Cognitive Archaeology and Imaginary History at Great Zimbabwe - Essay Example

Archaeological References The Author used Huffman's archaeological study on Portuguese documents using the "Shona" as oral traditions and the Venda Anthropology to explain well the mysterious developments on Great Zimbabwe. These traditions were based on the early ruins of the civilization and the modern Shona cultures to clearly explain the connections, evidence, and origins of how it started. Mutapa Oral Traditions were also brought up as the author believed that it is where state formation came from and manifested for three centuries giving details on different socio-political plans of Great Zimbabwe.

It was then also considering that Mutapas lived on the high house wherein seen to be the "rulers" of the early civilization. "Snakes" and "Birds" were cited by the author referring to the different geographical representations of people within the community and the hierarchy of the so-called "rulers". Though, presented with inconsistencies on each argument still "oral traditions" have been reliable assumptions on Great Zimbabwe over the 600 years. "The Great Enclosure" was used to state the different symbols relating to males and females.

How they are categorized based on the community entrances and how those leads in the communities are located in terms of status - political and marital. "Dare" was also used to represent the community as a "meeting place" for the rulers, wives, and servants. This meeting place was set up in a way that it was placed at the base of the hill. David Beach's assumptions were based on the work of Huffman - an archaeologist. Beach's point of view based only on one work that Huffman presented thereby needing more study prior to making a concrete explanation of one thing.

This should be supported well enough by different studies and thereby making it more credible and reducing arguments and inconsistencies. I find the chapter not convincing enough regarding early civilization in Great Zimbabwe as the chapter's presented different inconsistencies leading to confusion on the reader's part. If a reader is only looking for an informative chapter this is a good chapter to get information from but if a reader is looking for arguments and bright ideas I suggest not. Just like with the comments of other professors and/or authors across the globe, the author - David Beach; should have read the other books of Thomas Huffman to make a concrete and credible chapter.

Likewise, the chapter was presented with so much jargon that definitions are unclear and confusing.