Archaeology is the study of both ancient and recent past of human beings through material remains. Archaeology gives us a unique perspective on the culture and the history of human beings which helps us understand both the ancient and the recent past of a certain group of people greatly. This study helps us understand where, when, why and how people lived on this planet. It also examines the different kinds of changes that human culture has undergone over time, and tries to seek an explanation for the changes. In this paper, we will be discussing the archaeology of both the great Zimbabwe in Zimbabwe and the Mississippian culture, and we will compare and contrast the two places understanding through time and reflect on some questions (Renfrew et al., 88).
The great Zimbabwe is located in South Africa in a country known as Zimbabwe. The fast people to encounter the great Zimbabwe were the Portuguese traders, at first they believed that the vast stone ruins were the legendary Queen of Sheba capital (Chirikure et al., 857-858). Later, some other travelers came with their theory that the structure of the impressive stones were the work of Phoenicians, Egyptians or Prester John who was Christian king. Such speculation lasted for nearly 400 years until some excavations were done by David Randall-Maclver and Gertrude Caton-Thompson who were British archaeologists, their excavations confirmed that the Great Zimbabwe was of African origin (Pikirayi et al., 226).
The Cahokia Mounds Historic Site is a state that is located on an ancient Native American city site which dates between C600-1400 CE, and it is situated across the Mississippi River. Cahokia was the most influential and the largest urban settlement in the Mississippian culture. Archaeological investigation of this area was conducted by Cyrus Thomas in the year 1882 to 1894, and he was the first to start the era of investigation in the Mississippian culture. The Mississippi Department of History and Archives also conducted an investigation on the same in 1930, 1962 and 1972. These studies which were conducted in different periods represents a classic historical archaeology example, where the findings of archaeology are compared to some documentation which were written by the French colony who colonized the Natchez area. The investigation of the Mississippian culture is being continued by different institutions even today (Blitz, 19).
Some early archaeologists such as Richard Hall who were hired to investigate the site came up with a falsified agenda to please the British government. Hall asserted that such a civilization was of a higher class and that Africans could not have managed to build such a construction. Thus it was constructed by more civilized races than the Africans. He argued that the last phase of the great Zimbabwe was a decadent period and transitional when the local Africans interbred with foreign builders. These builders were the ones who were responsible for the construction of the great Zimbabwe. Hall went ahead and eliminated the archaeological evidence which had facts and had proven that the great Zimbabwe was of African origin.
On the other hand, the archaeologists who investigated the Mississippian culture interprets the culture as having a hierarchy of chiefdoms. The people of this region were ranked according to the type of family one belonged from. The structures in the Cahokia made the archaeologists conclude that some families had higher ranks than others and they were more privileged than ordinary people. The remains in the area show that there were some power ranks in the area since there was a house that was separate from the ordinary houses. It was unique, and that proved it to be a leader who would obviously have been a chief (Smith, 40-41).
Over the time, the interpretation of the Hall has been proven to be wrong. After the interpretation of Hall about the great Zimbabwe, that the site could not have been of African origin, another archeologist came and disagreed with him, this archeologist was called David Randall-Maclver. David studied the dwellings which were made of mud within the enclosures of stones. He emerged as the first European archeologist to assert that the site was made by Africans and not foreigners as it had been said previously. After this assertion, the British imperialism viewed this as a blasphemy to them, and that led to the banning of archaeologists to the site for another 25 years. Hall interpretations of the great Zimbabwe as being of foreign origin was because he viewed Africans as inferiors and that they were not civilized enough to conduct such a construction. Maclver, on the other hand, was a truthful archeologist who gave facts on according to his research (Chirikure et al., 864-865). In this case, his study revealed that the great Zimbabwe was built by Africans and that was what he gave as his final answer to his research.
Unlike the great Zimbabwe, the Mississippian culture interpretation has not changed over the time. Different archeologists have ended up with the same conclusion, that the Cahokia site was a lastly inhabited by the Natchez Indians. They all agrees that the Cahokia was ruled by chiefdom, this is because of the type of structures that are in the area ((Blitz, 27)). The inhabitants left no records of their presence. However, the elaborate community which was well organized and planned, mounds, burials and wood henge reveals a community which was sophisticated and complex.
Currently, the investigation of the Mississippian culture is still taking place. Different institutions are conducting their investigations on the site (Smith, 52-53). However, there is currently no competing interpretation of the archaeological materials. Therefore, currently, the same results that were found in the past years still holds. On the other hand, the great Zimbabwe had been faced with a different interpretation in the previous years. For instance, the European argued that the great Zimbabwe was built by either Portuguese travelers, Chinese, Persians or Arabs. Other interpretation argued that the ruins resembled the temple of King Solomon which was built on Mount Moriah and thus the site was constructed by the queen of Sheba (Pikirayi et al., 230). These different interpretations have been harmonized by the archeologists who have concluded that the great Zimbabwe was built by Africans. Currently, there are no conflicting interpretations of the site.
For one to decide between the different interpretations of the past, one requires to recognize and interpret the different types of the sources and critically evaluate them. One requires understanding what the interpretation means and what the source is telling about the past. It is good to research who conducted the original study of the past and why they came up with their conclusion of the area they were studying, some archaeologists are known for exaggeration of their research or interpretations, and so one should keep track of them while deciding which interpretation to take. One should grasp the history idea as a construct. Otherwise, it will be hard to make sense of competing and conflicting accounts of the past which presents themselves in their daily lives.
Moreover, one should consider the time the interpretation was made. It is most likely that the interpretation that was done some years ago would be more accurate than the one that was conducted recently. This is because some evidence or structures in the site might get vandalized and hence give a false interpretation (Renfrew et al., 95). The evidence or interpretation that was given some few years ago might be accurate since, the data was readily available, and it was as it was left originally by the inhabitants of the area. Thus, the collect interpretation might depend on who was at the site first.
If the period of colonization was reversed, and Europe was colonized by the people of either North America or Sub-Saharan Africa, the archaeological evidence of these three regions would be different from what they are today. This is because it would mean that both the North America and the Sub-Saharan Africa would be much civilized than then Europe. Thus, their archeological sites would have the collect interpretation, and there would be no conflicting ideas on the interpretations. The people who would have conducted the research would use more advanced technologies to come up with conclusions in both the North America and the Sub-Saharan Africa. On the other hand, the archaeological sites in Europe would face the same problems as the two regions faces in their archeological sites.
The archeological sites in Europe would be researched by many African or North American archaeologists who would come up with different interpretations. This interpretation would raise disagreements just like it happened in the great Zimbabwe site. Just like the way the North Americans and the Sub-Saharan Africa people were viewed as uncivilized, the European people would be viewed in the same way. Thus, they would not have a say in the research of the region. They would rely on the two groups to come up with the conclusion of the archeological sites. If their archeological sites reveal signs of higher civilization, they would be told their people did not take part in the construction of such a site, that it was built by foreigners.
Work cited
Blitz, John H. "New perspectives in Mississippian archaeology." Journal of Archaeological Research 18.1 (2010): 1-39.
Chirikure, Shadreck, et al. "A Bayesian chronology for Great Zimbabwe: re-threading the sequence of a vandalized monument." Antiquity 87.337 (2013): 854-872.
Pikirayi, Innocent, and Shadreck Chirikure. "Debating Great Zimbabwe." Azania: Archaeological Research in Africa 46.2 (2011): 221-231.
Renfrew, Colin, and Paul Bahn. Archaeology: theories, methods, and practice. New York: Thames and Hudson, 2011.
Smith, Bruce D., ed. Mississippian settlement patterns: Studies in archeology. Academic Press, 2014.
