What is a Shona?

 Ask any Zimbabwean what a “Shona” is and you’ll get a dozen different answers. Some will say it’s simply the language we speak. Others will proudly claim it as their tribe. Many will shrug and say it’s just what the whites called us. But the truth is far more interesting — and far older — than most people realise. The word “Shona” has been debated for centuries, with theories ranging from ancient African geography to colonial linguistics, Indian traders, Portuguese maps, and even Ndebele insults. So let’s unpack the main theories and ask the bigger question: does the name still matter today?

Early Theories: Rezende, Sojouna, Sajona and MatshoneThe name appears in European records long before Cecil Rhodes or the British South Africa Company arrived. Portuguese adventurer Barreto de Rezende, writing in the 17th century, referred to the powerful Mwene Mutapa as “King of the Matshone” — meaning ruler of all the people in his vast kingdom on the Zimbabwe plateau. On old maps, such as Jan Jansson’s 1639 map of Zambesia, the people of the region are labelled “Sajona”. The Arab traveller Ibu Said (1214-1286) refers to the inhabitants on the Zimbabwe plateau as “Soyouna.” These early spellings — Matshone, Sajona, Sojouna — suggest the word was already in use among traders and explorers to describe the inhabitants of the Mutapa and Rozvi states. Some link it to “Matshone,” an early collective term for the plateau’s peoples. Others speculate that the name Shona came from sona, the Indian word for gold.
Traveller Andrew Smith and others in the 19th century also recorded similar terms, reinforcing that “Shona” (or variants) was not entirely invented by colonists but had roots in how outsiders described the powerful, stone-building civilisations they encountered.

Dr. Andrew Smith

 mentions the Shona (under the term "Mashona") in the published reports and diaries of his scientific expedition to central South Africa between 1834 and 1836.His primary references are found in his official report and personal journals, which were later edited and published by historians:

• "Report of the Expedition for Exploring Central Africa" (1836): Smith refers to the people living to the north and east of the Ndebele kingdom as the "Mashona".
• "The Diary of Dr. Andrew Smith" (Volumes I and II): 
  Andrew Smith
   wrote the original field notes and diaries for his "Expedition for Exploring Central Africa" during the journey itself, which took place from August 1834 to January 1836. In these records, he notes the "Mashona" as a group of people who were frequently targeted by Mzilikazi's Ndebele warriors. He describes them as skilled iron-workers and traders living in the hilly regions further north.

Context of His Mentions

Smith's mentions are significant because they are among the earliest written colonial records using the term "Mashona" in English:

• Ndebele Influence: Smith likely picked up the name from the Ndebele people he stayed with. He notes that the Ndebele used the term to describe the various tribes living on the plateau of what is now Zimbabwe.
• Geographic Boundary: At the time, Smith's expedition only reached as far north as the Magaliesberg (near modern-day Pretoria), so his information about the Shona was based on accounts from Ndebele informants and traders rather than direct contact.

Chigwedere’s Matshonalanga TheoryOne of Zimbabwe’s most influential historians, A.B.S. Chigwedere, offers a deeply African explanation. He traces the name back to around AD 1000, when Karanga people called the western part of their territory Tshonalanga or Matshonalanga — literally “the place where the sun sets” or “western lands.” Over time, this geographical term was distorted by outsiders into “Mashonaland” and eventually applied to the people themselves. Chigwedere argues that the Shona existed as a unified cultural and linguistic group with a common identity as far back as the 1500s, long before any European set foot here. The name, in his view, is not foreign — it grew out of our own land and language.DN Beach’s Scholarly ViewThe late great historian D.N. Beach, in his landmark works like The Shona and Zimbabwe 900–1850, approached the question through rigorous research into oral traditions and Portuguese documents. He showed that terms like “Shona,” “Shuna,” “Svina” or “Swina” were already being used by the Ndebele and earlier groups to refer to the plateau peoples (especially the Rozvi). Beach didn’t romanticise the name but placed it firmly in the complex pre-colonial politics of the region. His research reminds us that identity on the plateau was fluid, shaped by kingdoms, trade, and migration — not a single “tribe” waiting to be labelled.The Derogatory Theories: Maswina, Selous, and “Dirty Ones”Not all explanations are flattering. When the Ndebele arrived in the 1830s, they often called the local people AmaSwina or Maswina — a term many interpret as insulting which meant"the dirty ones". One popular story claims it came from the Shona practice of cleaning animal intestines (“swina” in some dialects), or people who ate “intestines.” Explorer Frederick Selous and other hunters repeated these Ndebele terms, embedding “Maswina” in early colonial writings. Another Nguni-linked theory says amatshona meant “those who go under” or “hide in caves,” referring to how Shona communities took refuge in hills and caves during Ndebele raids. These stories paint “Shona” as a label of conquest and mockery rather than pride.Professor Clement Doke and the Colonial StandardisationThe version most Zimbabweans know today was cemented in 1931 by South African linguist Professor Clement Doke. Tasked by the colonial government with creating a standard written language for “the Mashona tribe,” Doke grouped related dialects — Zezuru, Karanga, Manyika, Korekore, and Ndau — under the single umbrella term “Shona.” He based the standard mainly on Zezuru and recommended “Shona” (and “Mashonaland”) for official use in education, administration, and the Bible. In one stroke, Doke turned a loose collection of related peoples into a neat colonial category. For better or worse, this is when “Shona” became the everyday name we still use.What is Shona Culture? Have We Thrown It Away?Shona culture is rich, sophisticated, and very much alive — if we choose to see it. It includes a deep spiritual system centred on Mwari (the Supreme Being) and the ancestors (vadzimu), intricate clan systems (mitupo) with totems that still guide marriage and social respect today, beautiful oral literature through praise poetry (nhetembo), proverbs, and storytelling, and highly developed music with mbira, marimba, and hosho. Traditional architecture featured beautifully decorated pole-and-dagga homes and the magnificent dry-stone zimbabwes. Dress included animal skins, beadwork, and colourful woven cloths long before Western suits arrived. Foods were diverse and nutritious: sadza made from finger millet (rapoko) or sorghum, various leafy greens (muriwo), dried vegetables, wild fruits, honey, and protein from cattle, goats, fish, and game — not just “rats,” as some detractors mockingly claim. While field mice (mbeva) were eaten in times of hardship or as a delicacy in certain areas, they were never the cornerstone of Shona diet; such claims are lazy stereotypes meant to belittle us.Have Shonas thrown away their culture for Christianity and politics? In many ways, yes — colonisation, missionary education, urbanisation, and modern politics have pushed many to look down on traditional practices as “pagan” or backward. Yet much remains. Many families still perform bira ceremonies, respect totems, consult spirit mediums, and blend Christian faith with ancestral reverence. The real danger is not Christianity itself, but the shame and neglect that makes us believe we are cultureless. We are not. Our language, music (think Thomas Mapfumo’s chimurenga or mbira fusions), dance, and social values still carry the heartbeat of our ancestors.Time to Challenge the Stereotypes with a Heritage DayThe lie that Shonas are “cultureless people without a dress code” crumbles the moment we look honestly at our past and present. We do have traditional attire — from the iconic jira cloth and beadwork to modern interpretations worn with pride. Our foods are varied and rooted in the land. The mocking voices that reduce us to “rat-eaters” say more about their prejudice than about us.This is exactly why Zimbabwe urgently needs a national Heritage Day, just like South Africa’s 24 September celebration. A day where we proudly wear our traditional regalia (whether Zezuru, Karanga, Manyika, or Ndau styles), cook our real ancestral foods, play mbira and dance, tell our stories, and visit our stone ruins. Such a day would silence the detractors, restore pride in our young people, and remind every Zimbabwean — Shona or not — that we come from a cultured, resilient civilisation that built great cities when Europe was still in the Dark Ages.

So… What Now? Reject It, Embrace Our Diversity, or Move On as Zimbabweans?Here’s the real question every Zimbabwean must answer: should we reject “Shona” as a foreign colonial invention? Or can we reclaim it with pride?On one hand, the name is partly a colonial construct — Doke’s 1931 report formalised it for administrative convenience, just as “Mashonaland,” “Manicaland,” and “Matabeleland” carved up our country. Some argue we should drop it entirely and celebrate our beautiful diversity: Zezuru, Manyika, Karanga, Korekore, Ndau, and others. Why not rename provinces to reflect this? Imagine Ndau Province in the east, Zezuru in the centre, Kalanga and Tonga in the west and north. It would honour our distinct identities instead of forcing them under one label.On the other hand, “Shona” has become a shared identity for millions. It connects us to the builders of Great Zimbabwe, the Mutapa kings, and a thousand years of resilience. Rejecting it wholesale risks erasing that common heritage. Chigwedere and Beach showed us the roots run deeper than colonialism.Perhaps the healthiest path is to do both: take pride in our specific roots — Zezuru, Karanga, Manyika, Ndau — while accepting “Shona” as a useful, living umbrella that unites us. Or better still, move past the old labels altogether and simply be Zimbabwean. Our stone ruins, our languages, our music, and our history belong to all of us. Whether we call ourselves Shona, by our specific clan names, or just Zimbabwean, the important thing is to stop letting old names divide us.The word “Shona” may have many fathers — Portuguese maps, Indian gold traders, Ndebele raiders, Doke’s typewriter — but its future is ours to decide. Let’s choose unity with pride, not division with shame. After all, what matters most is not what we were called… but who we choose to become.Read the histories. Talk to your elders. Visit the ruins. Celebrate our culture without apology. And let’s push for that Heritage Day so every Zimbabwean can stand tall in who we are. Our Shona spirit — resilient, creative, and proudly African — is still here. It’s time to live it.
If you are interested in knowing more about Zimbabwe history check out the first book in my series the Shona Chronicles. https://www.amazon.com/Tovera-Great-Shona-Chronicles-Anderson/dp/B0CRDXWQMV/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0