THE SMALL TOWER
The base of this stands in Sacred Enclosure (east), at 5 ft. 2 in. north-east of the large tower. Its circumference at the cement floor is 21 ft. 7 in. At 4 ft. above the floor it has a circumference of 19 ft. 10 in., the dilapidation not being so serious as to prevent this measurement being taken. The present reduced height is as follows: west side, 3 ft. 2 in.; south side, 4 ft. 6 in.; east side, 6 ft. 6 in.; and north side, 5 ft. 3 in.
Unfortunately this tower, which Bent proved to have been solid, has, within the last few years, been subject to serious dilapidation. Photographs taken in 1894 are now but a record of the appearance of this tower at that time, for now, on comparing the photographs with the tower, they have become obsolete. A large branch of the tall hard-wood tree, which stands 3 ft. from the east side of this tower, had thrown over the summit on to the floor on the west side, and in 1902 nothing of the tower was left save the outer face of the wall, the internal blocks having been taken out by some unauthorised relic prospectors. These were replaced, and all the blocks which belong to the tower preserved.
Bent (p. 115) states:—
“The religious purport of these towers would seem to be conclusively proved by the numerous finds we made in other parts of the ruins of a phallic nature, and I think a quotation from Montfaucon’s L’Antiquité Expliquée will give us the keynote of the worship: ‘The ancients assure us that all the Arabians worshipped a tower, which they called El Acara, or Alquetila, which was built by their patriarch, Ismael,’ ‘Maximus of Tyre says they honoured as a great god a great cut-stone. This is apparently the same stone resembling Venus, according to Euthymius Zygabenus. When the Saracens were converted to Christianity they were obliged to anathematise this stone, which formerly they worshipped.’ This tower (at Zimbabwe) doubtless corresponded to the sacred tower of the Midianites, called Penuel, or the ‘Face of God,’ which Gideon destroyed (Judges viii. 7). Allusions to these towers are constant in the Bible, and the Arabian historian, El Masoudi (940 a.d.), further tells us that this stone or tower was eight cubits high, and was placed in an angle of the temple, which had no roof. Turning to Phœnician temple construction, we have a good parallel to the ruins of the Great Zimbabwe at Byblos (in Phœnicia), as depicted on the coins; the tower, or sacred cone, is set up within the temple precincts, and shut off in an enclosure. Similar work is also found in the round temples of the Cabiri, at Hadjar Kem, in Malta, and the construction of these buildings bears a remarkable resemblance to that of those at Zimbabwe, and the round towers, or nuraghs, found in Sardinia may possibly be of similar significance. MM. Perrot and Chapiez, in their History of Art in Sardinia, speak of these nuraghs as forts or temples, around which the primitive inhabitants of the island once lived. They are truncated cones, built with stone blocks of different sizes, narrowing at the top. The stones are unhewn as a rule, and laid on without mortar. Here, too, we have a parallel for our monoliths, mention of unhewn stone, and also for the phalli, specimens of which are to be found carved on stone, and here, too, the intricate plan of the fortresses suggests at once a parallel to those at Zimbabwe; hence it would appear that the same influence was at work in Sardinia as in South Africa. In Lucian’s De Syria Dea we find a description of a temple at Hierapolis, in Mesopotamia, in the propylæa of which, he tells us (p. 16), ‘there stood two very large phalli, about thirty cubits high.’ Our tower at Zimbabwe stood apparently twenty cubits high, and ten in diameter. He further says (p. 29), ‘these phalli are solid, for when a priest had to ascend he had to put a rope round himself and walk up.’”
Dr. Schlichter, 1898, remarks:—
“We have in the Great Zimbabwe an enormous gnomon (dial calculating point) before us, comprising a total angle of 120°. Taking all the details into account, I found that the obliquity of the ecliptic was somewhat more than 23° 52´, which brings us (considering that we have a good Chinese observation of the same period) to a time somewhat 1100 b.c. for the erection of the Zimbabwe ruins.”[53]