撒哈拉以南的非洲在公元1000年至1900年之间发展起来的最重要的文化革新之一就是津巴布韦文化（madzimbahwe），（公元1000年至1900年，在撒哈拉以南的非洲发展起来的最重要的文化革新之一就是著名的津巴布韦文化（madzimbahwe））其突出特征是有1000多个没有任何粘结砂浆的干石墙建筑。就津巴布韦文化遗存分布方面来说，其聚落、生产和遗址分布，主要集中在赞比西亚南部：一个次大陆，东部以印度洋为界，西部以卡拉哈里沙漠为界，北部以赞比西河为界，南至Soutpansberg山脉。（这是一个东部临印度洋，西临卡拉哈里沙漠，北临赞比西河，南至Soutpansberg山脉的次大陆）证据表明，跨时空存在着各种强度的多方向交换网络，这些网络将内部和外部不同的madzimbahwe（津巴布韦文化）与更广泛的非洲大陆和印度洋环带的区域进程联系在一起。由于卡米（公元1450-1820年）、马普贡布维（公元1220-1290年）和大津巴布韦（公元1000-1700年）三座前首都对人类有着特殊的价值，因此被列入联合国教科文组织世界遗产名录，津巴布韦文化的国际意义由此而变得更加突出。

毫无疑问，最著名的津巴布韦文化遗址是大津巴布韦，它出现于公元1000年左右，一直繁荣到公元1700年（此后，持续繁荣至公元1700年）。大津巴布韦考古遗址位于津巴布韦南部现代城镇马斯文戈东南约28公里处。跨学科研究表明，它是一个强大国家的首都，统治着南部非洲一个（片）相当大的领土(约5-10万平方公里)。这个全球著名的津巴布韦遗址是由分散在720多公顷空间范围内的多建筑聚落组成的。然而，由于历史和其他原因，目前官方的大津巴布韦遗址的边界在720公顷之内，同时也是国家历史文物和世界遗产的范围。（然而，由于历史和其他原因，目前官方界定的大津巴布韦遗址的边界为720公顷以内，同时这也是国家纪念区和世界文化遗产区域。）

大津巴布韦的多建筑聚落集聚在不同地区，部分存在纪念性的建筑，其他则没有。也许最著名的是山丘群、山谷围场、大围场、附近较小的围墙区域和连续的无围墙聚落。山丘综合体（山丘建筑群）由独立的墙体和山坡上的台地组成。山谷围墙有少量的台地墙，大多数是独立的墙体。这个大围场完全是用独立墙体建造的。独立的墙壁和露台共同形成了干石砌墙的区域，分别构成了建造住宅的围墙和平台。它们是大津巴布韦境内最具气势和视觉吸引力的建筑合奏（建筑群）。除了这种具有纪念意义的建筑外，大津巴布韦还设有无石墙的居民区。大部分可以追溯到更晚的时期，有迹象表明，这些定居点的土墙已经屈服于自然的侵蚀。（这些定居点的土墙已经遭受大自然的破坏）

自19世纪末的寻宝探险到20世纪的专业调查，对大津巴布韦遗址进行了多次发掘。首先，在19世纪后期，大津巴布韦和相关的遗址被认为是由外国人（外族人）建造的，代表了一个现已消失的外来种族。虽然这样的想法在20世纪的前30年被取代了，但自此之后的研究主要集中在有干石墙的地区。在那里，怀疑该遗址为当地起源的人最初的兴趣被转移了。（但是这个想法在20世纪的前30年被取代了，自此之后的研究主要集中在有干石墙的地区，那些起初关注该地起源的人的兴趣也转移了 ）此外，这也反映了在上个世纪不同时期的考古学研究中普遍存在的一种长久的偏见。尽管如此，综合新旧考古发掘成果，考古学家们还是能够描绘出构成大津巴布韦的移民点的演变过程。因此，现在普遍认为，与大津巴布韦石墙建造者有关的占领时期，历经四个不同的阶段:第二阶段(公元900-1000年)、第三阶段(公元1000-1200年)、第四阶段(公元1200-1700年)和第五阶段(公元1700-1890年)。这种划分只对分析目的有用，因为在实践中很难将一个阶段的结束与新阶段的开始分开。

如前所述，大津巴布韦的起源是本土的还是外来的学术争论，（在）一定程度上，代表了那些对遗址进行调查和研究的代代学人的主要研究所在。虽然未来在此遗址研究的基础已形成，但越来越明显地，这样的重点研究是狭隘的，需要对大津巴布韦进行新的研究。（在形成对未来该遗址的研究基础时，这些重点研究的狭隘性越来越明显，因此需要对大津巴布韦进行新的研究。）例如，尽管根据玻璃珠、中国青瓷、中国瓷器和伊斯兰玻璃以及来自中非的铁锣等不同证据，可知大津巴布韦参与了内部和外部长途贸易网络，但人们对当地生产和流通的动态却知之甚少。此外，微观层面上，各种家庭在不同的家园中进行的活动仍未得到充分开发。 更糟糕的是，大津巴布韦的720公顷土地上只有25个普遍被接受的放射性碳年代数据，（在大津巴布韦720公顷的土地上只有25个放射性碳年代数据普遍被接受）其中11个来自希尔山丘上的一条海沟。因此，对于具有干石墙的区域与没有干石墙的区域之间的关系，无论在时间顺序、文化关系还是其他方面，都鲜为人知。此外，这种历时性和共时性的对人类行为基本类别信息的缺乏妨碍了对阶级关系、不平等以及大津巴布韦本身的生产和流通等基本问题以及对更广泛领域的更充分了解。这促使了跨学科方法的运用，将标准的考古学技术与创新的考古学科学方法相结合，以开发高精度年表，并从遗址中被忽视的部分，如无城墙的聚落中恢复物质文化。当使用非洲哲学来解释这种多维方法的结果时，可以探索大津巴布韦在物质和非物质遗存中设定的各种行为，从而突显了地方机构。

途径与方法

大津巴布韦是一个现存的非洲首都，存在不同时期的聚落遗址。然而，大部时期，对遗址所证实的各种行为阐释，很大程度上基于西方衍生的框架，这些框架部分是根据波利尼西亚和世界其他地区的观察而发展起来的。某种程度上，这样产生的认知与当地的认识和理解方式存在部分差异。这推动了以非洲为中心的研究—探索阶级关系、不平等、相互作用、政治经济和其他问题。他们的想法是将这些结果与全球其他地区已证实的行为进行比较。总的来说，其目的是促进当地感性认识的发展，这种情感认知与非洲的宇宙观、认知以及情感方面产生了共鸣。

从这一理论角度出发，一种跨学科、阶梯式的方法对策是为了继续研究有关问题。首先，对有关大津巴布韦的已出版和未出版资料进行了全面的图书馆和档案研究。其中包括位于哈拉雷的津巴布韦人类科学博物馆和大津巴布韦自然保护中心（GZCC）内的咨询制图数据库。

随后，在津巴布韦和国外，对存放于不同仓库里的收藏的遗物进行了研究。该项目制作了主题地图，展示了该遗址的研究进展，并突出显示了以前发掘的部分以及那些从未进行认真研究的部分。进行了专门的地球物理调查，以绘制无城墙地区的埋藏沉降物。通过激光雷达对构成大津巴布韦领地和周边环境的720公顷土地的扫描，这些信息得到了补充。（补充了相关信息）

此后，在大津巴布韦以前没有挖掘过的地区进行了发掘，包括在遗址的西部和东部的无城墙的定居点和山坡南部的梯田。烧过的骨头和短寿命样本(如细枝)的材料被（已）提交给AMS进行年代测定，从而产生了（制造出）第一个用于大津巴布韦的贝叶斯年表。发掘出的物质文化遗存包括当地的陶器、动物骨头、金属制品碎片、青瓷和玻璃珠。利用实验室的科学技术对无机物遗存进行研究，以重建它们的技术和社会文化历史。对有墙和无墙聚落的陶器进行了探索性的矿物学和地球化学研究，以确定墙内和墙外居民消费的当地陶器是否有相同和不同之处。（是否有相同或相异之处）这是非常重要的，因为以前（在此之前）人们认为大津巴布韦的精英占据了城墙，而平民则居住在没有城墙的定居点。

结果

跨学科调查技术的应用产生了多种多样但有趣的发现，这些发现使我们对大津巴布韦及其网络的了解进入了一个新的领域。首先，过去研究活动的历史境况，突显出对遗址考古探索研究的贫乏。例如，所有主要的挖掘都发生在有围墙的地区，预计结果将有助于理解无围墙的定居点的行为。（所有主要的挖掘都集中在有围墙的地区，以此结果来理解无围墙的定居点的行为。）却没有顾及到一种事实，即无城墙的定居点的年代是未知的。（这就忽略了一个事实，即无城墙的定居点的年代仍是未知的。）（我们）共得到65个新的放射性碳测年数据，其中大部分来自无城墙区域。尽管仍不够充分，但这些数据提供的年代（年代信息），表明有城墙地区的居住址与少数无城墙的居住址时间上有重叠。（在）放弃了主要的干石墙地区，如希尔建筑群之后，大多数无城墙的定居点被占领。另一个有趣的发现是，在不同的年代背景下，被恢复的对象的分布和被扩展的活动所代表的在有墙和无墙地区都是大致相当的。（在不同的年代背景下，在有墙和无墙地区恢复的物品的分布及其代表的活动范围扩大都是大致相当的）例如，在这两个地区都发现了当地的陶器、纺锤轮、青铜制品、铁器、加工黄金的坩埚、玻璃珠和磨石。对坩埚和其他冶金遗骸的考古分析表明，在有墙和无墙地区采用的技术是类似的。矿物学和地球化学分析也不能将粘土和用于制作陶器的容器成型技术分开。这些容器成型技术被用于有墙和无墙的居住址中来生产陶器。（这些容器成型技术在有墙和无墙的居住址中用于生产陶器）因此，除了一些居民点有石膏墙而其他居民点没有石膏墙之外，活动区的分布情况或多或少具有可比性。这种差异是由于连续性和变化性所致 —干石墙建筑的使用不断减少。更重要的是，之前的假设是精英住在城墙里，而普通人住在城墙外，他们无法接触到有声望的商品，但数据并没有证明这一点。这与非洲的宇宙观相一致，非洲的宇宙观表明，精英阶层通常与仆人住在一起，而平民则住在远离中心的自己家里。持续的工作将进一步加深了对精英平民关系和大津巴布韦家庭生产和消费动态的了解。

讨论与结论

毫无疑问，大津巴布韦是世界上著名的考古遗址。但是，对该遗址以前所作的研究进行的调查表明，大多数认识来自很少有干石墙的区域。（然而，对该遗址以往研究的调查表明，大多数认识来自于有干石墙的这一小部分区域）因此，我们对该遗址正在进行的合作研究，其意义之一是，需要不时地重访重要遗址，根据数据和新的调查技术提供的新的理论视角来更新认识。考虑到一些主要组成部分之间的年代差异，大津巴布韦地区的物质文化分布，在整个遗址中发现了大量的有关生存、工艺技术和象征性遗物，使得人们对该遗址存在的层级关系和不平等现象有了新的认识。诉诸非洲(Shona)哲学，表明精英们经常和他们的仆人住在同一个地方。因此，物质文化的差异并不总是阶级分化的代表。（物质文化的差异并不总是代表着阶级分化。）

大津巴布韦在宅地内建立了充满活力的生产系统。在有围墙的区域和无围墙的定居点中发现的坩埚、炉渣和金属物体的残留物已随着时间的流逝而暴露出来。（随着时间的流逝，在有围墙的区域和无围墙的定居点中发现的坩埚、炉渣和金属物体的残留物表明，在大津巴布韦宅地内置有高效的生产系统。）同样地，当地的陶器大致相同，相似的形状特征，暗示了在整个遗址中的相同功能。（再者，当地大致相同的陶器具有相似的形状特征，暗示了其在整个遗址中的相同功能。）广义上讲，遗存所反映的文化行为、经济行为和社会行为暗示了随着时间的发展，文化呈现出很强的连续性。（广义上讲，随着时间的发展，遗存所反映的文化行为、经济行为和社会行为也暗示了其文化呈现出很强的连续性）然而，大多数平民是住在远离首都的自己的家园。这些地区通常靠近金矿、盐田和野生动物等资源，因而流通网对维持国家的运行非常重要。当地流通系统，以距离演变成区域和长途网络（以距离演变成区域网络和长途网络）。这吸引了来自附近印度洋的材料，如考里，以及来自非洲遥远地区的材料，如金属锣和铜锭的流通。（这吸引了来自附近印度洋地区如考里，以及来自非洲遥远地区的材料，如金属锣和铜锭的流通）来自非洲大陆以外的物品，如玻璃珠、伊斯兰陶瓷和中国瓷器，也属于同一流通系统的一部分。在这一地方、区域和大陆之间的视野下，大津巴布韦仍然是典型的非洲城市空间。然而，它与其他地方的国家有相似之处，例如，大量投资于纪念性建筑，但阶级关系、不平等（关系）和生产（关系）仍然是非洲当地独有的。

个人简介

沙德雷·奇瑞库拥有牛津大学考古学院的英国学院全球教授职位。他是考古学教授，考古材料实验室和开普敦大学考古系原系主任（考古材料实验室负责人以及原开普敦大学考古系系主任）。他的研究将自然科学技术与人文和社会科学技术交织在一起，以探索古代非洲的技术以及殖民前国家和非国家体系的政治经济。他的研究从非洲哲学中汲取了诠释式风格，来修正概念，打破关于非洲技术的演变及其在社会中的作用的霸权思维，从而促进了在漫长的历史进程中，非洲在世界和世界在非洲的地位的批判式思考。其他方面，奇瑞库曾是牛津大学林艾克学院英联邦大学协会奖学金的获得者，也是前曼德拉–哈佛研究员。他是国家研究基金会南非总统奖（40岁以下杰出研究人员）的获得者，也是南非青年科学院的创始成员之一。此外，他还是剑桥大学出版社科技历史系列丛书的联合编辑之一；是非洲研究协会艺术理事会成员，也是美国考古学家协会书籍奖委员会成员。他最近被选为位于纽约的文那格兰人类学研究基金会顾问委员会成员。他在考古学领域和同类学科的至少九个期刊编辑委员会中任职。他为许多艺术展览、纪录片、广播节目和电视节目做出了贡献，旨在向公众传播考古学。

Great Zimbabwe: A brief background

One of the most significant cultural innovations that developed in sub-Saharan Africa between CE1000 and 1900 is known as the Zimbabwe culture (madzimbahwe) whose prominence is attested by the presence of more than 1,000 residences built of drystone walls without any binding mortar. In terms of distribution, Zimbabwe culture settlements, production and distribution sites are mostly concentrated in southern Zambezia: a sub-continent bounded to the east by the Indian Ocean, to the west by the Kalahari Desert, to the north by the Zambezi River, and to the south by the Soutpansberg range of mountains. Evidence indicates the presence, across space and time, of multi-directional exchange networks of various intensities that linked different madzimbahwe, internally and externally, with regional processes on the wider African continent and the Indian Ocean Rim belt. The international significance of the Zimbabwe culture is brought into sharp relief by the fact that three of its former capitals, Khami (CE1450-1820), Mapungubwe (CE1220-1290) and Great Zimbabwe (CE1000-1700), are inscribed on the UNESCO World Heritage List owing to their exceptional value to humanity.

Without doubt, the most prominent Zimbabwe Culture settlement is Great Zimbabwe which emerged around CE 1000 and flourished until 1700 CE. The archaeological site of Great Zimbabwe is situated approximately 28 kilometres southeast of the modern town of Masvingo in southern Zimbabwe. Interdisciplinary research has shown that it was the capital of a powerful state which ruled a sizeable territory (approximately 50 000 and 100 000 square kilometres) in southern Africa. This globally famous dzimbahwe is comprised of multi-building settlements dispersed across an area that is more than 720 hectares in spatial extent. However, for historical and other reasons, current day boundaries of the official Great Zimbabwe estate fall within the 720 hectares, that simultaneously, are also the precincts of the National Monument and World Heritage site.

Great Zimbabwe’s multi-building settlements are clustered in different areas with and without monumental architecture. Perhaps the most well-known are the Hill Complex, the Valley Enclosures, the Great Enclosure, nearby smaller walled areas, and contiguous unwalled settlements. The Hill Complex is comprised of free-standing walls and terraced platforms on the hill slopes. The Valley Enclosures have a minor presence of terraced walls, the majority being free standing walls. The Great Enclosure is built exclusively of free-standing walls. Collectively forming drystone walled areas, the free-standing walls and terraces respectively formed enclosures and platforms where homesteads were built. They are the most imposing and visually captivating architectural ensembles within Great Zimbabwe. Besides this monumental construction, Great Zimbabwe also has settlements without drystone walls. Mostly dating to a later time period, indications are that such settlements had earthen walls that have since succumbed to the elements.

Several excavations were performed at Great Zimbabwe from the treasure hunting expeditions of the late 19th century through the professional investigations of the twentieth century. To begin with, in the late 19th century, Great Zimbabwe and related sites were believed to have been built by foreigners represented by a now vanished exotic race. While such thinking was superseded by the first three decades of the 20th century, research has since then mostly focussed on the areas with drystone walls, where initial interest by those who doubted a local origin for the site was pivoted. In addition, this also reflected a monumental bias often typical of archaeological research in different parts of the preceding century. Nevertheless, synthesising old and new excavations enabled archaeologists to delineate the evolution of settlements making up Great Zimbabwe. Consequently, it is now generally agreed that occupation associated with the builders of stone walls at Great Zimbabwe passed through four different phases: Periods II (CE900–1000), III (CE1000–1200), IV (CE1200–1700), and V (CE1700–1890). This division is only useful for analytical purposes because in practice it is difficult to separate the end of one phase from the beginning of a new one.

As hinted before, scholarly contestations prompted by whether Great Zimbabwe was local or exotic in origin, to a certain extent, shaped the major research questions which generations of researchers sought to investigate at the site. While forming a fulcrum on which future works on the site rested, it was becoming increasingly evident that such a focus was narrow, and that new research was required at Great Zimbabwe. For example, although it was clear on the basis of different strands of evidence such as glass beads, Chinese celadon, Chinese porcelain and Islamic glass, and iron gongs from central Africa, that Great Zimbabwe participated in internal and external long-distance trading networks, the dynamics of local production and circulation were poorly understood. Furthermore, on a micro scale, the activities performed in different homesteads by various households remained underexplored. Worse still, for its 720 hectares, Great Zimbabwe only had 25 generally accepted radiocarbon dates, eleven of which were derived from a single trench on the Hill Complex. Therefore, the relationships – chronological, cultural and otherwise – between areas with drystone walls and those without remained poorly understood. Furthermore, such a diachronic and synchronic lack of information on essential categories of human behaviour hindered a fuller understanding of essential issues of class relations, inequality, as well as production and circulation at Great Zimbabwe itself and on the wider landscape. This motivated for a deployment of interdisciplinary tools combining standard archaeological techniques with innovative archaeological science methods to develop high resolution chronologies and to recover material culture from neglected parts of the site such as unwalled settlements. The outcomes of such a multi-dimensional approach, when interpreted using African philosophies, permitted explorations of various behaviours set in material and non-material remains in Great Zimbabwe thereby highlighting local agency.

Approaches and Methods

Great Zimbabwe is an extant African capital replete with settlements belonging to different time periods. However, for the bulk of the time, interpretation of various behaviours attested at the site, to a large extent rested on Western derived frameworks partly developed on the basis of observations from Polynesia and other regions in the world. Somewhat, this produced knowledge that is partly at variance with local ways of knowing and understanding. This motivated for Africa-centred research that sought to explore class relations, inequality, interaction, political economy and other issues. The idea was to compare the outcomes with behaviours attested in other regions of the globe. Overall, the objective was to develop locally sensitive knowledge that resonated with African cosmos, understanding and sensibilities.

Flowing from this theoretical flavour, an interdisciplinary but stepped methodological approach was developed to pursue the research questions. In the first instance, a comprehensive library and archival study of published and unpublished material relating to Great Zimbabwe was performed. This included consulting cartographic databases housed in the Zimbabwe Museum of Human Sciences in Harare and the Great Zimbabwe Conservation Centre (GZCC). Subsequently, studies of legacy collections housed in different repositories were conducted in Zimbabwe and abroad. This produced themed maps that showed the evolution of research at the site and highlighted previously excavated sections alongside those that never attracted serious research. Dedicated geophysical surveys were performed to map buried settlement remains in unwalled areas. This information was complemented with that flowing from a LIDAR scan of the 720 hectares making up the Great Zimbabwe estate and immediate surrounds.

Thereafter, stratigraphic excavations were performed in previously unexcavated areas of Great Zimbabwe including the unwalled settlements on the western and eastern parts of the site and terraces on the southern slope of the hill. Burned bone and material from short-lived samples such as twigs was submitted for AMS dating resulting in the production of first ever Bayesian chronologies for Great Zimbabwe. Material culture recovered from the excavations included local pottery, animal bone, metal production debris, Chinese celadon, and glass beads. Inorganic material remains were studied using scientific techniques in the laboratory to reconstruct their technological and embedded social and cultural histories. Exploratory mineralogical and geochemical studies of pottery from walled and unwalled settlements were performed to determine if there were similarities and differences in the local pottery consumed by those inside and outside the walls. This was hugely significant because previously, it was argued that elites of Great Zimbabwe occupied the walls while the commoners resided in unwalled settlements.

Results

The deployment of interdisciplinary techniques of investigation produced varied but interesting findings that took our knowledge of Great Zimbabwe and its networks to a new frontier. To begin with, a mapping of the history of past research activities highlighted how poorly explored the archaeology of the site was. For example, all the major excavations took place in the walled areas with the outcomes projected to understand behaviours taking place in unwalled settlements. This was regardless of the fact that the chronologies of unwalled settlements were poorly known. A total of 65 new radiocarbon dates were produced, the bulk of which came from unwalled areas. While still not adequate, the chronological implication of the dates was that settlement in walled areas chronologically overlapped with that in a few unwalled settlements. Most unwalled settlements were occupied after the abandonment of key drystone walled areas such as the Hill Complex. The other interesting finding was, within a context of differing chronologies, that the distribution of objects recovered and by extension activities represented was broadly comparable for both the walled and unwalled areas. For example, local pottery, spindle whorls, bronze objects, iron objects, crucibles for processing gold, glass beads, and grinding stones were found in both areas. Archaeometric analyses of crucibles and other metallurgical remains revealed that the technology employed across the walled and unwalled areas were comparable. Neither could mineralogical and geochemical analyses separate clays and vessel forming techniques used to make pottery used in walled and unwalled settlements. Consequently, other than the fact that some settlements had drystone walls and that the others lacked these, the distribution of activity areas was more or less comparable. This discrepancy can be attributed to continuity and change, where there was a decline in drystone wall construction. More importantly, the earlier assumption that elites lived in the walls while commoners resided outside the walls where they lacked access to prestige goods was not fulfilled by the data. This has consonance with African cosmologies that indicates that often elites lived with their servants while commoners lived in their own homesteads away from the centre. Continuing work will add further insights on elite commoner relations and dynamics of household production and consumption within Great Zimbabwe. 

Discussion and conclusion

Without doubt, Great Zimbabwe is a well-known archaeological site in the world. However, an audit of previous research at the site highlighted that most of the knowledge derived from few areas with drystone walling. Consequently, one of the implications of our on-going research engagement with the site is that from time to time, there is need to revisit prominent sites to update understanding based on new theoretical insights afforded by data and by new techniques of investigation. The distribution of material culture at Great Zimbabwe where comparable subsistence, technical and symbolic objects were found across the site, when considered against chronological differences between some of the main components motivates for a new understanding of class relations and inequality at the site. Recourse to African (Shona) philosophy shows that often elites lived with their servants in the same spaces. Consequently, material culture differences are not always a proxy for class differentiation.

Great Zimbabwe had a vibrant production system that took place within homesteads. This is exposed by the fact that remnants of crucibles, slag, and metal objects were through time, found in walled areas and unwalled settlements. Similarly, the local pottery was broadly identical and was characterised by similar shapes suggesting common functions, across the site. Broadly speaking, the cultural, economic and social behaviours represented on the site were the same hinting at strong cultural continuities through time.

However, the bulk of the commoners were resident away from the capital in their own homesteads. Often, these areas were close to resources such as gold mines, salt pans and wild animals. This made networks of circulation very important in sustaining the state. The local circulation system, with distance morphed into regional and long-distance networks. This attracted the circulation of materials from the nearby Indian Ocean such as cowrie and from distant parts of Africa such as metal gongs, and copper ingots. Objects from outside the continent such as glass beads, Islamic ceramics and Chinese porcelain were also part of the same circulation system. Amidst this local, regional and inter-continental outlook, Great Zimbabwe remained a quintessentially African urban space. However, it has similarities with other states elsewhere for example that invested heavily in monumental architecture, but class relations, inequality and production remained uniquely African and local.

Biographical Sketch

Shadreck Chirikure holds a British Academy Global Professorship within the School of Archaeology at Oxford. He is Professor of Archaeology, Director of the Archaeological Materials Laboratory and a former Head of the Department of Archaeology at the University of Cape Town. His research interweaves techniques from hard sciences with those from humanities and social sciences to explore ancient African technologies and political economies of precolonial state and non-state systems. Chirikure’s works draw interpretive flavors from African philosophies to revise concepts and to disrupt hegemonic thinking about the evolution of African technologies, their role in society, and to spur a critical reflection, over the long durée of Africa’s place in the world, and the world’s place in Africa. Among others, Chirikure is a past recipient of the Association of Commonwealth Universities Fellowship at Linacre College, Oxford and is a former Mandela-Harvard Fellow. Chirikure is a past recipient of National Research Foundation of South Africa’s Presidential Award for outstanding research by persons under the age of 40 and is a founding member of the South African Young Academy of Science. He is the Editor-in-Chief of the Oxford Research Encyclopedia of African Archaeology, a Senior Editor of the Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Anthropology. In addition, he is one of the co-editors of Cambridge University Press’ History of Technology book series. Chirikure is a member of the Board of Governors for the Arts Council of African Studies Association and is a member of the Society for American Archaeologists Book Award Committee. Shadreck was recently elected to the Advisory Council of the New York based Wenner Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research. He sits on at least nine editorial boards of journals in the archaeology field and cognate disciplines. Chirikure has contributed to a number of art exhibitions, documentaries, radio shows and TV programs aimed at communicating archaeology to the general public.