Zambezia (1999), XXVI (ii}

DAVID BEACH, SHONA HISTORY AND THE

ARCHAEOLOGY OF ZIMBABWE}
INNOCENT PIKIRAYI
History Department, University of Zimbabwe

Abstract
Professor David Norman Beach has since the early 1970s collected oral
traditions of the Shona-speaking peoples of the Zimbabwe Plateau and read
sixteenth century and later Portuguese documents relating to the same
region and the lower Zambezi. During the course of his research he made
some archaeological statements whose usefulness has been realised by both
archaeologists and prehistorians devoted to the study of Zimbabwe's past.
This article evaluates some of his publications, and tries to assess his
contribution to the field of Zimbabwean archaeology.

INTRODUCTION

When David Beach was engaged by the Ministry of Internal Affairs in the
then Rhodesia In the early 1970s, he set out a programme to collect and
Reproduced by Sabinet Gateway under licence granted by the Publisher (dated 2011)

study oral traditions with a view towards writing the history of the
.Shona. Such a project covering the entire Zimbabwe Plateau consequently
meant dealing with the problem of the Jdentity and prigins of the Shona
speakers. Chronologically this entailed covering the period before written
history, which in Zimbabwe dates before AD 1500. The.perlod In question
Is understood entirely from archaeology and prehistory. This commentary
examines Beach's understanding of and contribution to the subject of
archaeology, both during the pre-historic and historical periods. I will
comment and make references to his publications, which make direct
and substantial references to the subject of Zimbabwean archaeology,
I am a former student of the late Professor Beach. He taught me World
History and History of East Africa at undergraduate level in 1983 and 1984,
and Prehistory of Southern Africa In 1985 following the departure of Peter
Garlake and prior to the arrival of Robert Soper - both prominent
African archaeologists -In May of the same year. He also taught me Oral

1 This article was originally presented at a seminar entitled: 'Beach's legacy and the way
forward: A tribute to the late Professor Beach, the eminent and passionate historian of
pre-colonial Central Africa' organized by The Book Cafe, Harare, on the 17th of June 1999.
I would like to thank Professor Terence O. Ranger for encouraging me to comment on the
contribution of the late Professor David Norman Beach to the archaeology and prehistory
of Zimbabwe, and for his subsequent comments during the seminar. I would also like to
express my sincere appreciation to Mrs Jill Beach who was very supportive of the Idea.

135
 136 DAVID BEACH, SHONA HISTORY AND THE ARCH~EOLOGY OF ZIMBABWE

Traditions in African History at post-graduate I~vel and guided me in the

lnterpretation of Portuguese written sources: which I used to' Identify
archaeologIcal sites attributed to the Mutapa State (Piklrayi, 1993, see
Chapter 6). It Is within this background that I can confidently provide an
informed review of Professor Beachis contributIon to the subject of study
of which I am now directly Involved.
My commentary is divided Into three part~.The [irst part deals with
Professor Beach's publications before 1985. The second part examines
the period from 1985 to the mld-1990s. The last part of the commentary
examines his work published within the last five years.

PUBLICATIONS BEFORE 1985

Professor Beach devoted the early 1970s towards the collection of Shona
oral traditions. As far as he could establish, t~ese traditions had a time
depth spanning three or four centuries and anything longer than this had
to be treated with extreme caution.
By the mld-1970s, he was also reading P9rtuguese documents. He
realised that as a historian, the act of reading documents and using oral
sources required critical thinking (Beach, 1983a). He observed that "much
of the field where ora) tradition could be of most use remains largely
Reproduced by Sabinet Gateway under licence granted by the Publisher (dated 2011)

unsearched by archaeologists". Nothing had been done on Ndebele

archaeology or the so-called 'Refuge Period' "Which indicates thousands
of sites across the country, [and] still has no' overall classifications on
chronology In archaeological terms" (Beach; 1983a. 8). Beach thus
preferred to Initially comment on the archaeology dealing with the period
In question and the subject he was directly Involved tn. His. publications
prior to 1980 deal with aspects of Shona settlement on the Zimbabwean
Plateau and In some cases the archaeology Identified with them (eg.
Beach, 1970; 1972; 1978). This line of emphasis soon changed when
Professor Beach was required to read more archaeology in his research
on the origins of the Shona.
Indeed Beach had done considerable reading of Zimbabwean
archaeology as Is clearly seen In his first bobk on Shona history, The
Shona and Zimbabwe: 900-1850(1980), This meant reading the archaeology
relating to the period prior to 1500, a period he was somehow reluctant
to delve Into except on the subject matter of Great Zimbabwe (Beach,
1973). This Is understandable because of the Great Zimbabwe controversy
that had dominated Zimbabwean archaeology since the late 19th century.
This controversy attracted considerable Inte~est from other scholars,
historians Included. His article about the MJarl cult was essentially a
reaction to Peter Garlake's (1973) argument that religion contributed
much to the power of the rulers based at Great ZImbabwe (Beach, 1980,45).
 I. PIKIRAYI 137

In Shona and Zimbabwe, Beach cites 58 references on archaeology

and of these, nine came from Peter Garlake and 14 from Thomas Huffman.
His first chapter (Beach 1980, 1-51) is largely based on the works of these
two scholars. Huffman was still in Zimbabwe by the mid-1970s, Garlake
having been exiled a (ewyears earlier. Beach's reliance on him is Indicated
in the acknowledgements page:
Dr T. N. Huffman, then of the Queen Victoria Museum, Salisbury, who
over six years was ever ready to help an historian understand something
of archaeology and, especially, to make it clear why archaeologists
have come to their conclusions. His willingness to divulge' information
at a moment's notice played a major part in the making of this book. To
Mr Paul Sinclair, then of the Zimbabwe Museum, Fort Victoria, lowe my
introduction to territorial archaeology and a fascinating insight into
t he site territory of Zim babwe.
Shona and Zimbabwe tries to a considerable extent to remove the
bias created by archaeologists resulting from their studies of.ceramics
and the chronological sequences that ensued. He rightly observed that:
... too many archaeological texts in the past have given me the
impression that the country was inhabited by pots rather than people
(Beach, 1980, xiii).
The only problem that I see in Shona and Zimbabwe is the failure to
Reproduced by Sabinet Gateway under licence granted by the Publisher (dated 2011)

interpret available radiocarbon dates, which essentially deal with time

brackets rather than actual years. This is so because archaeological
evidence is - and even during the most recent periods when historical
evidence is abundant - essentially about communities and not individuals,
establishing processes of human development rather than specific events.
This limitation Is seen In Beach's dating of some Later Iron Age cultures
on the Zimbabwe Plateau:
The first of these groups is known as the Leopard's Kopje culture, and
it settled in the south-west of the Plateau after about 940. By about 1020
it had extended itself to the Limpopo valley lowland. The second,
known as the Gumanyeculture, was found in the south of thePlateau in
the middle courses of the Mtilikwe, Tokwe, and Lundi rivers and is so
far dated at only one spot, about 1090 (Beach, 1980, 18-19):
This however, may be regarded as a minor setback given his overall
appreciation of the discipline of archaeology, prehistory and the origins
of the early Shona. When Beach was commissioned to contribute a chapter
on the precolonial history of the Zimbabwe Plateau which subsequently
appeared in History of Central Africa (Beach, 1983b), he had clearly
mastered the debate between archaeologists and lingUists on the Bantu,
and particularly on the origins of the Shona. This is also demonstrated In
a book that he published for the Zimbabwean market (Beach, 1984). He
says this In the introduction:
 i.

138 DAVID BEACH, SHONA HISTORY AND THE AACi-iAEOLOGY OF ZIMBABWE

I
Efforts have been made to bring in the findings of research published
since 1981, and also to make it more relevant to the needs of
Zimbabweans. In particular, it has become clear that teachers and
students often find it difficult to reconcile· the different views of
archaeologists and historians, especially when they contradict each
other or supplying insufficient evidence for their argument.
He also used the same opportunity to respond to Garlake's (1983)
earlier criticism of Shona and Zimbabwe (1980) that "It suffers badly from
a complete and uncritical reliance on a single source for all Its
archaeological Interpretations", Garlake was referring to Beach's use of
Huffman's theory of Shona origins from south 01 the LImpopo. Beach
pOinted out that given the delays In the publication of his book, and the
appearance of Phillipson's Later Prehistory of Eastern and Southern Africa
(1977) when the former was at a very advanced stage, Huffman's theory
was "the best explanation of the evidence that has yet appeared, however
much It may be modified by later findings" (Beach. 1984,67; 1980,19-21).
It was also In Beach's Zimbabwe Before ,900 (1984) that he made
some of the most explicit statements about what archaeology was and
what it ought to do, Commenting on the debates on the chapter on
environment and prehistory, which, in my opinion, is the best example of
environmental archaeology (pp. 5-19), he had this to say, " , ,archaeology
Reproduced by Sabinet Gateway under licence granted by the Publisher (dated 2011)

deals with humans In the past, It Is essentially a science and not part of
the humanities' (Beach, 1984,66).
In terms of approaches to the analysis of ~rchaeologlcal material he
pOinted out that:
. . . when it comes to such matters as disagreement between two
archaeologists over pottery classifications, the historian often has
problems deciding whose view - if either - to choose (Beach, 1984,
66).
It was also In the same publication that he ~dmltted that archaeology
was a fast growing discipline with the potential to alter radically the view
of the African past:
i
New archaeological papers come thick and fast, so that as fast as a
general overview Is written, it is usually obsolete by the time it is
published (Beach, 1984.66). j
Indeed it was becoming extremely hard to catch up with developments
In the fleJd(s) of archaeology despIte the needi to compile overviews for
the benefit of historians, Thus the only archaeolpglcal debate he sustained
conSistently was that Involving Great Zimbabwe (Beach. 1980; 1983a;
1984) even after shifting his Interests towards d~mographic history during
the mld- to late 1980s, His third chapter In Z;~babwe Before J.900 where
he examines precolonial states prior to 1700 (Beach. 1984, 24-29) carries

1
 I. PIKIRAYI 139

a lively debate on Great Zimbabwe Involving earlier racist views, the first
professionals, Peter Garlake, Thomas Huffman and himself (see also
commentary on pp. 70-73). It was In this publication as well as his earlier
work on oral tradition and archaeology (Beach, 1983a) that he
demonstrated some faults In Huffman's (1981;' 1984) Interpretations of
Great Zimbabwe. I will comment on this In the last section of this article.
By that time he was also becoming Increasingly fascinated by the use of
spatial analysis in archaeology. He was to make another significant
contribution to the analysis of Shona settlement on the Zimbabwe Plateau
using aspects of spatial studies gleaned from Paul Sinclair (1984; 1987). I
now turn to his publications after 1985 to Illustrate these points.

PUBLICATIONS FROM THE MID-1980S TO THE EARLY 1990S

Between 1985 and 1994, Beach published few articles with a direct
reference to Zimbabwean prehistory and archaeology. As pOinted out
above, he was developing an Interest In demographic history and reading
more Portuguese sources (see Beach, 1990a; 1990b; 1990c). He had also
realised the need to publish some of the oral data he had accumulated
during the 1970s and which could not be accommodated In Shona and
Zimbabwe (see Beach, 1989; 1994a). Thus the only substantial article on
Reproduced by Sabinet Gateway under licence granted by the Publisher (dated 2011)

archaeology published In the late 1980s highlighted the potential of the

discipline In Illuminating and sometimes altering our view of events of
the 19th century which until then had been dwarfed by the readily
available written sources, especially pertaining to the mfecane (Beach,
1988).
The publication on the Zimbabwe State (Beach, 1993) was essentially
more of a commentary and an overview than a significant contribution to
the field of archaeology and Zimbabwean prehistory. It was In 1994 that
Beach published a book on the peoples of the Zimbabwe Piateau and
adjacent regions. The book Is essentially based on his "Great Crescent"
theory. Stemming from Sinclair's (1984; 1987) spatial studies of
archaeological sites from Zimbabwe and Mozambique, Beach argued that
since pre-colonial times the Shona had always preferred settlIng In a
crescent shaped zone stretching and covering the areas of Makonde and
Guruve In the north, east through Mutoko, Makonl and Manylka, south to
BuHera, Blklta, Chlvl, and Mberengwa, and then south-west tow;uds the
present Botswana. These settlement locations seemed to confirm the
archaeological evidence for the period AD 300 to AD 1300 and reflected a
long-term preference for those plateau environments. This Is highlighted
In the opening chapter of The Shona and Their Neighbours (1994b).
While the "Great Crescent" theory forms a useful model In
understanding Shona settlement processes on the Plateau since
prehistoric times It assumes rather dangerously that the country Is well
 140 DAVID BEACH. SHONA HISTORY AND THE ARC~AEOLOGY OF ZIMBABWE

surveyed archaeologlcally. which Is not the case. Very little archaeological

work has been carried out In the Zambezl and'L1mpopo lowlands. but the
data that Is currently available already suggests prehistoric settlement
existed In the very same areas which are treated today as marginal
environments. Beach therefore underplays environmental changes In
determining settlement shifts between the various Plateau zones and
adjacent lowlands. The model Is also based on the state of colonial
archaeology. which relied heavily on reports of numerous later Stone Age
rock art sites In the hilly. higher altitude areCl$ compared to the Iron Age
and later settlements In the same regions. In my opinion the model -
although well conceived and generally accurate on a macro-scale such as
the whole of the Zimbabwe Plateau -Is not clearly articulated to account
for earlier. pre-Shona settlement dynamics In relation to environmental
changes. Beach could be forgiven for lack of relevant environmental data.
which Is now becoming available to historians and archaeologists but
whose interpretation is set to be very controversial.
It is unfortunate perhaps that readers of The Shona and Their
Neighbours - and this includes some historians. radical archaeologists.
students and nationalists - have understood the model to mean that the
Shona never preferred the richer. heavier soils associated with the
hlghveld. The Europeans, ostenSibly. found these areas generally empty.
Reproduced by Sabinet Gateway under licence granted by the Publisher (dated 2011)

With the current debate on the land question the "Great Crescent" theory
has been regarded by some as a deliberate att~mpt by Beach to perpetuate
White/Rhodesian colonial Interests. While historians would better handle
this debate. his comments at the inaugural lecture failed to put the
matter to rest. He has this to say for the "GrE~at Crescent":
Modern writers seem to forget that the Natur~1 Regions were originally
defined with white immigrants in mind, not ~he African people of the
country. Nobody involved in the current land question will get much
comfort from my research as it requires a mo~lification of practically all
accepted views (Beach 1999. p. 9 . . . footnote 8).
The quotation is as controversial as the "Great Crescent" theory
itself. but perhaps the value of The Shana and Their Neighbours lies In
underscoring the Impact of spatial studies 'In archaeology that many
Zimbabwean scholars have failed to realise. More discussion is required
to understand how Beach managed to combine demographic history and
spatial analyses to come out with a theory/model of Shona settlement on
the Zimbabwe Plateau since the late first millennium AD. Perhaps the
inability by scholars to promptly comment op this model was overtaken
by "new" approaches towards the interpretation
I
of Great Zimbabwe.
pioneered by Thomas Huffman (1981; 1984; 1~96). Huffman's structuralist
model generated considerable debate during the second half of the 1990s
of which Beach took an active part. i
 I. PIKIRAYI 141

THE PERIOD 1995 TO PRESENT

During the early 1990s, Professor Beach had firmly embarked on his
research projects on the regional and economic histories of northern and
eastern Zimbabwe and central Mozambique covering the period 1500 to
1900. His research on the traditions of the Saunyama and Manylka people
in eastern Zimbabwe and the Portuguese documents referring to the
same region Invited a fresher look Into the archaeology of the Nyanga
complex. Using population data, totems and languages, local histories,
evidence for the mfecane and famine, and available cattle figures, he
tentatively concluded that the complex 'was primarily (but not exclusively)
the work of the people of Unyama and northern Manylka' (Beach, 1996,
717). He urged archaeologists working in the area to consider more
seriously local Shona history and anthropology than had been the case
so far (p. 718).
The period since 1995 is however dominated by two publications on
Great Zimbabwe (Beach, 1997; 1998) In reaction to Huffman's earlier
work, but particularly the book Snakes and Crocodiles: Power and
Symbolism in Ancient Zimbabwe (1996). This book is a cognitive study of
the Zimbabwe culture buildings, Interpreting the various units of space
on the site using oral traditions, written sources and archaeological data.
Reproduced by Sabinet Gateway under licence granted by the Publisher (dated 2011)

In his 1997 article published in The South African Archaeological

Bulletin Beach had clearly lost patience with Huffman's approaches to
the study and Interpretation of Great Zimbabwe and its sister sites. He
pointed out what archaeologists had to do to avoid a clash between
models applied In their discipline and other sources, In this case, history.
Huffman's grasp of essential historical methodology was regarded as
inadequate; while his collection and use of oral tradition did not possess
the level of competence required. This critique was published when
Beach had already written another detailed article, "Cognitive archaeology
and imaginary history at Great Zimbabwe", which appeared in Current
Anthropology In February 1998. This article critiques Huffman's
interpretation of Great Zimbabwe since 1977 (see also Beach, 1983a).
Beach (1998) set out to conduct a rigorous study in the use of oral
tradition and written documents in the interpretation of archaeological
evidence. He attempted to offer an alternative model in explaining the
growth of Great Zimbabwe - historical process - using the knowledge of
Shona society to good effect.
I was asked by the editors of the same journal to comment on Beach's
article (see pp. 64-65) and together with seven other scholars, were
generally agreed that Beach's critique of Huffman and his own alternative
model were necessary in the interpretation of Great Zimbabwe. I was
perhaps less lenient or polite with Beach than any other commentator
 142 DAVID BEACH, SHONA HISTORY AND THE ARc'HAEOLOGY OF ZIMBABWE

because of what I regarded as controversial details relating to the

dlstrlbutlfln and builders of the Zimbabwe culture buildings in the opening
statements of his article. I even pointed out that his treatment of oral
tradition was turning out to be hypercritical to the point of rendering
them useless, obscuring the essential hist~rical facts in the process.
What I also considered as unsatisfactory was the argument that since
Great Zimbabwe was a major political centre, oral traditions and written
sources could be used to Interpret Its development in terms of political
process. This alternative model to Huffman's supposedly fit the available
archaeological data but faIled to explain the meaning of the architecture
of Great Zimbabwe. Both Beach and Huffman appeared to have problems
in the perception of cultural continuity (see pp. 60-61), and therefore the
whole interpretation and debate about Great Zimbabwe is essentially
based on how the different scholars including these two approached the
Issues. Both Beach and Huffman were not fluent in the Shona language
and therefore had to omit certain aspects of Shona cosmology, which
their sources could not accurately or properly convey to them, for
example, the many rituals surrounding the Shona courts. I suggested the
need to focus research efforts on the study of cultural landscapes to
understand many hidden aspects of the Shona past. This however, remains
largely unfulfilled by recent research but is worthwhile considering for
Reproduced by Sabinet Gateway under licence granted by the Publisher (dated 2011)

the archaeology of the 21st century.

THE FUTURE

Professor Beach passed away prematurely on the 15th February 1999.

Many of us are clearly at loss over what to do next. It is critical if not
imperative to continue from where he left but this is not a simple task.
Beach had an elaborate research programme designed to see him through
his proposed retirement towards the end of 'the first decade of the 21st
century. He had clearly scheduled his research plans and amassed large
quantities of data. The areas covered include northern and eastern
Zimbabwe as well as the central parts of Mo:z;ambique. If the Department
of History is to sustain the teaching and r'esearch in the histories of
Zimbabwe and adjacent regions, competence has to be developed in the
fields of research left by Professor Beach. The potential danger cannot be
underestimated for one only has to read Beach's comments in the appendix
of his inaugural lecture, where he listed all h'is 63 publications:
Numbers of publications. in any case, take no account of the actual
amount and complexity of the research that led to them. I supply this
list because, for reasons outside my control, I have become almost the
only remaining academic historian of four centuries of pre-colonial
Zimbabwean history. Not only is this an unhe'althy situation in itself but
 I. PIKIRAYI 143

it seems to have led to a situation where few academics in the fields

that surround mine are fully aware of what I have been doing (Beach,
1999,30).
When Beach said this last year, I felt very uncomfortable because as
an administrator and fellow colleague, I knew exactly what he meant, but
I could not do anything then. What we need to do as a Department Is
groom our postgraduates In the field of pre-colonial Zimbabwe. This
requires Institutional and national understanding of what It means to
teach such a field of history at university, and what we expect our
graduates to achieve when they go out to teach in schools and colleges.

CONCLUDING RE.MARKS

Although Beach was not an archaeologist - and he never pretended to

be one - he made a significant contribution towards the understanding
of archaeology especially of the last two millennia. His historical
approaches, meticulous concern with detail and critical analyses of
historical sources clearly signified the value of multi-disciplinary
approaches In the study of the past. Ar\.lIaeology Is one such discipline
and Beach used it accordingly. Thus archaeology to him was a long-term
history rather than a science, fitting within the broader context of historical
Reproduced by Sabinet Gateway under licence granted by the Publisher (dated 2011)

studies.

References
Beach, D. N. (1970) 'Afrikaner and Shona settlement in the Enkeldoorn
area', Zambezia, 1, (I), 5-34.
- (1972) 'Kaguvi and Fort Mhondoro', Rhodesialla, 27, 29-47.
- (1978) 'Shona settlement around Buhwa range', Occasional Papers of
the National Museums and Monuments of Rhodesia, 4, (Iii), 106-111.
- (1980) The Shona and Zimbabwe 900-1850: An Outline of Shono History
(Gweru, Mambo Press).
- (1983a) 'Oral history and archaeology in Zimbabwe', Zimbabwean
Prehistory, 19, 8-11.
- (1983b) 'The Zimbabwe plateau and its people', in Birmingham and P.
Martin (eds.) History of Central Africa, Vol. 1 (London, Longman), 245-
277.
(1984) Zimbabwe Before 1900 (Gweru, Mambo Press).
- (1988) "Refuge' archaeology, trade and gold mining in nineteenth-
century Zimbabwe: Izidoro Correira Pereira's list of 1857', Zim!Jahwean
Prehistory, 20,3-8.
- (1990a) 'First steps In the demographic history of Zimbabwe', in B.
Fetter (ed.) Demography From Scanty Evidence: Central Africa in the
Colonial Era (Boulder, Rienner), 45-79.
 144 DAVID BEACH, SHONA HISTORY AND THE ARdlAEOLOGY OF ZIMBABWE

I
- (1990b) 'Zimbabwean demography: Early colonial data',Zambezia, 17,
(1),31-83. I

- (1990c) 'Publishing the past: Progress in the "Documents on the

Portuguese" series', Zambezia, 17, (iI), 175-183.
- (1993) 'The rise of the Zimbabwe state', In R. O. Collins (ed.) Problems
in African History: The Precolonial Centuries (Princeton, Markus
Wiener), 127-134.
- (1994a) A Zimbabwean Past: Shona Dynastic Histories and Oral Traditions
(Gweru, Mambo Press).
- (1994b) The Shona and Their Neighbours (Oxford and Cambridge MA,
Blackwell).
- (1996) 'Archaeology and history In Nyanga, Zimbabwe: An overview',
in G. Pwiti and R. Soper (eds.) Aspects of African Archaeology (Harare,
University of Zimbabwe), 715-718.
(1998) 'Cognitive archaeology and imaginary history at Great
Zimbabwe', Cu"ent Anthropology, 39, (I), 47-72 (with comments from
BourdiIIon, M. F. C., Denbow, J., Liesegang, G., Loubser, J. H. N.,
Pikirayi, 1., Schoenbrun, D., Soper, R., and Stahl, A. B.).
- (1999) 'Zimbabwe: Pre-colonial history, demographic disaster and the
University', Zambezia, 26, (I), 5-33.
Beach, D. N., Bourdillon, M. F. C., Denbow, J., Hall, M., Lane, P., Pikirayi, I.
and Pwiti, G. (1997) 'Review feature: Sna/{es and Crocodiles: Power
and Symbolism in Ancient Zimbahwe by Thomas N. Huffman', SOllth
Reproduced by Sabinet Gateway under licence granted by the Publisher (dated 2011)

African Archaeological Bulletill, 52, 125-143.

Garlake, P. S. (1973) Great Zimbabwe (London, Thames and Hudson).
- (1983) Great Zimbabwe Descrihed and E\'ploined (Har,\re, Zimbabwe
Publishing House).
Huffman, T. N. (1981) 'Snakes and birds: Expressive space at Great
Zimbabwe', African Studies, 40,131-50.
- (1984) 'Where you are the girls gather to play': The great enclosure at
Great Zimbabwe', in M. Hall, et. al (eds.) Frontiers. Southem Africon
Archaeology Today (British Archaeological Reports International
Series),207. .
- (1996) Snakes and Crocodiles: Power and S~vlnholislll ill Ancient Zimhabwe
(Johannesburg, Witwatersrand University Press).
Phillipson, D. W. (1977) The Later Prehistory of Eastern ({nd Southern Africa
(London, Heinemann).
Pikirayi, I. (1993) The Archaeo/ogiClllldentity of the Mutopa .')'tate: Tow(Jrds
an Historical Archaeology of NOr/hem Zimbabwe, Studies in African
Archaeology, 6 (Uppsala, Acta Archaeol<wica UpsaJiensis).
Sinclair, P. J. J. (1984) 'Spatial analysis of arch aeological sites from
Zimbabwe', Working Papers in Africanj Studies, 7, African Studies
Programme (Uppsala, Department of Cultural Anthropology).
Sinclair, P. J. J. (1987) Space, Time and So~ial Fonnation: A Territorial
Approach to The Archaeology and AntfJropology of Zimbahwe and
Mozamhique, c. 0-1700 AD (UppsaJa, Societas ArchaeoJogica
Upsaliensis). 'I