2Despite its short comings, oral tradition remains a key source in recovering Zimbabwean precolonial history. How far do you agree with this assertion?

There is so much accuracy in the statement that regardless of its loopholes, oral tradition remains an integral source in recovering Zimbabwean history before Friday 12 September 1890. Oral tradition refers to the verbal transmissions of information from generation to generation. On one hand, through oral tradition; the ways of life of the early inhabitants of the Zimbabwe plateau have been projected, information on the economics, politics and societies of Zimbabwe before colonization has also been retrieved and counteracting of grave distortions by Euro centrists has been done. On the other hand, oral tradition has lacked dating and chronology thereby calling for complementary sources such as archaeology and written records. The thrust of this paper is to show the degree to which the position that despite its short comings, oral traditions remains a key source in recovering Zimbabwean history is accurate.

Oral tradition remains a significant source of recovering the precolonial Zimbabwean history as it provides information on the early societies in Zimbabwe. This is because oral tradition goes way back and traces the lifestyle of the early inhabitants of the Zimbabwean plateau. It should be noted that through oral tradition it is known that the San people were the “first” settlers in the Zimbabwean plateau. More so, through oral tradition, it is established that the San people were short in height and largely pursued a primitive lifestyle of consensus politics as well as hunting and gathering economics. This, then, is suffice to prove that oral tradition is a vital source of precolonial Zimbabwean history. Thus, oral tradition remains a significant source in recovering Zimbabwean history.

Oral tradition remains a pivotal source of recovering the precolonial history of Zimbabwe as it provides information on the origins of states before colonization. This is because there have been endless debates on the origins of states such as Great Zimbabwe with oral tradition standing firm on that the ancestors of the Shona were the builders of the magnificent stone walls at Great Zimbabwe called “dzimba dzemabwe” (houses of stone). Furthermore, oral tradition also points out to the Mutapa State as a derivative and offshoot of the Great Zimbabwe state after its protracted demise in 1450AD. Therefore, oral tradition remains a critical source in recovering of the precolonial history of Zimbabwe as it provides useful information on the origins of states before colonization.

Oral tradition remains an important source in the recovering of precolonial Zimbabwean history as it  provides an Afrocentric view of developments in the Zimbabwean plateau before colonization. This is because most of Zimbabwe’s history before 1890 has succumbed to scathing European distortions. For example, the combined efforts by racist Karl Mauch and Richard Hall through written documents desperately attempting to distance the Shona from the construction of Great Zimbabwe with Mauch uttering that he supposes he is not far from the reality to argue that a “more civilized group” must have built Great Zimbabwe. This has been rubbished by oral tradition which remain unshaken on the fact that the Great Zimbabwe was built by the Shona ancestors. This is supported by British archaeologists David- Randall Maclver and Getrude Caton- Thompson who in 1905 and 1929 respectively concluded that the Great Zimbabwe was medieval, attributing its construction to the Shona. Adding on, distortions around the Ndebele-Shona relations have been nullified. The European writers have often described the Ndebele-Shona relations as hostile and far from cordial with the Ndebele economy being an entirely raiding based economy and the Ndebele as blood thirsty, savages. This was proven a blue lie by oral tradition from both groups citing that their relations were characterised with peaceful existence, trade and cultural exchange. Hence, oral tradition remains an essential source of history in recovering Zimbabwe’s precolonial history as it provides an African voice in Zimbabwe’s history.

Oral tradition remains a pertinent source in recovering Zimbabwe’s precolonial history as it provides complements other sources. This is because oral tradition offers a voice to silent witnesses such as archaeology. For example, the recovered coin minted by Al Hassan Ibn Sulaiman of Kilwa in Great Zimbabwe has been interpreted as evidence of Great Zimbabwe trade with other societies by Shona traditions. Taking to Oral Tradition as a history  Jan Vansina notes that oral tradition not only provides flesh, but clothing and colour to the bones of the past. Thus, oral tradition remains a crucial source of history in recovering Zimbabwean precolonial history as it complements other sources.

 

However, it will be a tragic travesty of justice to overshadow the fact that oral traditions is limited as it failed to provide dates. It should be noted that oral tradition fails to provide dates as it relies on natural disasters such as droughts and locust years (“makore enzara neehwiza”) to align with historical developments. This leads to massive historical gaps. For K. Sadziwa in Dynamics of History, oral tradition is date blind as a chief weakness. However, this weakness is aided by archaeology which through radio-carbon dating provides accurate dating as well as primary written records. Thus, oral tradition is weakened in failure to provide dates which complementary easily resolve.

Oral tradition also has a demerit of lacking chronology. It must be indicated that oral tradition does not provide history in sequential order. For example, oral tradition does not tell what came first between the Rozvi state or Mutapa kingdom. D.N Beach writing in Zimbabwe before 1900 notes that, “Without chronology there is no history” while K. Sadziwa echoes that it is key to know what event preceded or succeeded the other. This, nonetheless has been resolved by written documents which capture what came first before the other. Hence, oral tradition is limited in that it lacks chronology.

 

To sum up, this paper largely agrees with the assertion that despite its short comings, oral tradition remains a key source of history in recovery precolonial Zimbabwean history. On one hand, oral tradition is vital in establishing  the histories of the early inhabitants of Zimbabwe plateau, information on state origins and foundation as well as an African voice in Zimbabwean historiography while on the other hand it lacks dates and chronology which call for other complementary sources. One can summarily conclude that the perspective that regardless of its loopholes, oral tradition remains central in providing Zimbabwean history before 1890 holds much water.