Talk:Bokoni

Untitled

The Bokoni Wikipedia page is well developed with a robust range of references. The content section reflects this, allowing for ease of navigation for page visitors. Visually, two maps reflect the archaeological spread of Bokoni sites as well as sites mapped in the 1930s. Additional images could be sought for other sections such as the sites (with stone walls/terraces) and pottery, although it is understandable given the limitation of open access images.

The introduction captures the subject and moves straight into the origins of the term Bokoni and the variants used in the literature, letting readings know how Bokoni and Koni is used. Personally, I would try to come up with a better word than “Description” when it comes to discussing the sub-headings for “Settlement,” “Sites,” and “Occupational phases.” I do, however, see other pages like Great Zimbabwe using “Description,” so maybe it is best to keep it that way?

One of the troubles I had when reading the page is the use of punctuation, notably semi-colons, colons, and in some instances hyphens inserted within a series of (semi)colons. This structure interrupts the flow. Here are two examples for illustration:

“Oral histories have not been recognized until relatively recently, even ignored in much of the research of the 1970's: a time period associated with a generally Pedi-centric ontology in regards to the region.”

“In 1873, Merensky noted the Bokoni village of Botschabelo: led by Phassoane, and that this village was known to interact with; and offer shelter to, Johannes Dinkwanyane - later a key figure in the outbreak of war between the Pedi and the South African Republic.”

The grammar could be formatted for better flow – the information is there, and that is what counts most. There is also a contraction I noted along the way (don’t) and I am not sure if we are to avoid these in our Wikipedia pages?

Another thing I picked up on regarding writing are a couple of sections where it appears, from my point of view, values judgments are being made. Such judgments are fine if it is the author(s) judgment being cited. However, it is difficult to know if it is the author or the Wikipedia author. Here are examples with bolded sections for illustration, followed by a short commentary:

Example 1: “In relation to the detailed analyses made on other facets of Bokoni culture, little to no caution was taken in the early work on ceramics…Poor analysis on pottery continued on into the 1970's, likely aligning with general lack of regard for oral histories until this point in time.”

Comment: There are no citations for these statements, which leads to me surmise it is the Wikipedia author. Were they poor analyses on pottery, or did archaeologist merely have a lack of interest it the pottery and were more concerned with “big” rock terraces and homesteads? If they were poor analyses, what made them so poor? And if poor, the reader is left wondering if there have been better studies since?

Example 2: “Initially collected by Berlin Missionaries in the 1860's and later by local officials and academics starting around the year 1900, oral histories of the Koni and Bokoni are known for the poor collection strategies and practices associated with them. Due to lack of proper documentation, even of sources for histories, there is a great chance of historical bias in the following histories.”

Comment: This follows with the first example as there are no citations accompanying these statements, leading me to wonder if it is a value judgement. They also beg the question, what was so poor about them? Following this critique of the Berlin Missionaries is a sudden shift to the 1930s by “dedicated chroniclers.” Are the Berlin Missionary accounts worthless? How have they been used?

Example 3: “Oral histories have not been recognized until relatively recently, even ignored in much of the research of the 1970's: a time period associated with a generally Pedi-centric ontology in regards to the region.”

Comment: This one has a citation at the end which indicates it is not coming from the author. The only comment I have here is unpacking “Pedi-centric ontology.” One wonders what that is all about? A Google search (cut-and-paste) brings up things on pediatrics.

All of this may come across as negative, and I hope you do not see it that way. There is a lot to work with and review, which is fantastic! Again, the flow is set up well in terms of structure. Admittedly, I did get a bit bogged down in the richness of the oral history between the Koni and the Pedi – it is almost worth a Wikipedia page itself, right? Moreover, one thing I was wondering is if the Koni only conducted blacksmithing (metalwork) or if they were smelting iron as well. Sometimes the term “metalwork” is used without clarity. I ask this because there is a section where it says the use of “local” iron. If they were smelting iron, that could be addressed. Another thing I was wondering about is if there has been any research on religious authorities? There is a lot about chiefs, kings, and the people, but what about religion and religious practitioners? Lastly, there are many words that could be given a hyperlink such as Pedi people, metalworking, later Iron Age, colonial era, tithe, Zulu, Boer, lowveld, and Van Hoepen. Lastly, one wonders about the Koni people today; near the end of the page we learn that they were absorbed by other peoples in the area, and it begs the question about potential Koni influences today and if there has been any research on that.

These are my general comments and I enjoyed learning about Bokoni sites.

Bwana Kitambi (talk) 00:44, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 19 August 2019 and 13 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Alachulean. Peer reviewers: Bwana Kitambi, GlueEye.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:05, 18 January 2022 (UTC)