Zanzibar: A Nineteenth-Century Landscape of the Omani Elite

1 23

International Journal of HistoricalArchaeology ISSN 1092-7697 Int J Histor ArchaeolDOI 10.1007/s10761-015-0291-8

Zanzibar: A Nineteenth-CenturyLandscape of the Omani Elite

Daniel Rhodes, Colin Breen & WesForsythe

1 23

Your article is protected by copyright and all

rights are held exclusively by Springer Science

+Business Media New York. This e-offprint is

for personal use only and shall not be self-

archived in electronic repositories. If you wish

to self-archive your article, please use the

accepted manuscript version for posting on

your own website. You may further deposit

the accepted manuscript version in any

repository, provided it is only made publicly

available 12 months after official publication

or later and provided acknowledgement is

given to the original source of publication

and a link is inserted to the published article

on Springer's website. The link must be

accompanied by the following text: "The final

publication is available at link.springer.com”.

Zanzibar: A Nineteenth-Century Landscapeof the Omani Elite

Daniel Rhodes & Colin Breen & Wes Forsythe

# Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Abstract This article examines the historical architecture and elite palace sites of thenineteenth-century Sultanate of Zanzibar. Archaeological coastal survey and historicalresearch is used to discuss the way in which these built structures demonstrate thechanging forces of mercantile control in the Western Indian Ocean. On moving hiscourt to Zanzibar from Oman in 1828, Seyyid Said bin Sultan set about consolidatinghis authority. This consolidation and subsequent demise is reflected, it is argued, in thestructural remains along Zanzibar’s western coast.

Keywords Zanzibar . Omani . Palace . Sultan

Introduction

The island of Unguja, now more commonly known as Zanzibar (having adopted thename of its largest town, also known as Stone Town) served as a center for trade andcommunication across the western Indian Ocean for much of the second millennium(Fig. 1). Its economy focused on its role as an effective entrepôt for the distribution ofgoods from East Africa across the Indian

Ocean World. Much of this trade in the closing centuries of the millennium washuman traffic with Zanzibar emerging as the centre for the eastern slave trade. With thedemise of Portuguese influence at the close of the seventeenth century the sultans ofOman emerged as the dominant political force in the region and eventually established

Int J Histor ArchaeolDOI 10.1007/s10761-015-0291-8

D. Rhodes (*)National Trust for Scotland, Hermiston Quay, 5 Cultins Road, Edinburgh EH114DF Midlothian, Scotlande-mail: [email protected]

C. Breen :W. ForsytheSchool of Environmental Sciences, University of Ulster, Coleraine, BT52 1SA Co. Derry, Ireland

C. Breene-mail: [email protected]

W. Forsythee-mail: [email protected]

Author's personal copy

their power base on Zanzibar. A number of historical studies have provided an outlineof this period but there has been limited archaeological investigation of the structuresreflecting the era of Omani control. A brief survey in 1984 identified a number ofpalace sites associated with the sultans and included limited excavations at the Omanifort at Shangani (Horton and Clark 1985) while more recently targeted excavationshave been undertaken at one of the major palace sites at Mtoni (Folkers and Denissen2010). Although these excavations go some way to establish strategraphic site chro-nologies this current article takes a different approach by examining multiple historicbuildings to investigate Omani activity horizontally across numerous sites. As such,this paper presents the rise and fall of Omani influence on Zanzibar in the eighteenthand nineteenth centuries and examines archaeologically the establishment of elitesettlement along the coast north of Shangani (Fig. 2), the subsequent consolidation ofpower and the demise of their territorial control at the end of the period. This is anarrative embedded in emerging patterns of globalisation across the

Indian Ocean and the fluctuating movement of geopolitical power within the regionand through negotiation with Europe.

This research sits within a small but growing body of work focused on thearchaeology of built structures in East Africa’s Swahili period and more broadly withinthe archaeological study of spatial structure and architecture. Motivation came fromtwo works; the first, Parker-Pearson and Richards (1997) Architecture and Order:Approaches to Social Space which collected together works that analyzed examplesof buildings and building use from European prehistory through to the medieval period.Most importantly in relation to this article was the researchers’ adoption of Gidden’stheory of structuration which posits that Bstructures are both the medium and outcome

Fig. 1 Arab Seafarers were travelling the Indian Ocean in search of goods and market places from at least theseventh century. Establishing a series of trading ports along the East African coast resulting in the distinctiveSwahili culture

Int J Histor Archaeol


of social practices. They are modified continually as the actions that constitute themchange^ (Parker-Pearson and Richards 1997, p. 3). In this way we have approached theanalyses of Zanzibar’s elite Omani structures from a theoretical stand that viewsbuildings as more than simply places where history happens, but as a language ofcommunication. More specifically within this paper we are aiming to apply the kinds ofanalyses previously applied to archaeological house sites and expand them to pull apartthe roles and meanings of grand estate buildings and palaces. Buildings, be they house,palace, or fort, are not simply functional shelters and similarly they are not purelysymbolic. They perform an important social role in binding humans together withindefined spaces and define social separation internally and externally; Bthe house notonly embodies personal meaning but also expresses and maintains the ideology ofprevailing social orders^ (Parker-Pearson and Richards 1997, p. 6).

The second motivation for this article was the publication The Durable House editedby Robin Beck (2007). In this work Beck drew together the work of a varied group ofarchaeologists and developed the underlying theory of the house as socially active.

Fig. 2 The archaeological survey centered on the palatial architecture on Zanzibar’s western coast north ofStone Town



Based on the writing of Levi-Strauss, a house was defined as a Bmoral person, keeper ofa domain composed altogether of material and immaterial property, which perpetuatesitself by the transmission of its name, of its fortune and of its titles in a real or fictiveline held as legitimate on the sole condition that this continuity can express itself in thelanguage of kinship or of alliance, and, most often, of both together^ (translated inBeck 2007, p. 4). By adopting this approach of the Bsocial house^ the aim of this articleis to look beyond the traditional kinship categories of the occupants of Zanzibar’snineteenth-century palaces and look at the elite buildings as Binstitution[s] that usedmultiple strategies to recruit members whose everyday practices integrated kinship,economics, religion, and politics^ (Beck 2007, p. 5).

As well as the important theoretical lead offered by these two works, both containedexamples of research specifically analyzing the archaeological remains of Swahilihouses in East Africa. The first focused on fourteenth- and fifteenth-century housesat Shanga (Horton 1994) and the second discussed the changing nature of Swahiliarchitecture from the fourteenth to the nineteenth centuries (Fleisher and LaViolette2007). Both concentrated on the vernacular architecture of the stone-constructedbuildings of the mercantile elite and developed critiques in defense of archaeologicalpractices in response to Donley-Reid (1990) and her archaeo-ethnographic research inLamu in the 1980s. In this research, Donley-Reid was the first to examine the morerecent past as a tool for interpreting structural remains but courted the critique of laterarchaeologists with an insistence that buildings are un-interpretable without ethno-graphic data relaying societies’ symbolic use of these Bstructuring structures.^ Asidefrom this difference in methodology, the underlying approach and belief in the power ofarchitecture has remained the same with Donley-Reid arguing that architecture teachespeople their place in society through its role in ritual and the spatial arrangement ofsocial hierarchies. Fleisher and Laviolette (2007, p. 177) expanded this thesis into moreof a dialogue between house and society: Bto the idea of Swahili houses as technologiesin the Foucauldian sense, active in the construction of elite status.^

This article takes the stance that just as Swahili stone houses became part of anemerging architectural language on the East African coast during the fourteenth andfifteenth centuries, it was a language that translated directly into the architectural formsand roles of palace development on nineteenth-century Zanzibar. However, thesetraditional modes of representation and dialogue between society and built space weresubject to new European political voices and as such began to adapt, express, and exertdifferent socio-political forces on both their residents and their audience.

An Historical Context

Little is known about the morphology of medieval settlement on Zanzibar. As men-tioned earlier, largely unpublished survey work and a small excavation was carried outin the mid-1980s which served to establish the chronological development of the site ofthe Old Fort. Our understanding is largely based on an historical narrative placingZanzibar firmly within the wider network of the broader medieval Indian Oceancommercial world. Long-distance trade and interaction between regional economicmarkets was a feature of Indian Ocean maritime activity dominated by Islamic seafarersfrom the Arab Peninsula from the seventh century. The dominant economic centers ofthis long-distance trade were the Umayyad Caliphate of Damascus, from the mid-



seventh to the mid-eighth century; the Abbasid Caliphate of Baghdad, from the mid-eighth to the early tenth century; and the Fatimid Caliphate of Cairo, from the tenth tothe eleventh century (Kearney 2004). At its largest extent, this trade network stretchedfrom central Asia across the Middle East and North Africa to the Atlantic. Muslimmerchants reached India, Ceylon, the East Indies, and China, as well as establishinglinks with Europe as far as the Baltic via the Caspian, the Black Sea and Russia (Lewis1966). With this dominance came Islam, the earliest archaeological evidence for whichappears in Shanga, off the Kenyan coast, in the eighth century in the form of a mosqueand associated burials (Horton 1996). On Zanzibar, Kizimkazi mosque, at the north endof the island, is one of the earliest dated structures: a kufic inscription on the trefoilmirab dates to 1107 (Chittick 1962; Flury 1922).

On the East African coast a series of trading ports from Somali to Mozambiqueoversaw the movement of goods between the continental hinterland and visitingmerchants. From the eighth century, the use of stone within distinctive architecturalforms began to distinguish these trading centers from their surrounding hinterlands (seefor example the archaeological research of Horton (1996) at Shanga, and Wilson andOmar (1997) at Pate). This building tradition gave rise to the archaeologically distinc-tive Swahili culture which is geographically confined to the coastline, united bylanguage and expressed through urban trading settlements which reached their heightin the thirteenth-fifteenth centuries with the development of independent city states atKilwa Kisiwani and Pate (Breen and Lane 2003; Chittick 1977).

Vasco da Gama provides the first mention of Zanzibar in 1499 when he notes Balarge island called Jangibar which is peopled by Moors^ (Pearce 1920, p. 60). Theisland later became the focus of Portuguese attention, when, with a view of removingthe lucrative market in Indian goods from the control of Muslim North Africa, areas ofstrategic maritime importance were seized. Among these on the East Africa coast wereMozambique (1500), Kilwa Kisiwani and Mombasa (1505), and Malindi (1509)(Pearson 2003). In 1509 Duarte Barbosa described the islands of the Zanzibar archi-pelago as Binhabited byMoors^ and very fertile with their own kings and having Bsmallvessels, very loosely and badly made^ (Pearce 1920, p. 64). Juma (2004) suggests thatShangani was the area of Stone Town (the island’s capital) attacked twice by thePortuguese in the first decade of the sixteenth century before succumbing in 1509.After this date, Europeans began to establish a more permanent base on the island anddeveloped settlements and Bfeitorias^ or Bfactories^ (fortified trading posts which actedas warehouses, markets, and customs offices) at Mvuleni, Fukuchani, and at the Gerezain Stone Town. At the latter site they erected a cruciform church that measured40mx22m with a nave, chancel, and two sacristies (Horton and Clark 1985). AnAugustinian house was also established at this location in the second half of thesixteenth century. The Portuguese never fully controlled the islands and never built afortress on the scale of that at Mozambique or Mombasa. Instead, they viewed Zanzibaras a strategic staging post in the region offering the potential for economic activity anddevelopment. Although they never significantly disrupted Swahili control of commercein the region, the British were keen not to let the Portuguese develop a monopoly in theIndian Ocean and in 1591–92, Sir James Lancaster, later director of the English EastIndia Company, visited Zanzibar en route to the east. While lying at anchor in the roadshe described wooden sewn boats caulked with the husks of coconut shells and mentionsthe presence of a Portuguese factory in the town (Hakluyt 1904).



Over the following century the Portuguese presence was occasionally challenged. In1652, the leaders of Zanzibar and Pemba destroyed Portuguese settlements and turnedto Oman for support. The Yarubi dynasty in Oman had emerged in 1624 and hadmoved against Portuguese rule in Muscat. They took the fort there in 1650 and began toextend throughout East Africa, capturing Fort Jesus, Mombasa, in 1698 after a 3-yearsiege (Berg 1968). Excepting a brief reoccupation of Mombasa in 1728–29, the fall ofFort Jesus in 1698 saw the withdrawal of the Portuguese from across the regionallowing the Omanis to effectively assume the role of the dominant regional power.

Establishment of an Omani Presence

Omani merchants and visitors began to arrive on Zanzibar almost immediately after thedeparture of the Portuguese (Siravo 1996). In 1744, an Omani governor was installedon Zanzibar with the Mwinyi Mkuu retained as ruler of the local Swahili population(Sheriff 1987). A political and economic arrangement described in 1854 as having adistinct geographical impact, where on the eastern side of the island of Zanzibar thereare several thousand natives who call themselves Moheideens and claim to be descen-dants of the original families of Suahelis who owned the island before its occupation bythe Arabs. They live by agriculture, and have very little intercourse with the Arabs andother people who visit the island. For the privilege of being left unmolested in theenjoyment of their own laws and customs, they pay a poll tax to the Imuam [Sultan],and are exempted from any other tax or service (Osgood 1854, pp. 69–70).

In a pattern that was to be replicated in future centuries both the church and factorysite at Shangani were converted into a small fortification by the Omani arrivals. Bychoosing to convert this site they were deliberately assuming the mantle abdicated bythe Portuguese, as well as ousting the symbol of European religion. This was a highlystrategic location, being alongside the best anchorage and landing place in this part ofthe island. However, while the Omanis were Muslim they do not appear to haveconstructed a mosque at the location and the scars of the earlier Portuguese structurescan still be seen in the southern part of the fort.

In the immediate aftermath of the appointment of the governor, an economic andpolitical struggle occurred between two Omani dynasties. The Mazrui family hadextensive control of Pemba and Mombasa, and in reaction to the Busaidi family(who had replaced the Yarubi in 1749) sought to assert power by developing Zanzibaras an important centre of power (Horton and Middleton 2000). This dynastic strugglewas to continue until the defeat of Mombasan forces by Lamu in 1810/12 thatultimately gave opportunity to full Omani influence from Muscat (Berg 1968). Oneof the first actions as part of this struggle in the mid 1700s was the escalation ofZanzibar as a major regional trading center and the construction of a new fort on thewaterfront. The fort was constructed in a style common across Oman at the time andconsisted of a rectangular enclosure with four corner towers and a central tower on itseast wall (Fig. 3). The northwest tower was dismantled at the end of the nineteenthcentury to develop an access road to the later House of Wonders (now the NationalMuseum). It is unclear where the entrance would have been but it is possible that such afeature was located on its western wall fronting onto the waterfront; however a latergatehouse (constructed sometime after 1828) has removed any evidence for this. Thearchitecture contains a number of Omani stylistic features including distinctive



crenulations, small gun embrasures at upper first-floor parapet level as well as therounded towers with a strong basal batter and angled exteriors (Fig. 4). Such examplescan be seen at Mombasa’s Fort Jesus (Fig. 5), which shares Zanzibar’s colonial and pre-colonial architectural develoment and demonstrates similar changes from a Portuguesestronghold to an Omani seat of power. Fort Jesus was first built by the Portuguese at theend of the sixteenth century and designed by the Italian Joao Batista Cairato in theclassic Portuguese style with protruding corner bastions creating a roughly star shapeddefence. In 1631, it was controlled by the Arab Sultan of Mombasa, MohammadYusifbin Hassan, but was re-occupied by the Portuguese the following year. It thenremained in Portuguese hands until 1698 from when it remained in the control ofsuccessive Arab governors until further Portuguese success in 1728. This, however,lasted only a year and it returned to Arab control until the final governor Seyyid Saidbin Sultan of Oman relinquished control to the British Protectorate in 1885.

The construction and subsequent alteration of both these forts have served a numberof physical and political functions. Firstly, they served as the center for newlyestablished Omani power and represented a strong physical military presence thatwas designed to protect their mercantile activity and developing landholdings, as wellas protect the primary anchorage and port area. In common with most East Africancoastal sites there existed no formal physical harbor structures at Mombasa or Zanzibar,but their port instead utilized the natural geography of the islands which offered asheltered anchorage with good holding ground and in the case of Zanzibar a sandy,gently shelving beach, that allowed vessels to be grounded and goods loaded orunloaded. Secondly, Zanzibar’s fort is located on a formerly sandy headland with alagoon lying to its east and north which facilitated good access to the immediate

Fig. 3 Plan of the fort in Stone Town as it stands today



hinterland while maintaining a degree of separation and exclusivity (as described byOsgood in 1854). Such structures were also expressive of the developing nature ofOmani ambition on Zanzibar and across the broader western Indian Ocean (i.e.,Mombasa). The reliance and maintenance of such fortified sites (as on Zanzibar andMombasa) is demonstrative of a materializing of wealth and power. If as Levi-Strauss(1987, p. 151) suggests, houses (or in this case forts) only exist in relation to others,then the reconstitution of Portuguese fortifications demonstrated a temporal dominancefrom old (Portuguese) to new (Omani) and a very real expression of dominance of thesurrounding areas and structures. Not least, as demonstrated below in the Europeanhistoric extracts, from a maritime perspective where Zanzibar’s waterfront was visuallymarked by the fort that had its main focus (i.e., gatehouse) facing seaward; bothexcluding the terrestrial population and clearly focusing activity on the harbor. TheEuropean accounts of the ineffectual engineering of the fort can to a large extent bedismissed as a misreading of the buildings purpose as this was arguably not the primaryaim. It was not intended as a military structure per se but as a medium for theexpression of hierarchies of mercantile control. External threats nonetheless remaineda consideration with the Portuguese attempting to re-establish their interests in 1730.

Fig. 4 The northeast bastion of the fort in Stone Town as seen from the west. Note the typical Omani featuresin the rounded tower with basal batter, curved crenulations and gun embrasures in the upper parapet



Seyyid Said and the Mtoni Estate

Over the course of the following decades the Omanis sought to further strengthen theircommercial and political links with the islands. They were to become important actorsin the emerging global capitalist market with specific interests in the cultivation ofcloves (see Croucher 2006) and an export trade in (amongst others) ebony, ivory, andslaves. These commodities came from the African interior and were shipped from portslike Bagamoyo on mainland Tanzania to Zanzibar before being distributed across theIndian Ocean. A number of contemporary writers attest to slavery as commonplacesince at least the fourteenth century on Zanzibar (Beachey 1976) with further evidencefrom the mainland as early as at least the seventh century, with al Idrisi recounting raidsby Arab slavers (Martin and Ryan 1977). Cloves and clove plantations were also toemerge as a central tenet of Omani economic expansion. In the opening decades of thenineteenth century Saleh bin Haramil built a house at Mtoni and is traditionallyregarded as the first Omani to introduce cloves to Zanzibar, having replicated Frenchpractice at Bourbon (Sheriff 1987). Though an account by Osgood in 1854 attributesthis development, in a politically judicious manner to the Sultan and describes planta-tions of 6000-8000 trees (Osgood 1854). In 1828, Seyyid Said bin Sultan (1797–1856)decided to move his court from Oman to Zanzibar. Traditionally this move has beenviewed as indicative of the decline of Muscat and the ascendancy of Zanzibar. TheSultan himself writing in 1833; BMy revenues in Oman are very small and my expensesvery great…[and] it is now 5 years since all the chief men have died out of Oman andnone but the low and mean remain, and I am ashamed to live near such despicablepeople^ (quoted in Bhacker 1992, p. 99). However, more recent research (Bhacker

Fig. 5 Fort Jesus (1593) at Mombasa has served every dominant group through Mombasa’s colonial history,from its Portuguese origins it now best displays those shared Omani architectural traits seen both here and onZanzibar



1992) has suggested that Zanzibar and Muscat should be viewed more appropriately asforming two halves of the Omani world. With each being dependant on the other forexchange and trade, and surviving successfully in the face of escalating British colonialactivity in the broader Indian Ocean. Specifically, activity which impinged on historicaleconomic ties between Oman and western India and necessitated the development oftrade relations between Oman, East Africa and other areas in India, namely Kutch andSind (as will be discussed later, Banyan merchants from Kutch played a key role in thefortunes of the Omani Sultanate on Zanzibar). With this reorientation of focus in mind,Seyyid Said bin Sultan sent his son to the island to establish a number of new palacesites that were to include Mtoni and the Beit al Sahel at Shangani. This movement ofthe court served to attract further Omani merchants keen to exploit Zanzibar’s com-mercial and political opportunities and offered the Sultan the comfort of an islandstronghold.

Seyyid Said also supervised the refurbishment of Stone Town’s fort. The new centralGatehouse was inserted into the western wall, its gun embrasures were closed up and anew battery was installed along the waterfront in front of the fort. The new Gatehousewas demolished some time prior to 1893 in order that the fort could be used as arailway yard; and was by this time less a garrison and more the center of the Sultan’sfinancial activities on the island. An 1844 account by Captain Thomas Smee refers tothe fort Bpartly of Arab, partly of Portuguese construction^ (Bissell 2011, p. 27). RossBrowne, who visited on a whaler in 1846 described the fort as Ba large, massivestructure, about 300 ft long and a 100 and 50 wide, with a tower at each corner, and aspacious terrace in front of it, the outer part of which is fortified by a battery, or row ofheavy stone abutments for the protection of the soldiers and the gunnery^ (Browne1846, p. 126). A customs house had also been established by an Indian merchant(Seyyid Said bin Sultan had previously transferred the management of Zanzibar’scustoms to the Shivji Topan family from Kutch; see Bhacker 1992), Jeram Bin Seeva,and consisted of Ba low bamboo hut, thatched with palmetto leaves^ (Browne 1846, p.329). Burton (1872, p. 88) provides a further detailed description of the fort in 1854recording that it was built of the

usual coral rag, cemented with lime of the same formation, rudely burnt and thestyle as well as the name recall to mind the Portuguese of the heroic sixteenthcentury. It is one of those naïve, crenulated structures, flanked by polygonaltowers, each pierced for one small gun, and connected by the comparatively lowcurtain wall, in which our ancestors put their trust….it is faced by a straight-lineddetached battery, commanding the landing, and about 12 yards long. The embra-sures of this outwork are so close that the first broadside would blow open thethin wall; and the score of guns is so placed that every bullet striking the fort mustsend a billet or two into the men that serve them. A ‘place d’armes’, about 50 f.wide, divides the two, and represents the naval and military arsenal-two dozeniron carronades lying piled to the right of the first entrance.

That same year it was also described as

a large towery castle, which faces the harbour. A parapet, mounted with a row ofgood artillery, affords an additional means of defence against incursion. So



ruinously conditioned, however, is the fort, that a few well directed broadsidesfrom a ship of war would destroy the whole structure. It is used as a place ofconfinement for criminals. Within the enclosure of the fort is quite a little villageof huts, occupied by about a 100 soldiers and their families (Osgood 1854, p. 27).

A battery was later referred to by Richard Burton (1872) when describing his visit inthe 1850s as lying in front of the Beit al-Sahel and consisting of a Bstuccoed platformmounting eight or nine brass guns en barbette, intended more for show than use.^ Thebattery is also marked on a map dating 1857 (Guillain 1856); but it is Burton et als.’disparaging dismissal of these structures which demonstrates the multivocality of thefort and its associated defenses. As suggested earlier, these were not primarily designedas defensive in the European sense (i.e., safeguarding against heavy artillery) but socialexpressions of the Sultan’s superior mercantile position. Zanzibar’s fort and palaces areindicative of relationships between people of different Bhouses^ be they Omani,Swahili, or European. By figuring prominently in the urban landscape and seascapeof Zanzibar the Sultan’s development and control of the site of the former Portuguesefort not only demonstrates a control over past hierarchies, but a security of social andeconomic position; with the overt symbol of defense (i.e., fort) acting as a directmaterialization of financial surety.

The primary palace established by Seyyid Said was the Beit al-Sahel built between1828 and 1832 following the transfer of the court from Muscat to Zanzibar. Thisbuilding was destroyed by a British naval bombardment in 1896 but was described byBurton (1872, pp. 256–257) in the 1850s as a Bdouble-stored, white washed barrack,about 140 f. long, roofed with dingy green-red tiles, and pierced with a fewwindows….Seaward there is a veranda, in which levees are held, and behind it arestables and sundry outhouses, an oratory and a graveyard, where runaway slaves,chained together by the neck, lie in the shade.^ Further description in 1854 place evenless architectural value on the palace, noting that it is worthy of mention

because of its use and of its distinguished owner, rather than from any superiorityin its outside finish over the style of other dwellings in town. It is locatedconspicuously near the water of the harbour, and is a plain, regularly framedbuilding, of two stories, measuring in front 100 and 30 or 40 ft. Its walls are whitewashed, and its gable roof covered with red tiles. The second story, or harem, hasa row of windows with venetian blinds on the side facing the harbour. In onecorner of the ground story the Imaum [Sultan] has a durbar, or reception room,lighted by glass windows (Osgood 1854, pp. 31–32).

Parallels between its form and that at Bayt al Jarayzah, built by Seyyid Said’s fatherin Muscat in the last decade of the eighteenth century have been suggested (Folkers andSmienk 2010). Although Burton’s European gaze places little architectural value in thepalace, it is part of an architectural tradition thick with association and meaning relatingto Swahili and Omani society. The structure is indicative of the architectural stylebrought to Zanzibar from Oman, with large plain exterior façades hiding an innercourtyard containing decorative tile work and wall niches housing glassware andceramics. The earlier cited work by Donley-Reid (1990) in Lamu is a useful compar-ison as a means of interpreting such spaces and highlights the social encoding of the



palaces as an extension of traditions from smaller urban houses. For example, BThefree-born families occupied the upper levels of the coral houses and had access to awide variety of trade objects, including silk, porcelain, beads, carved beds, and ivoryinlaid chairs, with which to furnish their houses^ (Donley-Reid 1990, p. 118). Thebuildings also contained social stratification with local slaves occupying the groundfloors as well as gender divisions because of purdah. The uppermost internal room, thendani, was for the sole use of the owner of the house, thus privacy and status wascombined and the active cloaking of authority and maintenance of privacy away fromthe public gaze was the architectural demonstration of power. The ndani contained thetrappings of wealth, often expressed in architectural detail; Fleisher and LaViolette(2007) recorded rows of floor to ceiling wall niches used to display the trade-derivedwealth. All of which are internally expressed and invisible to casual observers such asBurton. Later however, a balcony was added to the seaward façade of the Beit al-Sahelas building design in Zanzibar became more influenced by European and Indian stylesduring the escalation of British colonial activities. This progressive transformation toexterior decoration is visible in the slightly later Beit al-Hukm (also destroyed in thebombardment) and reached its apogee in the construction of the Beit al-Ajaib (House ofWonders) in 1883.

A degree of local power had been maintained on the island with the Mwinyi Mkuuhaving both a residence in Stone Town and a palace (the building of which wasfacilitated by the Basaidis) at Dunga after 1845. The duality of the rule of the Islandas a whole, separated as it was between the Sultan and indigenous Basaidis, isrepresented in the clear urban and rural divide. For example, the earlier descriptionby Osgood (1854, p. 69) in which he clearly describes how the Swahili had Bvery littleintercourse with the Arabs and other people who visit the island,^ is the opinion of atraveler who visited the island at the hospitality of the urban-based Omani elite and haslittle understanding of the interrelation between the two groups; further augmented bythe physical duality of stone-built and makuti architecture. Although the movement ofthe Omani court to the island was the direct result of its success as a trading port andpoint of access to already thriving markets. The decline of the slave trade in the earlypart of the nineteenth century led to an increase in the development of plantationscreating a dual merchant/landowning class which was not restricted to Arabs alone.Indeed, both the Mwinyi Mku and the larger Indian merchants had begun to adoptlandlordism and plantations as a large part of their income generation. This was todevelop further as the century progressed with the influence of British legal ideas,whereby Banyan merchants espoused exclusive ownership in rejection of traditionalOmani Ibadi law. The impact of this being that once Britain fully intervened inZanzibari economic affairs and the fortunes of Omani and Swahili elites began tosuffer, it was the Banyans who benefitted because much of the wealth had beenpreviously mortgaged to them (Bhacker 1992). This growth in economic power wasdeveloped further still with the growth of the European clove market.

Mtoni Palace

The palace at Mtoni (construction began in 1826; see Bhacker 1992) is sited some 3 m(4.8 km) north of Stone Town directly overlooking the shoreline and is named after the



watercourse that feeds the palace’s system of bathhouses (Fig. 6). It comprises anoriginally square building sited around a central well—a key concern at its location anda common priority for Omani peoples.

Mtoni succeeded Beit al-Sahel as the private residence and retreat of the Sultan andhis family with Beit al-Sahel retaining its position as a centrally sited administrativeresidence overlooking the busy commercial heart of the island. (Osgood (1854, p. 60)mentions how the Sultan more commonly spent half of each week at Mtoni.) Over theyears, historical interest in Mtoni has centered largely on a written account of PrincessSalme of Zanzibar, a daughter of the Sayyid Said, who later published her memoirs oflife on the island between 1844 and 1866 (published under her married name of Reutein 1888). Much of this material is descriptive but must be approached with caution asthe current survey will demonstrate and much of the information subsumed in thecurrent interpretation of the palace is not substantiated by archaeological observations.

Mtoni’s main entrance faces the sea, and contrary to Reute’s account of theanchoring of the man-of-war el-Rhamani directly off the palace entrance, it is unlikelythat the bathymetry of this part of the coast offered a suitable anchorage for largevessels immediately in front of the building. The seabed comprises a gently shelvingplatform reef with a large intertidal zone and the coast immediately below the palacehas developed a considerable sand berm where the shallow tidal waters would haveoriginally reached within meters of the entrance of the palace. This intertidal zone is a

Fig. 6 This plan of Mtoni Palace (1826) clearly shows the original courtyard dwelling in the southwestcorner, subsequently expanded to incorporate two further courtyards and bathing complex



geographical feature adopted as part of the palace’s hydrological system with theconstruction of a sluice tank adjacent to it designed to dispose of wastewater. Fromthis coastal vantage point the palace also overlooks one of the main northern ap-proaches to Stone Town and although Reute’s account may not be accurate in herpositioning of the anchorage she does attest to the maintenance of a naval presence inthe sea lanes off Mtoni (Reute 1998 [1888]). Broadly contemporary with Reute,Osgood (1854, p. 63) describes Mtoni as Ban antiquated looking building, erected overthe stream from which is taken all the water for the shipping, and may be distinguishedfrom the neighboring dwellings by its cupola and superior oriental style of finish.Numerous orange and cocoa trees surround it, and shade the avenue by which it isapproached.^

The lack of fortification features at the palace at Mtoni may be explained by thenaval presence; however, a further structure sited to the south across a creek appears tohave an overt military function and provides the outward military expression Mtonidoes not. Although little remains of what must have been a substantial building, anouter, seaward wall is pierced by four gun ports (Fig. 7). To the interior, large iron loopshave been inserted on both sides of the gun ports; these run through the wall and arehooked at the exterior with the function of harnessing the gun carriage during recoilupon firing. An inner wall runs parallel to the exterior and is only 3.8 m to the eastunderlining the need to brace the guns. This inner wall contains four large windowsidentical in style to the internal arches of Mtoni Palace, suggesting a contemporarydate. The site is reported to originally have featured a round tower and has beenclaimed to have Omani parallels, however the building has been extensivelydemolished and removed, possibly around 1960 (Folkers and Smienk 2010; Hortonand Clark 1985), though the current survey has demonstrated little evidence ofdemolished or exposed wall lines, suggesting that the battery visible today may havebeen originally freestanding and any associated towers stood apart and survive at bestas subsurface remains. The presence of a fortified site would have provided protectionfor boats in the vicinity as well as the palace, while at the same time maintain a discreet

Fig. 7 This plan of the Battery south of Mtoni Palace (ca. 1826) shows the three remaining gun ports on itsseaward side and the typical Omani pointed arch design on its inner elevation. The slots at the wall head onthis inner side are not, as they may appear, crenulations but rainwater ducts



distance. However, the restricted size of the guns (as demonstrated by the narrownessof the battery) could not have been expected to provide comprehensive cover for theshipping approach to Stone Town. Nonetheless, it is clear that it represents a furtherstep in divorcing military, administrative and residential functions within Omani-controlled properties. These functional separations are further highlighted at Mtoni inlight of the historic accounts, as supported by Osgood’s account of the diplomaticreception. In addition, further comparison to the fortified estate at Pujini (Fleisher andLaViolette 2007) highlights the similarity of design and the overriding Bdomestic natureof the rooms inside the front gate, ultimately seems more an elaborate house than amilitary style fortification^ (Fleisher and LaViolette 2007, p. 190). In this way, thepalace provided an exclusive space without intrusive military functions or commercialbustle and conveyed a confident and relaxed control of territory and wealth on the partof the Sultan and his family.

Landscapes of Leisure and the Stylization of Social Order

A further development underlining the shift toward expressions of confidence andluxury is the construction in the later nineteenth century of extensive bathing facilitiesat a number of palaces. The tapping of the Chem-Chem spring in the foothills to theeast of Mtoni in 1835 provided an alternative to the well, and Mtoni creek. This reliableand plentiful source of water was harnessed to provide for new bathing facilities createdas Mtoni Palace was extended beyond its original courtyard house. The changes toMtoni indicate a clear hierarchy expressed through the division of space within thebathing areas: BEach bathroom was allotted to a special set of occupants; woe to theperson who did not keep within her proper bounds! A very rigorous spirit of caste ruledat Beit al-Mtoni, which was observed by high and low alike^ (Reute 1998 [1888], p. 2).The main living areas and reception rooms were located within the southwestern centralblock comprising the earliest elements of the original merchant house. This was alsosubdivided with the Sultan occupying the waterfront rooms (again, allowing for visualcommand of the maritime zone). Along the southern wing the merchant house givesway to elaborate roofed baths and places of repose, reserved for the upper members ofthe household. Likewise along the palace’s eastern range a series of smaller bathingrooms with a simpler toilet room were established. These survive largely complete andwere described in 1888 as BThe places of repose are separated by narrow arcades fromthe bath-rooms, which are all in the open air; two arched bridges of stone, with stepsgradually rising, lead again to other rooms lying apart^ (Reute 1998 [1888], p. 2). Suchinternal space played an important role in defining the internal hierarchies of the palaceand supported self-image. Social status was legitimized and perpetuated through thearchitecture, with clear divisions of status evident in right of access to certain rooms andbaths. The northern range of the palace complex is made up of a row of uniform roomswith evidence of wall niches surviving in many. These make up the domestic areas ofthe palace and culminate in a large, domestic water tank for washing clothes etc. in thenorthwestern corner. This area is clearly separated from the central elite space by theoriginal house’s exterior wall, which accordingly possesses no windows. Thus thecomplex as a whole contains a central elite zone and a series of graded peripheral zonesdenoted by the baths and use of water as it passes through the building.



The European Period Begins

The European powers were quick to recognize the emergence of Zanzibar as a thrivingmercantile hub and were keen to capitalize on this burgeoning centre of commerce.Britain established its first consulate in Stone Town in 1841 during a period when anumber of other nations began to make political and mercantile moves to the port(including the establishment of a US consul in 1837 and escalation of German tradewhich lead to a Treaty of Commerce between Zanzibar and the German HanseaticRepublics in 1859). As a consequence, a European quarter began to emerge around thebuildings of Shangani’s southern waterfront and the slow adoption of Europeanarchitectural styles began to emerge (Rhodes 2010, 2014).

In 1870, Seyyid Barghash ibn Said al-Busaidi (1837–88) became Sultan andachieved political and economic unification of Zanzibar and the adjacent mainlandcoast (Horton and Middleton 2000). Throughout the latter part of the nineteenthcentury Zanzibar’s economic influence continued to grow, not least with theopening of the Suez Canal—making Zanzibar a regular port for all steamers toEast Africa. In the evidence of Rear-Admiral C.F. Hillyar to the British House ofCommons 1871 Select Committee on the slave trade on the east coast of Africa,he referred to Zanzibar becoming the emporium Bfor the sea-borne trade ofMadagascar, the Mozambique, the Comoro Islands and the whole of the east coastof Africa. It is now the chief market in the world for the supply of ivory, gum,copal, cloves and cowries [sic], and has a rapidly increasing trade in hides, oil,seeds, dyes etc., whilst sugar and cotton promise to figure largely amongst itsfuture exports^ (Sulivan 2003 [1873], p. 164). He goes on to state that Bnearly allof the local trade of Zanzibar is in the hands of British-Indian subjects,^ a directreference to the role Indian merchants played in the development of East Africanmaritime commerce. In figures supplied by the same 1871 Select Committee,income to the Zanzibar custom house rose from $40,000 in 1808 to $150,000 in1834 and $200,000 in 1862 (Cooper 1977). By 1868, customs income had furtherrisen to $450,000 with a large market existing for ivory, gum and copal as well ashides, oils, seeds, and dyes. The total export of slaves from Kilwa to Zanzibarbetween 1862–67 was 76,703 individuals (Sulivan 2003 [1873]). By this date,Britain was engaged in sustained efforts to stop the slave trade and maintained anaval presence on the coast in attempt to intercept slave vessels. Their efforts metwith mixed success initially (with many other European and American vesselsengaged in transportation) although the trade was suppressed and slavery (at leastofficially) abolished by 1873.

From 1872 onward Seyyid Barghash embarked on an unprecedented scheme ofextra-urban building on Zanzibar. In 1872, he built Chuini Palace on an artificialfoundation within a riverbed to facilitate its system of baths, Chukwani Palace some-time prior to 1879 and in a further expansion to bathing facilities began Marhubi Palacein 1880 (Sheriff and Jafferji 2008) (Fig. 8). Marhubi was in reality the most complexand opulent baths thus far constructed for his secondary wives. Like Mtoni, this alsodrew on water originating at the Chem-Chem spring through ground level and over-head aqueducts serving bathhouses and large storage tanks. Furthermore, interior spacecontinued to be ordered on a hierarchical basis with baths of varying sizes opening ontoan expansive and luxurious courtyard set within well-ordered and planted grounds. As



a property of the ruling elite with its balconies supported by large stone pillars, itprovides a high degree of contrast to the defensive old fort, stolid Beit al Sahel andsemi-fortified Mtoni. Maharubi was similarly approached by sea but has no apparentemphasis on defense. Moreover, Sheriff and Jafferji (2008) go so far as to suggest thatMarhubi was constructed in the style of British country estates and surrounded by awall specifically inspired by private country parks in England, with an avenue of Indianmango trees leading to large water-lily ponds. Maharubi burned down in 1899 butincreasing financial strains meant that construction work was by now no longerpossible and the Sultan refocused on residences in Stone Town.

A final site on the long, sandy shore to the north of Stone Town is Beit al-Ras(Fig. 9), which was established by Seyyid Said in 1854. Its location at Ras point is atthe very limit of views southward toward the commercial hub of Stone Town. Howeverthe planned palace was never completed, with the Sultan dying in 1856. It comprises alarge square edifice with wide steps running up to a raised plinth, sometimes interpretedas an entranceway to the palace. The building is depicted in a painting dated 1886 bythe daughter of Princess Salome as having both an entrance way and adjacent largerpalace building but no trace of any other element of the former building currentlyremains. Although sited at a highly strategic location, like Maharubi there is no hint ofplanned fortification.

Fig. 8 At Mhrubi Palace (1880) the architecture and engineering first adopted in the baths at Mtoni Palacewas developed further to create an environment of opulence supplied by a raised aqueduct and replete with anenclosed pleasure grounds and water garden



Landscape and Political Reconfiguration

Following the Berlin Conference of 1884 at which Britain and Germany carved up EastAfrica into their respective Bspheres of influence,^ the Sultan remained in totalauthority over the islands of Zanzibar and Pemba as well as a 10 nmi strip (18.5 km)of the East African mainland from Kipini at the mouth of the Tana River in the north toTunghi Bay in the south. He was also recognized as ruler of the northerly coastal townsof Kismayu, Brava, Merka and Mogadishu (Ingham 1965). Soon after, in 1887, theSultan gave concessions of his coastal possessions to both Britain and Germany. Sellingthose parts of the mainland adjacent to the German protectorate outright andcontracting those adjacent to Britain’s territories on the agreement that he secured thecustom dues, plus 50 % of any net revenue (Ingham 1965). These agreements lasteduntil 1890 when, as part of new Anglo-German treaties which established the bordersof British and German East Africa (corresponding to those of Kenya and Tanzania

Fig. 9 The remains of the palace at Beit el Ras (1854) now resemble as garden pagoda or bandstand. Mostprobably influenced by the British redevelopment of the area in the late nineteenth/early twentieth century



today), Sultan Hamad bin Thuwaini passed the rule of Zanzibar and Pemba to Britain.Following his death in 1896, his nephew Khalid bin Bargash very briefly declared waron the British in August of that year following a coup d’état. The British quicklyassembled five vessels off the waterfront at Stone Town and after issuing an ultimatumsank the Sultan’s armed yacht the Glasgow and bombarded a number of the waterfrontpalaces (see Breen et al., Maritime archaeological survey of Stonetown, Zanzibar,unpublished for the recent maritime discovery of the Glasgow). The whole conflictlasted 45 min before the Zanzibaris admitted defeat. Bargash fled allowing the Britishsupported Hamud bin Muhammed to take power.

The architectural styles of the Sultan’s newly reconstructed Stone Town waterfrontpalaces following the bombardment signify the final decline of the traditional Omanistyles seen in the earlier rural palace sites at Mtoni and Mahrubi. The newly built Beital-Ajab (House of Wonders) (Fig. 10) and Beit al-Sahil both further develop the use ofexternal decorative motifs thus far only seen at the Beit al-Hukm. The Beit al-Sahil wasreconstructed with a pointed-arched colonnade and decorative veranda and internallyboasted East Africa’s first electric elevator. The palace is set within a small gardenbounded by a crenulated wall, again continuing the adoption of the European traditionof private external space first applied at Mahrubi. This is a particularly striking use ofspace in the context of urban Stone Town where buildings stand largely shoulder- to-shoulder and possess small foot prints and high elevations. The apotheosis of this stylecame in the form of the BHouse of Wonders,^ constructed in 1883 (it is believed locallyfrom the design of a British naval engineer) without the traditional outward modesty ofearlier buildings with its iron columns, 360°verandas and large committee rooms.Following the chain of events which included the declaration of the British Protectoratein 1890, the establishment of a constitutional government in 1891 and defeat of Khalid

Fig. 10 The Beit al Ajaab/House of Wonders (1883) was the final realization of the European domination ofthe Sultans of Zanzibar’s architectural development. With its clock tower and steel balconies it was a statementof European domination of Zanzibar’s maritime commerce in all but name



bin Bargash in 1896 and the establishment by the British Foreign Office of Hamud ibnMohammed on the thrown; this was a British seat of local colonial government in allbut name. Both the Sultan’s wealth and his subordination are expressed within theHouse of Wonders and the lack of any militaristic elements further demonstrates thelack of requirement for a military force due to the patronage/control of the Britishauthorities (as demonstrated by the disastrous short war of 1896).

Conclusion

The built heritage recorded in this research can probably best be described as expres-sive of colonial ambition. Although sharing a common Islamic faith, the OmaniSultan’s of Zanzibar can be viewed as a colonizing force over the Swahili of the islandand the mainland coast. The archaeological remains of their activity represent aminority force dominating a people and landscape reflected in and supported by themanipulation of physical space. The elite palace sites outlined here demonstrate boththe development and decline of this political control, a control that was ultimatelyovershadowed by subsequent European colonial forces.

By assuming control of the center of Portuguese authority in the form of the chapeland factory/garrison the Omani elite was demonstrating their strength over the previ-ously dominant incursion and willingness to appropriate established positions ofstrength. By demolishing the Portuguese church and developing the site as a physicallyimposing centre of both military and financial activity the Sultans were further inwardlystrengthening their foothold on Zanzibar and outwardly expressing their position. Theconsolidation of this power came first with the transfer of the Sultan’s court to Zanzibar,then with the construction of ever more luxurious palaces, not this time at the centre ofcommerce, but located at strategic positions which controlled the very access to thiscenter. By placing their leisure palaces along the coastal littoral north of Shangani theSultans ensured control of the major sea route into Zanzibar harbor and furtheraugmented these with the addition of military instillations. With the placing of a cannonbattery at Mtoni arguably having more ideological impact on visitors than actualdefensive ability. As multiple palaces developed along this shore the complexesthemselves began to assume a greater emphasis on leisure and reveal the internalhierarchies within Omani elite society and reflect a process of self-construction. Withthe inclusion of multiple bathing facilities the Sultan was augmenting the activities ofhis extended families and visitors within the strict caste system as dictated by societybut he was also demonstrating a level of access to funds and technical engineeringsolutions hitherto unknown to this part of East Africa. At this time, specifically atMahrubi, we can also begin to see the start of European influences with the adoption ofdesigned parklands and enclosure.

In this way the palaces of Mtoni and Mahrubi also represent the subsequent demiseof the Omani powerbase and the overreaching ambition of the Sultans. By overstretching the dynastic finances subsequent Sultans found themselves less able tochallenge new European interests in their mercantile domination of the western IndianOcean and a subsequent withdrawal from palace life and reintegration into the urbanmercantile center in Stone Town was necessary. The inability of the Sultans toeffectively negotiate financially sustainable agreements with the new European powers,



coupled with growing economic pressure and debt ultimately led to the abandonmentof all but the most central seats of an ever shrinking sphere of control. A sphere thatwas quickly becoming just one element within Europe’s expanding global influence. Incontrast with the decline of the Sultan’s authority, Britain and Germany were beginningto develop their own control of mainland East African entrepot by re-designing harborsand associated towns in a manner that both usurped authority and subjugated popula-tions. Reflecting the manner in which the elite space on Zanzibar was made manifestthrough the built environment, the ports of East Africa were beginning to functionthrough systems of European design (for a full discussion of this see Rhodes 2010).The subsequent construction of palaces in Stone Town (following overt expressions ofBritish domination in the form of outright war in 1896) can be viewed as either littlemore than pastiches of fading authority or an attempt to assimilate the influences of anew wave of colonial incursion. Either way, they represent the physical manifestationof a regime bolstered by Europe as a puppet regime; the final ignominy of a dynastywhose political and economic ambitions survive in the maritime and coastal archaeo-logical record on Zanzibar. The elite architecture ties their creators to a social traditionand at the same time develops a new relationship with colonial Europe.

References

Beachey, R. W. (1976). The Slave Trade of Eastern Africa: A Collection of Documents, Rex Collings, London.Beck, R. A. (ed.) (2007). The Durable House: House Society Models in Archaeology Center for

Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale.Berg, F. J. (1968). The coast from the Portuguese invasion to the rise of the Zanzibar sultanate, in Ogot, B. A.

and Kieran, J. A. (eds) Zamani: A Survey of East African History. East African, Nairobi.Bhacker, M. R. (1992). Trade and Empire in Muscat and Zanzibar: Roots of British Domination, Routledge,

London.Bissell, W. C. (2011). Urban Design, Chaos and Colonial Power in Zanzibar, Indiana University Press,

Bloomington.Breen, C., and Lane, P. (2003). Archaeological Approaches to Africa’s changing seascapes. World

Archaeology 35: 469–489.Browne, J. R. (1846). Etchings of a Whaling Cruise, with Notes of a Sojourn on the Island of Zanzibar, Harper

and Brothers, New York.Burton, R. F. (1872). Zanzibar: City Island and Coast, Tinsley Brothers, London.Chittick, N. (1962). Preliminary Report on the Excavations at Kizimkazi Dimbani, Zanzibar. Annual Report

for 1960, Division of Antiquities, Tanganyika.Chittick, H. N. (1977). The east coast, Madagascar and the Indian Ocean, in Oliver, R. (ed.) The Cambridge

History of Africa: Volume 3, c.1050 to c.1600. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 183–231.Cooper, F. (1977). Plantation Slavery on the East Coast of Africa, Yale University Press, New Haven.Croucher, S. (2006). Plantations on Zanzibar: An Archaeological Approach to Complex Identities. Doctoral

dissertation, University of Manchester, Manchester.Donley-Reid, L. W. (1990). A structuring structure: the Swahili house. In Kent, S. (ed.),Domestic Architecture

and the Use of Space, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 114–126.Fleisher, J., and LaViolette, A. (2007). The changing power of Swahili houses, fourteenth to nineteenth

centuries A.D. In Beck, R. A. (ed.), The Durable House: House Society Models in Archaeology. Centerfor Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, pp. 175–197.

Flury, S. (1922). The Kufic inscription of Kizimkazi mosque, Zanzibar AD 1107. Journal of Royal AsiaticSociety 21: 257–264.

Folkers, A, and Denissen, A. (2010). Mtoni- Palace, Sultan and Princess of Zanziba. ArchiAfrika, Utrecht.Folkers, A, and Smienk, G. (2010). Beit El Mtoni, The House at the Creek. ArchiAfrica, Utrecht.Guillain, C. (1856). Voyage à la còte orientale d’Afrique: exécuté pendant les années 1846, 1847 et 1848 par

le brick le Ducouëdic, Bertrun, Paris.



Hakluyt, R. (1904). The Principal Navigations, Voyages, Traffiques and Discoveries of the English Nation,James MacLehose, Glasgow.

Horton, M. (1994). Swahili architecture, space and social structure. In Parker Pearson, M., and Richards, C.(eds.), Architecture and Order: Approaches to Social Space, Routledge, London, pp. 132–152.

Horton, M. (1996). Shanga: The Archaeology of a Muslim Trading Community on the Coast of East Africa,British Institute in East Africa, London.

Horton, M., and Clark, K. (1985). Archaeological survey of Zanzibar. Azania 20: 167–171.Horton, M., and Middleton, J. (2000). The Swahili: The Social Landscape of a Mercantile Society, Blackwell,

Oxford.Ingham, K. (1965). A History of East Africa, Longmans, London.Juma, A. (2004). Unguja Ukuu on Zanzibar: An Archaeological Study of Early Urbanism. Department of

Archaeology and Ancient History, Uppsala University, Uppsala.Kearney, M. (2004). The Indian Ocean in World History, Routledge, London.Levi-Strauss, C. (1987) Anthropology and Myth: Lectures 1951–1982, Willis, R. (trans.), Blackwell, Oxford.Lewis, B. (1966). The Arabs in History, Hutchinson, London.Martin, E. B., and Ryan, T. C. I. (1977). A quantitative assessment of the Arab slave trade in East Africa,

1770–1896. Kenya Historical Review 5: 71–91.Osgood, J. (1854). Notes of Travel or Recollections, George Creamer, Salem.Parker-Pearson, M., and Richards, C. (1997). Architecture and Order: Approaches to Social Space, Routledge,

London.Pearce, F. B. (1920). Zanzibar: The Island Metropolis of Eastern Africa, Unwin, London.Pearson, M. (2003). The Indian Ocean, Routledge, London.Reute, E. (1998 [1888]). Memoirs of an Arabian Princess from Zanzibar. Gallery, Zanzibar.Rhodes, D. T. (2010). Historical Archaeologies of Nineteenth-Century Colonial Tanzania: A Comparative

Study, British Archaeological Reports, Oxford.Rhodes, D. T. (2014). Building Colonialism, Archaeology and Urban Space in East Africa, Bloomsbury,

London.Sheriff, A. (1987). Slaves, Spices and Ivory in Zanzibar, James Currey, London.Sheriff, A., and Jafferji, J. (2008). Zanzibar Stone Town: An Architectural Exploration, Gallery, Zanzibar.Siravo, F. (1996). Zanzibar: A Plan for the Historic Stone Town. Aga Khan Trust for Culture, Geneva.Sulivan, G. L. (2003 [1873]). Dhow Chasing in Zanzibar Waters, Gallery, Zanzibar.Wilson, T. H., and Omar, A. L. (1997). Archaeological investigations at Pate. Azania 32: 31–76.



Zanzibar: A Nineteenth-Century Landscape of the Omani Elite

Documents

Transcript of Zanzibar: A Nineteenth-Century Landscape of the Omani Elite