined Cities, 134–35.Google Scholar

12. See Carroll, S. T., “Solomonic Legend: The Muslims and the Great Zimbabwe,” IJAHS, 21 (1988), 233–47.Google Scholar

13. De Barros' account is translated and published in Theal, G. M., ed., Records of South-Eastern Africa (London, 1898–1903), 6: 267–68.Google Scholar

14. Ibid., 8:209 (Dos Santos); 6:390 (De Couto); 1:22-23, 8:275 (Faria e Sous a).

15. Garlake, , Great Zimbabwe, 62Google Scholar, who notes that the theory was accepted by Sanutto in 1588, Pigafetta in 1591, Purchas in 1614, Speed in 1627, Dapper in 1668, Ogilby in 1670, and d'Anville in 1727, and Guillain later in the eighteenth century. One author, Heylin, writing in 1656, argued that the ruins should be attributed to the Ethiopian empire at its height: see Maund, E. A., “On Matabele and Mashona Lands,” Proceedings of the Royal Geographical Society, 13 (1891), 17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

16. Anderson, A. A., Twenty-Five Years in a Waggon (London, 1888), 29.Google Scholar

17. Schofield, J. F., Primitive Pottery (Cape Town, 1948), 80.Google Scholar

18. The first reports were published by Mauch, K. as “Reisen im inneren von Sud-Afrika,” Petermann's Geographischen Mitteilungen, 16 (1870), 1–8, 92–103, 139–42Google Scholar, and Mauch, , “Entdeckung der Ruinen von Zimbaoe,” Petermann's Geographischen Mitteilungen, 18 (1872), 121–26.Google Scholar

19. Hartmann, “Zimbàoé, oder Zimbabyé,” Verhandlungen der Berliner Gesellschaft der Anthropologie, Ethnologie und Urgeschichte für 1876, 185-89. Reproduced in this article was a letter from Mauch discussing his finds.

20. Baines, Thomas, The Gold Regions of South Eastern Africa (London, 1877), 121.Google Scholar

21. Haggard, , King Solomon's Mines, 286.Google Scholar

22. Haggard, , She, 107.Google Scholar

23. See Vines, A., “Myth Making and Invented Tradition: The Case of Great Zimbabwe,” Staff Seminar Paper No. 8 (University of Nairobi, Department of History, 1987/1988).Google Scholar

24. Cohen, M., Rider Haggard: His Life and Works (London, 1960), 232.Google Scholar

25. See Chilvers, H. A., The Seven Wonders of Southern Africa (Johannesburg, 1929), 320.Google Scholar Haggard's ideas can be found in the work of early excavators like Hall and Mennell, and of travellers like Selous. Street, B. V., The Savage in Literature (London, 1975)Google Scholar, has shown that assertions that Africans were primitive were common in popular fiction in general during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.

26. Fagan, B. M., “Two Hundred and Four Years of African Archaeology” in Evans, J. D., Cunliffe, B., and Renfrew, C., eds., Antiquity and Man (London, 1981), 45.Google Scholar

27. Colquhoun, A., “A Visit to King Solomon's Mines,” United Empire 5 (1914), 486.Google Scholar

28. Fagan, “African Archaeology.”

29. Bent, J. T., The Ruined Cities of Mashonaland (London, 1892), 82–83Google Scholar; idem., “The Ruins of Mashonaland, and Explorations in the Country,” Proceedings of the Royal Geographical Society, 14 (1892), 273-98; idem., “The Ruins in Mashonaland,” Geographical Journal, 2 (1893), 438-41; idem., “On the Finds at the Great Zimbabwe Ruins (With a View to Elucidating the Origin of the Race that Built Them),” Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 22 (1893), 124-36.

30. Monomotapa (Rhodesia) (London, 1896), 49.Google Scholar

31. Haggard, “Preface” in Wilmot, , Monomotapa, xxxivGoogle Scholar; idem., “The Real ‘King Solomon's Mines’,” Cassell's Magazine, 34 (1907), 151.

32. See Randall-Maclver, D., Mediaeval Rhodesia (London, 1905), 37, 48, 84Google Scholar; idem., “The Rhodesia Ruins: Their Probable Origin and Significance,” Geographical Journal, 27 (1906), 325-47. See Caton-Thompson, G., “Zimbabwe,” Antiquity, 3 (1929), 424–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar; idem., “Recent Excavations at Zimbabwe and Other Ruins in Rhodesia” Journal of the Royal African Society, 29 (1929/30), 132-38; and idem, The Zimbabwe Culture Ruins and Reactions (Oxford, 1931), 52.

33. The Zimbabwe-Monomotapa Culture in Southeast Africa (Wisconin, 1941), 12.Google Scholar

34. Buchan, , Prester John (London, 1910), 123, 159.Google Scholar

35. Ibid., 78.

36. Jaffe, H., A History of Africa (London, 1985), 19–20.Google Scholar

37. Ranger, T. O., “Towards a Usable African Past” in Fyfe, C., ed., African Studies Since 1945: A Tribute to Basil Davidson (Edinburgh, 1976), 17–30.Google Scholar

38. See, for example, Mudenge, S. I. G., A Political History of Munhumutapa, c. 1400-1902 (Harare, 1982)Google Scholar, and Mugabe, R., Zanu Carries the Burden of History (Maputo, 1979).Google Scholar Some black nationalist works on the Zimbabwe controversy include Chanaiwa, D., The Zimbabwe Controversy: A Case of Colonial Historiography (New York, 1973)Google Scholar; Chigwedere, A., From Mutapa to Rhodes (London, 1980)Google Scholar, and Mufuka, K. N., Dzimbahwe Life and Politics in the Golden Age 1100-1500 A. D. (Harare, 1983).Google Scholar

39. See Bruwer, A. J., Zimbabwe—Rhodesia's Ancient Greatness (Johannesburg, 1965)Google Scholar: R. Gayre of Gayre, “Zimbabwe,” Mankind Quarterly, 5 (1965), 212–43Google Scholar; idem., The Origin of the Zimbabwean Civilisation (Salisbury,, 1972); Hromnik, C. A., Indo-Africa (Cape Town, 1981)Google Scholar, and “A Chariot in the Little Karoo,” The Digging Stick, 3 (1986), 5–6Google Scholar; Loveday, A. F., ed., Three Stages of History in Rhodesia (Cape Town, 1960), 28–52Google Scholar; Mullan, J. E., The Arab Builders of Zimbabwe (Umtali, 1969)Google Scholar; and Paver, R., Zimbabwe Cavalcade (London, 1957).Google Scholar

40. Summers, Zimbabwe, 13-14.

41. Bruwer, Notably, Zimbabwe, 9Google Scholar, Hromnik, , Indo-Africa, xiiiGoogle Scholar; Loveday, Three Stages, 40, 48, 51, and Gayre of Gayre, Origin, 217-18.

42. “Myths on the March: The Kenyan and Zimbabwean Liberation Struggles in Colonial Fiction,” Journal of Southern African Studies, 9 (1982), 93–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

43. See Chanaiwa, , Zimbabwe Controversy, 124Google Scholar; and Mufuka, , Dzimbahwe, 16–19Google Scholar, and idem., “Silent Tribute to the Greatness of the Past,” Sunday Mail, 8 August 1982.

44. Most notably Garlake, Great Zimbabwe, and Summers, Zimbabwe and Ancient Ruins.

45. Harber, C., “Weapon of War: Political Education in Zimbabwe,” Journal of Curriculum Studies, 17 (1985), 118–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

46. Frederikse, J., None But Ourselves (London, 1982), 25.Google Scholar

47. Ibid., 12.

48. “Editorial,” Antiquity, 45 (1971), 1–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

49. Hartley, , “Speech,” Rhodesian Hansard, 4 September 1969, col. 844.Google Scholar

50. Smith, L., “Speech,” Rhodesian Hansard, 4 September 1969, col. 848.Google Scholar

51. Smith, L., “Speech,” Rhodesian Hansard, 4 September 1970, col. 534.Google Scholar

52. Daniel, , “Editorial,” Antiquity, 45 (1971), 2Google Scholar; Garlake, , Great Zimbabwe, 203.Google Scholar

53. Daniel, , “Editorial,” Antiquity, 48 (1974), 257.Google Scholar

54. Sinclair, P. and Huffman, T., in Frederikse, , None But Ourselves, 11–12.Google Scholar