The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Cognitive Archaeology and Imaginary History at Great Zimbabwe
Abstract
The archaeology of Great Zimbabwe in southern Africa is well developed, but supporting evidence from other disciplines is scanty and often suspect. Consequently, the interpretation of many features of the city that flourished ca. 1200–1500 is difficult. Thomas Huffman's well‐known reconstruction of the site's cognitive archaeology relies upon misunderstood documents, dubious oral traditions, and inappropriate comparisons to arrive at a picture of a city that was essentially static in its use of space for at least two centuries. An alternative interpretation is offered that draws upon Shona historical and anthropological sources and, explicitly, imagination to show how political processes within a Shona dynasty could have affected the building of the central part of the city. This model does not pretend to explain every feature of the site, nor does it claim to be more than one of several possible models of its kind. Nevertheless, it corresponds far more closely to the workings of Shona society, as it is known to us from history, than Huffman's.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Portuguese documents contain useful information on the political, social, cultural, and economic life of groups now known as Shona, but their utility is diminished by the fact that they do not directly refer to Great Zimbabwe.
“However, the utility of Portuguese documentary sources is diminished by the fact that they do not directly refer to Great Zimbabwe”
From New Perspectives on the Political Economy of Great Zimbabwe (2020) · cites this paper as Beach 1998
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
New Perspectives on the Political Economy of Great Zimbabwe
Chirikure, S. (2020) · Journal of Archaeological Research · doi:10.1007/s10814-019-09133-w · Cited by 35
Penn, A., & Turner, J. S. (2018) · Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rstb.2018.0253 · Cited by 14
Metadata
- Authors
- Beach, D.
- Venue
- Current Anthropology
- Publisher
- University of Chicago Press
- Published
- 1998-02
- Volume
- 39
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 47-72
- ISSN
- 0011-3204
- 1537-5382
- Cited by
- 62
- References
- 0
- Language
- en
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review