When established, bloomery iron smelting profoundly transformed farming communities that settled in Africa south of the Sahara. Sustained research in the Lowveld region of northern South Africa identified multifarious evidence of metal working dating to the Early Iron Age (Common Era 200-900). Not surprisingly, the region is celebrated in oral traditions, myths, legends, and other reservoirs of local knowledge for its highly skilled metallurgists who reduced exceptionally rich magnetite (Fe3O4) and hematite (Fe2O3) ores at locales such as Tshimbupfe, Tshirululuni, Vuu, Thomo, and Thengwe. However, the technology of iron smelting and how the smelted iron (Fe) transformed producer and user communities in the region is a subject that, until recently, attracted limited archaeometallurgical work. We present the results of archaeometallurgical analyses of iron production remains from Mutoti 2 using complementary macroscopic (physical examination), microstructural (Optical Microscopy), and compositional techniques (WD-XRF). The results show that the technology of iron smelting fitted within the bloomery method. However, the quantities of iron production remains at the site suggest a scale and organization of production geared for needs beyond single villages. This embedded first-millennium CE iron production into the socio-economic, political, and environmental transformations that shaped the political economy of farming communities of the time.

Throughout the world, the entanglement of humans and landscapes varies from area to area depending on the time scale. In southern Africa, the impact of humanity on the physical environment is largely discussed in the context of modern rural and urban societies, and, usually, most contributions come from human geography, agriculture, and earth sciences. Very limited research is usually extended into the deep past, yet the archaeological record is replete with valuable information that gives a long-time depth of past human land use practices. Consequently, the contribution of the physical environment to the development of complexity over time remains poorly understood in most parts of Iron Age (CE 200–1900) southern Zambezia, particularly in Mberengwa and other gold-belt territories that have often received cursory research attention. What remains obscured is how did inhabitants of these gold-belt territories transform their landscapes in the long and short-term and how did these transformations intersect with their everyday lives? In this study, we combined archaeological, historical, and anthropological data of the Zimbabwe tradition societies that lived in ancient Mberengwa to probe these issues. The preliminary outcome suggests that despite vulnerability to high temperatures, tsetse-flies, and low rainfall, Later Iron Age societies that inhabited this gold belt territory were innovative risk-takers who successfully adapted a mix of land use practices to achieve longevity in settlement and prosperity in agropastoralism, mining, crafting, and much more. This proffers useful lessons on sustainable land use. Hopefully, with modification to suit the present, such solutions may help policy makers and modern societies living in similar environments to combat current global challenges related to environmental change.

No abstract

Before now, historiographies and archival accounts of African innovations have often been told from mainly a Western and Eurocentric perspective. This chapter aims to expand this argument. It does this through a philosophical appraisal of the trajectory of progression in the traditional architectural designs and building technologies in the pre-colonial Vhavenda communities. This means exploring the scientific bases behind the progression of the different shapes and forms of the architectural designs and the building technology in the traditional Vhavenda communities. What counts is not whether these progressions have followed a Eurocentric notion of science, but rather unearthing the local rationale within which they are justified, and are hence ought to be regarded as “science.” Following these objectives, two questions are very important: (1) What are the major changes in the traditional Vhavenda architectural designs and building infrastructures? (2) How are these changes justified within the Vhavenda indigenous knowledge system?