Archaeology of connectivity has attracted researchers since the beginning of the discipline when migration theories reigned in archaeological research. In East Africa, it started close to the mid-twentieth century with a strong emphasis on coastal archaeology, because that is where imported and datable materials such as glass beads and porcelain were plentiful. Apart from contributing to the chronology of the culture history of the west coast of the Indian Ocean, such materials also acted as strong proofs for the connectivity between East Africa and the northern coast of the Indian Ocean and the Far East. As archaeological research expanded into the interior, these materials came to be used as markers of connectivity between the coast and the hinterland, and through it with the eastern world. Gradually, false assumptions emerged: first, that connectivity is almost always coast-interior oriented, and second, that it is almost always evinced by imported materials. This paper attempts to refute these assumptions using an inland site from southern Tanzania, which has proven to have strong links with the coast and, more strongly, with other inland sites as far as in what is today Zambia, Malawi, Zimbabwe, Botswana, and South Africa. The evidence for this connectivity varies from symbolism and technology to trade objects.

自从迁移理论在考古研究中占主导地位以来，连通性考古学就吸引了研究人员。在东非，它开始于接近 20 世纪中叶，重点是沿海考古学，因为那里有大量进口和可鉴定的材料，如玻璃珠和瓷器。这些资料不仅有助于印度洋西海岸文化史的编年，还有力地证明了东非与印度洋北部海岸和远东地区之间的联系。随着考古研究扩展到内陆，这些材料开始被用作海岸和腹地之间以及通过它与东部世界之间连通性的标志。渐渐地，错误的假设出现了：首先，连通性几乎总是以海岸内部为导向，其次，几乎总是由进口材料证明。本文试图使用坦桑尼亚南部的一个内陆站点来反驳这些假设，该站点已被证明与海岸有着密切的联系，并且与其他内陆站点的联系更为紧密，例如现在的赞比亚、马拉维、津巴布韦、博茨瓦纳和南非。这种连通性的证据从象征意义和技术到贸易对象各不相同。和南非。这种连通性的证据从象征意义和技术到贸易对象各不相同。和南非。这种连通性的证据从象征意义和技术到贸易对象各不相同。