Abstract: Using the lenses of insurgent scholarship, this paper addresses itself to a contradiction that characterised southern African archaeology from the 1980s and has residuals in the present. Archaeology in Africa’ southern third, like elsewhere, was introduced as a tool of empire. The first westerners (antiquarians) to encounter Great Zimbabwe speculated that it was exotic in origin because Africans lacked capacity to make such a unique achievement. Professional archaeologists such as Gertrude Caton-Thompson overturned this exotic origins speculation. Interestingly, both antiquarians and professional archaeologists relied on local informants to explain features and identify material culture at Great Zimbabwe and related sites. Both groups collected ethnographies and oral traditions from African informants who were never mentioned by name in publications. The first cohort of homegrown archaeologists emerged in the 1980s when Zimbabwe achieved independence. Inevitably, some of the interpretations by established western archaeologists came under challenge. In defence, some professional archaeologists insinuated that indigenous archaeologists did not know features they were excavating. Ironically, they provided information used by western archaeologists to interpret the same features! What new meanings emerge when experiential knowledge is combined with scientific approaches to reignite a homegrown understanding of Great Zimbabwe? We use the results of new excavations and scientific work performed at Great Zimbabwe over the past ten years, to develop new interpretations of everyday life, urbanism and economic connections at various scales.