Articles with the theme: Collections

The three major fields of research (between 1880 and 1900) for celebrity British explorers Theodore and Mabel Bent were the Eastern Mediterranean, Arabia, and Africa. We recently asked Mike Tucker, author behind zimfieldguide.com (delivering historic, cultural and wildlife information for Zimbabwe), if he had an angle on the Bents’ 1891 explorations of Great Zimbabwe and other sites, and he very kindly provided the following essay. Thank you Mike.

James Theodore Bent and Mabel Virginia Anna Bent gave many artefacts to the British Museum from Southern Rhodesia (present-day Zimbabwe) collected during and after their excavation at Great Zimbabwe in 1891.

Introduction

The story of the Bents’ excavation at Great Zimbabwe is told in the article ‘The Bent’s archaeological expedition to Great Zimbabwe in 1891 and the prominent part played by Mabel Bent’ under ‘Masvingo Province’ on the www.zimfieldguide.com website. Theodore Bent wrote over 150 articles, papers and lectures, comprehensively listed in the Bibliography section of the website devoted to the couple. Both Theodore and Mabel Bent were prolific authors and their books are also listed on the website. Other information and details of their journey come from Theodore Bent’s book The Ruined Cities of Mashonaland (1892), written very rapidly on their return home to 13 Great Cumberland Place, London – it proved very popular and ran to five editions. Finally, I used facsimile copies of Mabel’s notebooks housed at the Hellenic Society Archive, University College London.

The Bents’ excavations at Great Zimbabwe

In 1877, Theodore Bent married Mabel (née Hall-Dare, 1847-1929) who became his constant companion, photographer, illustrator and diarist on all his travels and from the time of their marriage they went abroad nearly every year.

Peter Garlake (1973) gives a number of quotes that are relevant to these first excavations carried out at Great Zimbabwe and are repeated below. Bent approached the question of Great Zimbabwe believing, like almost everyone, that its origins must lie with a civilised and ancient people from outside Africa and he had in fact been chosen to undertake the project because of his prior archaeological work on the Phoenicians.

But as far as the Phoenicians were concerned the excavations were showing little evidence of their presence. “Now, of course it is a great temptation to talk of Phoenician ruins when there is anything like gold to be found in connection with them, but from my own personal experience of Phoenician ruins I cannot say that [the Great Zimbabwe ruins] bear the slightest resemblance whatsoever” (Garlake 1973: 66). Every local resident they met was keen to perpetuate the Phoenician myth as was their patron, the British South Africa Company, and the Bents soon saw that the archaeological evidence was contrary to this idea, “the names of King Solomon and the Queen of Sheba were on everybody’s lips and have become so distasteful to us that we never expect to hear them again without an involuntary shudder”.

In June 1891 their excavation work around the Conical Tower within the Great Enclosure soon disproved the theories that Great Zimbabwe was ancient and of foreign origin. “We found but little depth of soil, very little debris, and indications of a native occupation of the place up to a very recent date” and Bent is quoted by his local guide C.C. Meredith as saying, “I have not much faith in the antiquity of these ruins, I think they are native. Everything we have so far is native.”

To quote directly from Peter Garlake, “Work in the elliptical building [Great Enclosure] was abandoned within a fortnight and excavations started in the eastern enclosure of the Hill Ruin [Hill Complex] ‘because it occurred to us that a spot situated on the shady side of the hill might possibly be free from native desecration.’ This was not to be. Throughout the deposits there were great numbers of household objects: sherds from hand built vessels, pottery spindle whorls, iron, bronze and copper spearheads, arrowheads, axes, adzes and hoes and gold working equipment such as tuyères and crucibles. Most of these still seemed indistinguishable from contemporary Karanga articles.” (Garlake 1973: 67)

Yet Bent still continued to be focussed on Phoenician origins. In the Great Enclosure were found four birds carved in soapstone on monoliths and flat soapstone dishes with abstract patterns or animals carved around the edges, small carved cylinders that looked like phalli and an ingot mould: objects unique to the site. Had similar objects been found elsewhere? Bent theorised the birds might copy stelae from Assyria, Mycenae, Phoenician Cyprus, Egypt and Sudan: the patterns on some of the objects resembled Phoenician motifs, the mould resembled one found in Cornwall and thought to be Phoenician.

Similarly with the architecture. The shape of the Great Enclosure resembled the temple of Marib in Southern Arabia, the Conical Tower looked like a Phoenician temple on a Byblos coin as well as structures in Assyria, Malta and Sardinia. The birds might symbolize gods or goddesses, the disc patterns indicate sun worship, the soapstone monoliths and phalli were “grosser forms of nature-worship” (Garlake 1973: 68) and so on.

From his above muddled ideas Bent decided there was, “little room for doubt that the builders and workers of the Great Zimbabwe came from the Arabian Peninsula… a prehistoric race built the ruins… which eventually became influenced and perhaps absorbed in the… organisations of the Semite…a northern race coming from Arabia…closely akin to the Phoenician and Egyptian…and eventually developing into the more civilised races of the ancient world.”

His final conclusions, “that the ruins and the things in them are not in any way connected with any known African race” seem extraordinary in view of all the artefacts excavated by the Bents in 1891.

The Collection of Bent artefacts from Great Zimbabwe at the British Museum

The numbers of objects donated below represent only those listed on the British Museum’s online collection, there may well be others in storage and not yet listed.

In all, the British Museum lists on their online collection 583 objects given by Theodore Bent. Those from present-day Zimbabwe number 272 objects (i.e. 47%) the remainder come from their archaeological excavations in Greece, the Turkish coast, Ethiopia, Arabia, etc.

Mabel Bent gave a further 155 objects. Those from present-day Zimbabwe number 26 objects with the remainder from Iran, Yemen, Arabia, Greece, etc. Her final donation to the museum was in 1926, three years before her death, suggesting that the artefacts possessed great sentimental value, reminding her of her twenty years of travel with her husband, who died at the early age of 45 in 1897.

For the purposes of this essay, I have only shown below a representative sample of the objects that the Bents collected or excavated on their 1891 expedition to present-day Zimbabwe.

British Museum objects listed mostly alphabetically and by location area where known. All the images are © The Trustees of the British Museum and appear under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) license. (The images are not to scale – for dimensions, refer to the Bent Collection pages in the BM online catalogue.)

References:
Garlake, Peter S. 1973. Great Zimbabwe. London: Thames and Hudson.
Bent, J. Theodore 1969. The Ruined Cities of Mashonaland. Bulawayo: Books of Rhodesia, Gold Series, Vol. 5 [first edition 1892, Longman, Green & Co., London].

… and one further curio from Mashonaland:

“After leaving Chipunza’s kraal, and crossing the River Rusapi, a ride of two hours brought us to Makoni’s kraal… Most of the men had very large holes pierced in the lobes of their ears, into which they would insert snuff-boxes of reeds, decorated with black geometric patterns, and other articles” (The Ruined Cities of Mashonaland, 1892, pp. 354-5). Bent acquires one and it is now in the British Museum (Af1892,0714.99.a), with its original label from 14 July 1892.