Great Zimbabwe, Mashonaland, Rhodesia / An account of two years' examination work in 1902-4 on behalf of the government of Rhodesia

by R. N. Hall

SUMMIT OF MAIN WALL

For some fairly extensive lengths along the summit of the more massive portion of the main wall the blocks and stones are higher on the centre of the floor of the summit than at top outer edges on either side, from which edges the measurements of the heights above the exterior and interior surfaces of the ground were taken. Branches of trees beating in high winds upon the summit, the weight of heavy festoons of creepers hanging from the summit, and the growth of monkey-ropes and wild vines in the joints of the dry masonry have destroyed some of the upper courses on either side of the wall. Therefore to the heights stated in the foregoing tables should be added at least 1 ft. or 2 ft., this being a fair average height of the whale-back ridge along portions of the summit of the wall.

An interesting question arises: What was the original height of the massive portion of the wall? There are some evidences that the original height could not have been more than six courses above the chevron pattern which runs on a true level on the upper and outer face of the wall between [189 ft.] and [455 ft.]. The greatest number of courses now remaining over this pattern is five, but these are only found at two points and for the length of a few blocks. At most points above the pattern there are no upper courses remaining; at other points one or two courses are perfect for some distance; the most frequent are three courses; while at several points there are four courses. To the heights given in the tables can safely be added 1 ft. to 2 ft. Were the obviously missing courses to be restored, the raised ridge along the centre of parts of the summit would be cleared, for these ridges of stones are formed of blocks once carefully packed, all on their flat sides, between side walls, and are similar to the existing internal portions of other well-built walls at Zimbabwe.

Adding this further height of from 1 ft. to 2 ft. to the tabulated heights, we can carry the investigation much further. The upper faces of the blocks of the fourth and fifth courses above the pattern are too free from decomposition, weather-stain, and lichen to have formed the topmost courses; in fact, their upper surfaces are decidedly fresh, as if the courses above them had not long disappeared, and when it is recollected that experience shows that the exposed top surfaces of blocks are found to take on signs of decomposition and of exposure to weather, and also to become covered with lichen quicker than the side faces of blocks in the body of the wall, and that the upper courses would have given some evidences of long exposure, which they do not, we may be certain that the wall was carried a further course, or possibly two courses of the wall higher than the fifth course above the pattern. Therefore at many points along the highest portions of the wall, as shown in the tables, 2 ft. 6 in. may be added to the tabulated heights, and this would include the height of the six courses above the pattern throughout its whole length.

Whether the original summit was higher than these six courses is a matter of conjecture. Possibly the wall was two or three courses higher than the six courses. Here, as elsewhere in the first-period ruins in Rhodesia, the best-built portion of the edifice is that which bears the decorative designs. This appears to be an invariable rule in such older ruins. But at this temple the whole wall, and especially the courses immediately above and below the pattern, are the best-built portions of the most superior wall of the building, the courses being far truer. Moreover, a good quality of stone is employed, giving the impression that it was specially selected for the purpose, so much so that their back parts are as well squared as their front faces. It is most obvious, as practical builders claim, that the pattern itself and its enclosing courses show the best workmanship on the part of the ancients, and this notwithstanding that this wall is admitted by all to stand pre-eminent among excellently constructed walls to be found anywhere in Rhodesia.

NORTH-EAST WALL, WITH CHEVRON PATTERN, ELLIPTICAL TEMPLE

In removing the wall débris at the outer base of the wall containing the chevron pattern for the purpose of forming catchment areas for draining the ground near the wall, two classes of stone blocks were found, a quantity of large, shallow, flat stones similar to those lying in the middle parts of the summit of the walls, and also a quantity of well-shaped blocks as used both in the pattern and in the enclosing courses, but it was estimated that there were not enough of these blocks to have carried the outer face of the wall more than some two courses above the fifth course above the pattern. It is impossible to draw any corresponding inferences with regard to débris on the base of the interior side of the wall, for excavators have moved this out of all relative position to the wall from which it fell.

But there is also some evidence as to the original height of the wall. Such of the undoubted monoliths as still stand more or less erect on the summit of the wall—and as is shown later, not every upright stone on this wall is necessarily a monolith—have no signs on their faces of having been built in by blocks up to any height above the level of the six courses above the pattern. In the case of any fallen monolith from the faces of which supporting blocks or any of them have disappeared, it can be ascertained to what depth the base of the monolith was built into the wall, and in this respect there is some evidence to guide one in estimating the original height of the ancient wall so adorned. The wearing of their sides by the edges of supporting blocks can almost always be noticed, in addition to which the rain of many centuries is guided to the base by the position of the supporting blocks which guide the water downwards, thus causing small rimlets to form on the lower part of the beams, especially those of slate or soapstone, where the rimlets have become in time beautifully smooth and glazed. Therefore it is highly probable that the height of the six courses above the pattern, with the present height of the wall above its foundations as given in the tables, formed the original height of the massive portion of the enclosing wall.

The discovery in December, 1902, of what are believed to be traces of a line of small round towers on the outer edge of the summit immediately over the chevron pattern—and these are referred to later—affords very strong evidence as to what was the original height of the wall, and points to the limit of six courses above the chevron pattern. The line of small round towers (recently found to have been conical) on the outer edge of the west wall of the Western Temple on the Acropolis have their foundations a few inches below the present summit of the wall. The foundations of the towers on the wall at the Elliptical Temple, now being described, have their foundations on the present surface of the central ridge along the summit of the wall, but were the pattern made good at the height of the six courses alone, the positions of these foundations would be identical in several respects with those of the towers on the Acropolis. Thus these foundations provide a fourth important corroborative clue as to the original height of the wall.

Along the floor of the summit are laid some large, broad, but shallow slabs of granite of irregular form, while down below on either side were a score of others which have fallen off the wall. Bent suggested that the summit was once paved with these slabs. In view of the four proofs just adduced with regard to the original height of the wall being somewhat higher than is seen to-day, the purpose of the slabs could hardly be that of providing a pavement for the summit. Most probably they were the “ties” or “throughs” to bind the wall at its top courses, as invariably found near the summits of the best class of walls, especially so in all rounded ends of walls, summits of rounded buttresses, and in the Conical Tower where, near its summit, the back and inside ends of the blocks are frequently longer than in the lower courses where they are short. Many of these slabs on the main wall lie across the wall on its present surface, but these are frequently covered with laid blocks. The best instances at Zimbabwe of the “tying” and bonding of the highest courses of walls are to be seen on the Acropolis, but this feature is elsewhere in Rhodesia common in several ruins which are not built upon the angular principle. It is natural to suppose that, if the ancients not only carefully tied the upper courses of almost all walls with “throughs,” and also tied several points between base and summit, this main wall bearing the decorative pattern, and once having on its summit, as is now believed, both round towers and soapstone beams, the ancients, admittedly being skilful builders, would regard the effective tying and bonding of such a wall as an important necessity, especially as the wide and commodious summit was, as stated by Bent, in all probability a look-out and much-frequented elevation. The stones which are uncovered are decomposed and lichen- and moss-covered on their upper faces, but are on their under side as fresh and as clean as if they had just been brought from the quarry. Some visitors, supposing these tie-stones to have been fallen monoliths, have placed four of them in an upright position where they now stand, but unlike all true monoliths, they are not weathered or time-eaten all round, and two so erected have all their faces perfectly clean and fresh.

The summit of the north-west portion of the main wall is fairly level, save at north-west and west entrances where the wall is reduced in height, and also at several points where large branches of trees have beaten off the blocks of the upper courses. The narrow width of the summit, as shown in the foregoing tables, and the number of loose stones lying upon it, make it somewhat awkward for walking along it, still this can be done far more easily than might be supposed from Mr. Swan’s description. The battering-back of its outer and inner faces appears to point to its original summit being only slightly higher than its present top at its highest point. If the wall were once more than three or four courses above its present highest point, the débris must have been removed, for no greater quantity of blocks were found than would have sufficed to make good that height.