Talk:Great Zimbabwe/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Great Zimbabwe. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Image

T'would be neat to have an image of Great Zimbabwe...

Source

Contrasting Point of View from an anon contributor:

Ancient Zimbabwean Civilization [[1]]

Question

"Certain features of Swahili architecture on the East Coast resemble those at Zimbabwe, in particular the great tower." ]' Could someone please specify what East Coast Swahili architecture resembles the great tower? Are you talking about Swahili houses? Ancient Swahili sites (if so, what is the name of them so someone can learn about them as well)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.17.65.14 (talk) 21:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Point of correction

Contribution moved here for discussion and source identification. It does sound like article may need to be corrected. WBardwin 05:33, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[Point of correction it is the Ndebele who moved into the country in the 1800 the shona people lived there since the bantu migration.]

copyright questions regarding last edit

The last edit[2] seems to come from here[3] At the bottom of which says "Text copyright 1996-1999 by David W. Koeller. All rights reserved." I'm reverting this until the copyright questions are all sorted out. Mr. Know-It-All 23:35, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Bantu

I've removed the reference to Bantu, since the use of this unqualified term has uncomfortable resonances for many southern Africans. Also removed the POV reference to Lemba construction, since this is by no means proved, and reference to the Lemba people being a group of the Shona - some Lemba people would probably dispute this. Humansdorpie 22:33, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Doesn't this lead to a loss of info? I'm completely ignorant about the Lemba people, but could there be some work-around like "possibly the Lemba people", especially with the change to "Shona-speaking", rather than "Shona peoples"?Also there's a definite loss of the ref to other stone cities in southern Africa (us ignorant northerners have usually only heard of Great Zim), so I'll restore that unless you deleted it for a reason? Cheers, JackyR 00:11, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

PS Are there any archaelogists who believe Great Zim was not built by black people? Because the current phrasing introduces some ambiguity re that. Fix? JackyR 00:11, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Very sensible points - thank you. I've reinstated the Lemba info but qualified it. In the following paragraph there is a reference to Caton Thompson conclusively proving that Gt Zim was built by black people, which is accepted today; there is still some debate around who actually built it and lived there. Humansdorpie 10:14, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

:-) JackyR 10:59, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Bantu is a valid, scientific term, it is not offensive. I think it is perfectly acceptable to refer to "a Bantu people" or "Bantu languages" etc. The only circumstance in which I think it is inapropriate is when refering to individuals. One would not say "so and so is a Bantu". Booshank 21:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

If people are offended by it, then it's offensive - even when no offence was intended. "Bantu" is a real problem, as it has a neutral linguistic meaning and ethnic meaning within the construct of race, but it's use in South Africa was highly offensive (including some of its supposedly "scientific" uses). So while I agree with East Africans like User:Ezeu, who self-identifies as bantu, in not bowing to the New South African habit of avoiding the word, I also think we should always be aware that for some readers the word can be deeply offensive. Sensitive writing required, to ensure no one is avoidably hurt!

My personal belief, by the way, is that eventually the term will be reclaimed in South Africa and lose its offensiveness, but that time is not yet. JackyR | Talk 13:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

With regards to the Lemba people, might suggest you asking a qualified source that could give you the information. (NitaReads 02:25, 19 December 2006 (UTC))

Clarification of the term "bantu"

Only the South African version of the term Bantu is derogatory, especially when used and pronounced in English or Africaans (Dutch dialect). Many peoples of Sub-Saharan African call themselves using an equivalent of this term. The term "ubuntu" of the Linux fame is a derivative of the term, which by the way is not exclusively South African. Its a sub-saharan term. If you pronounce it the way the Zulu or Ndebele people pronounce the word, then its not derogatory and is used everyday among Sub-Saharan Africans. Shona people of Zimbabwe use the same word but written "vanhu" (plural)/"munhu" (singular) and "ubuntu" is "unhu" or "vunhu". In general, "abantu" or "vanhu" are expected to have "ubuntu" or "unhu", the virtues and qualities of humaneness. The Shona people call themselves "Vanhu" who speak "ChiVanhu" and whose norms, customs and values are based on "unhu" or "ubuntu" philosophy. It was only the Ndebele who gave the name Shona. The same could be said of the Zulus and Ndebeles who call themselves "abantu" and expected to possess "ubuntu" qualities. Hence, the term is not derogatory when used in the context and correct pronounciation of African languages. Apartheid South Africa and Rhodesia racialised the term and gave it a pronounciation that has been associated with being derogative. So, the term is derogatory if you pronounce it badly/wrongly - simplest and closest pronounciation guide I can give is that you make "b" silent ("~ántu" with the "a" sounding like the "a" in "appetite"). If u pronounce the "b" strongly the way English or Africaans speakers do, then it becomes derogatory and will have racial connotations of Apartheid South Africa. Use of the term "bantu" to refer to one person is wrong because its in plural - that wrong usage and distortion is associated with the derogatory version of the word (wrong pronouncition and wrong semantics ... makes one recognise the derogatory usage). One person is "umuntu" or "munhu". The term is absolutely colour blind! It simply means a social "person" who is expected to be well mannered or have "ubuntu" or be a gentleman or lady if you like. It is therefore perfectly correct in African language to refer to a white person as "umuntu" as long as they display being well-mannered and cultured. User:Ezeu is right to call himself "umuntu" as long as he uses the singular form of the word. For him to use "bantu" to refer to himself is wrong and hence he is using the derogatory form of the word, the version used in apartheid SA. Ezeu must use the correct form of the term. User:Shiku

Page now very unclear about the builders of Great Zimbabwe

The info I wanted when I came to this page was who built the city. You have to dig through the info to even get near an idea, and then the various speculations are only hinted at. I can see from this conversation that the page is partly the product of some controversies around how to describe the various groups historically in the area. However it has left the page very incoherent and lacking in the key info that people would be seeking. If there are debates about who built the city then surely what is needed is a concise summary of the controversies with references so people can investigate further if they wish. At the moment the page is a mess I'm afraid 78.105.6.51 (talk) 16:47, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Adding politicisation of the site

I've mucked around with the phrasing and organisation to introduce material about the political use of the site. (And to attempt to make it feel less "through the eyes of Europeans", despite the new material...) Several Qs:

Would new subhead be better as: "Political significance", "Politicisation of the monument", or other?
The new info does take over the article a bit. It is a major issue wrt Great Zim, but perhaps it would be better in its own article? (But my preference would be to leave it in and expand the whole article if we can.)

Hope I haven't thrown the article too badly out of kilter... JackyR 02:57, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

You should either remove the subpage 'Political implications' or title it aptly 'Racial implications'. Either way, I don't think it adds to the article other than introduce a very common theme of racial bias among European and North American classical historians who have for centuries scientifically attempted to erase the existence of African civilizations, or at least deny the credit of such civilizations to Africans. The entire continent of Africa is sprinkled with evidence of teaming source of knowledge of all sorts. Thanks to very Eurocentric and rabidly racist classical historians of the 17-20th century Europe, the continent was known primarily as a place teaming with all sorts of exotic life, among them the human animals. The great thing is, we're all becoming conscious of these lies, all of us Africans, Europeans, Asians, Aborigines of all sort. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peelinglayers (talk • contribs) 20:24, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Damage to the Great Zimbabwe by exploration

My sources are largely from study done in Zimbabwean history and oral tradition. However for a source that can be referenced I have 2 web pages.

http://www.manuampim.com/ZIMBABWE.html

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/israel/zimbabwe.html

Aha. And looks like these two websites draw on Garlake's book, so maybe that's another one to try. At some point, I shall try to integrate this more fully into the §s lower down about the "archaelogists" in question. Hope that's OK by you (prob won't happen soon - so much Wiki, so little time...) - and of course you may get there first :-) Thanks again for these links. JackyR

Uncertain reverts

I've reverted some anon edits which were probably good faith but lost lots of info and left half-sentences. I'd guess these were supposed to make the article less Eurocentric, which is good, but because they were so poorly done I can't easily make out what the edits should have been, so just reverted. Apologies to that editor: please do have another go - a bit more carefully!

I also cut the following, as it clearly isn't about Great Zim - and I don't know enough to put Stone Zim in context (what is it?where is it?). Again, please do reinstate, with more explanation! Thanks for your patience, JackyR 23:26, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Another one is Stone Zimbabwe. There is many different stone houses, temples, cemetaries, and stores. It is still active and more stone buildings are being bulit everyday.

Qs about recent edit

Lovely new source, but I have a couple of Qs about the new edits.

200 miles isn't an area, it's a distance. What did you really mean?
I wonder if we're becoming muddled between Great Zimbabwe the city and Great Zimbabwe the state it controlled. The "ruins" are of the city. Also there are other stone cities in the region from different states.
The new date of 11th century only refers to certain works in the city. There was continuous occupation and work on the site from 400 AD. (This is kinda important when you get nutters saying the city was built by Portuguese slave traders.[4]

Try to fix? Cheers, JackyR | Talk 15:20, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I meant 200 square miles, and it refers to the rough area that remenants of stone structures have been found, the area of influence of the state was much larger (probably about the). The date 11th to 15th centuary refers to the time frame in which the great zimbabwe civilization and culture flourished, and stone structures were built. It is estimated that migrant Bantu speaking farmers have occupied the area starting from 5th century AD. This is similar to saying that the edo period in Japan lasted from 1603 - 1867 though the ethnic Yamato have occupied Japan since the Jomon era.

OK, I'm not really here – wikibreak due to real world stuff - so will have to discuss more when I get back. There are actually stone cities over a much larger area than 200 square miles, so we need to make clear this refers only to this site. And I'm not sure there was a hard line between people occupying the site and huge impressive structures appearing. If we're talking about dates of particular landmark structures, could we make that clear?

Sorry to be so fussy, but unlike the Edo period, which has a written internal history and is probably studied much more by the Japanese than by outsiders, Great Zim has no internal written documents and its history had been appropriated by outsiders and is still on occasion wilfully misrepresented. So the article needs to be written very carefully. JackyR | Talk 19:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Correction using period source

In researching this subject, I uncovered that Mauch found the site in the 1700's, predating the claim that it was discovered by Adam Renders in 1868. Gave citation for the edit. Also, the mentioned article, the author clarifies exactly what Mauch thought The Great Zimbabwe was. I updated this in the paragraph following. Stealthound 05:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I realized that the source was actually wrong in the date after crossreferencing and corrected accordingly- also added source for Randall-MacIver.Stealthound 06:18, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Origin and Meaning of "Zimbabwe"

I have added a linguistic analysis of the word "Zimbabwe". I am a Shona speaker. The word has a linguistic origin. Its meaning is easily derivable from a linguistic analysis as is the case with most Shona names, e.g., "Togarepi" is a person's name derived from "togara kupi" meaning "where shall we live?", a rhetorical question. Thus "Zimbabwe" is a direct and unambiguous contraction of the two words: "zimba" (huge house/building) and "bwe" (stone/rock boulder). A house or building is "imba", without physical size connotation. To mean "a very huge house/building", use "zi" to have "zi imba" contracted to "zimba", which a a physical size connotation. In a sentence, you must put "of" between the two words to have "zimba rebwe" (huge house/building of stone boulder. "re" means "of" in the strict context of stone and other special cases. To make them many stones or rocks required to build a house, you use the plural form of "bwe", which is "mabwe" (stones or rocks). "ma" indicates plural in the case of stone/rock. So we can say "zimba remabwe" (huge house/building of stone boulders). Hence "Zimbabwe" simply means "ziimba remabwe" meaning "a very huge house/building built from stone boulders". Pure and simple. Kudakwashe (my name which means: "Kuda" (the will) "kwa" (of the) "She" (Lord!" = "the will of the Lord" ).

I find it rather strange that a whole COUNTRY can be named after ONE stone building! If there was such a great "Shona Empire" then why would a single stone structure in the middle of otherwise wild grassland be such a talking point to everyone for hundreds of miles around?! Could it be that it was built by people from somewhere else for whom stone buildings were/are commonplace? Could it be that the Arabic/Islamic artifacts found near the site(and dated to the height of the slave trade) have some significance? Could "Great Zimbabwe"'s abandonment and the invasion and conquest of the Arabian Peninsula by the Ottoman Empire occuring at the same time be more than just coincidence? Nah, couldn't be that, could it? Blacks are the master race who built Egypt, Greece, the Great Wall of China, and the only truly indigenous people in the whole world, while the inferior White, Hamito-Semitic, East Asian, Indian, Native American, Inuit, and Turko-Mongol races are debased sond of the Devil.........1 March 2007

There is nothing strange about naming a country in any way at all. Besides its not ONE stone building as you seem to think. You will be unreasonable to doubt the existence of the Munhumutapa Empire, a "Shona Empire". Clear evidence is that the Shona constitute 80% of Zimbabwe's population and are found to be majorities in the massive province of Manica as well as other provinces in Mozambique. The Shona are also known to inhabit areas in Zambia and Botswana. Such an extensive occupation of a large part of southern africa by one linguistic group could not be explained and could not have happened without the existence of a once huge and powerful Shona empire. The English occupy a large part of the world today mainly because there was a powerful British Empire to make that possible, ditto for the Shona people in Southern Africa. I draw your attention to the origin of the name America and Colombia, which are based on names of "ONE" individual person each, whose natural lifespan is certainly less than that of a building. Isn't that strange? Rhodesia was based on the name of Cecil John Rhodes, ONE person, isn't that even stranger? If Arabs or some other white race built or even existed at Great Zimbabwe city during its hey-days, how do you explain their disappearance without a single trace, even genetic trace, except a few pieces of plates (China-ware)? Even bones of their dead mysteriously disappeared? Is that the strangest occurence ever to take place in our galaxy? You have no choice but to bow down to reason and accept that the black people, the Shona people, built Great Zimbabwe and conducted trade to acquire the China-ware and other artifacts. However, you are free to engage in imaginary fiction of whites inhabiting Great Zimbabwe but this has no place in serious historical analysis based on evidence on the hard ground at Great Zimbabwe. - SHIKU, mwana wevhu, 15 Mar 2007.

Erm, just because a large number of one group of people inhabit an area doesn't prove anything...."black people" constitute the majority population of the Caribbean, does that mean there was a thriving "black Craibbean" empire, or that they built the Maya nnd Aztec buildings/artifacts? A simple fact of life is that people migrate and settle in new areas. What was once the Indo-European Tocharian state is now simply part of China, what was once a key part of Ancient Greece is now part of Bulgaria? Does that mean that the Bulgars built the Hellenic monuments? In the same way the Shona only migrated into "Zimbabwe" long AFTER the buildings, trading centre had been abandoned by their true builders. The true "imaginary fiction" is of "indigenous Southern African blacks". The only indigenous people at that time were the Khoisan, who the "mighty Shona" massacred in waves of racial genocide, just like Mugabe is doing to other non-Shona groups in Zimbabwe today. Also, if the Shona were so great, why is Zimbabwe such a toiletbowl today?......29 march 2007

Your analysis sounds sensible. However, the facts on the ground at Great Zimbabwe render your general line of reasoning to be inapplicable here. There is no evidence of the Khoisan or the true African indigenous black people. These people are well-known for their art, which was always painted on rocks. Such art does not exist on ALL the rocks and stone boulders at Great Zimbabwe. Isn't that a mystry for a people who have loved art for centuries? Furthermore, excavations at great Zimbabwe demonstrates evidence of a people with a definite culture, religion and economic activities including agriculture, iron and gold mining. Only the Shona people are known to have had and to have matched the socio-economic and political culture at Great Zimbabwe. The Khoisan or so called indigenous black people are known to have led a normadic life of hunting with no tendency to build settlements. Please, note that the current crisis in Zimbabwe is not a Shona vs other racial groups crisis. Also be informed that Mugabe is not targetting other racial groups and excluding Shonas - if at all he is targetting anybody in particular (I would say that he is targetting everybody). Be informed also that Zimbabwe is currently not in any form of racial or tribal disharmony. What we have on the ground right now in Zimbabwe has more to do with issues of governance, rule of law and economic decay, which all have nothing to do with race or tribe. Even the Matebeleland Massacre was more of a creation of politicians than a result of tribal disharmony within the population - it was in fact a manifestations of the animosities between Mugabe and Nkomo more than between Ndebeles and Shonas - the mischief was that these politicians irresponsibly projected this as tribal conflict and attempted to incite tribal hatred which was alien to the ordinary Zimbabwean in the street. There is no genocide in Zimbabwe today and more people have died in Kenya in one month after the 2008 elections than those who died in Zimbabwe in the last ten years. --Chengwe (talk) 01:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, "America" is named after Amerigo Vespucci, who is NOT indigenous to the land in question. Using "Rhodesia" as an example just proves you evern further wrong. The British took over other people's land and renamed with one of their words. The same for the Shona. All the name "Zimbabwe" proves is that the Shona are the majority population and control the land NOW. 300 years ago there were no Shona in Zimbabwe. The Native Americans built civilisations in the USA, but today the name "America", the language, control of the land, and the majority population of the USA are "white". In the case of Zimbabwe the Shona didn't even have to cross an ocean, merely to migrate southwards along with all the other tribes. They settled in Zimbabwe, they killed the indigenous Khoisan, and they now control the land. How does that "prove" the existence of a once-great Shona Empire, that there are NO records of in any book, note etc prior to the wave of politically correct late 20th century hysteria?......29 March 2007

graveyards at Zimbabwe

Has anyone discovered ancient graves en masse at Zimbabwe? Surely this would help clarify the origin of the builders and the age of the edifice? El Bab

Of course, graveyards or skeletons were certainly discovered at and around Great Zimbabwe. They were those of black people and discoveries of artefacts in the graves showed beyond doubt that there was no evidence of foreigners or non-Africans. If these graves held proofs of non-African or European or Asian or Islamic origin, the evidence would have been WIDELY PUBLICISED and it would have been common knowledge. This is a case of deliberately hiding the truth about the African origins of Great Zimbabwe. The architecture itself bears witness to African origins and beliefs with nothing to suggest non-African origins. I was at Great Zimbabwe in December 2006 - there is absolutely nothing like is elsewhere. The world or non-Africans should just swallow their supremacist pride and just accept this ancient city's African origin. There is just no choice at all. - Lawford

The exact reverse is true..just as in Kennewick Man and the numerous Middle-Eastern looking ancient Egyptian and Moorish artifacts/skeletons etc the PC brigade are attemtping to hide true history to risk being seen as "racist" or "white supremacist". If even ONE so-called "African" (by which I assume you mean Black Negroid?) artifact had been found at "Great Zimbabwe" it would have been paraded around the news and "right-on" media ad nauseam. The fact is that "great Zimbabwe", just like Ancient Egypt, Carthage, Mali, and the Moorish Empire were built by Middle Eastern Caucasoids........13 April 2007

Uh yeah, they actually DID find african artifacts, woops. Could you tell me why this arabic colony covered pretty much all of Zimbabwe, likewise still having close cultural connections with the local peoples? I mean MY GOD, why is it so hard to accept that this was an african construction? It came about via contact with the arabs and the like, sure, but PLEASE give me some solid evidence that this was an "arab" colony.

....And now you're saying Mali was an arabic construction. ROFL. Yes. Please explain to me why berbers- primarily tuaregs, who are heavily mixed- comprise only 11% of mali's modern day population. No, wait, just show me PROOF that Mali was predominantly arab. It's insane.

You people are disgusting. Yes, it's just PC propaganda to suggest ANY sort of african achievement, yet it's pure reality to say everything they've done lays at the hands of some god-like arabs who just sailed and marched around africa, propping up civilizations etc. wherever they went. You're scum.

....Let me just sum up the story with Great Zimbabwe now.

I'm not exactly sure how foodcrops were introduced there to support such a population, but now it's near-universally agreed that the Lemba were the real builders, perhaps with involvement from the Shona. Oh, but the lemba have semetic admixture! Many have gone on to interpret the 25-27% levels on their Y chromosome as "proof" of them being mixed, but you have to remember that the y chromosome's DNA makes up only half of a person's total makeup- so, that knocks down the average admixture to 6.5-7%. Woops. And the intrusion of these jewish immigrants came over 2,000 years ago- long before GZ even arose. And there were still people who pushed off this insane idea that GZ was still largely a construct of arabs from the coast, using the local africans as "slave labor", but now we haven't the slightest evidence of this. Not to mention that Sofala, the arab trading post, was very small to begin with, showed no architectural similarities to GZ, and, much like the precursors to the Swahili states, saw local africans move in and settle, mix with the arabs, and gradually usurp them.

Middle Eastern Caucasoids, I think not. Though do tell me how Mali was an arab construct. That's just too funny.

BTW, have you ever actually seen a sideview of Kennewick Man? From the front he looks european, but look at any other view and he just looks bizzare.

Comment on recent changes

This anon edit on 7 March removed some material about racist interpretations (which lacked refs); and also changed the sentence

Nowadays archaeologists agree that the builders were probably one of the Shona-speaking people

to

Archaeologists generally agree that the builders were probably the Lemba

without offering any support for this strong, very definite statement. In fact, the edit also adds a link to a site where discussing the Lemba's ancestry, which doesn't support "archeologists agree the Lemba built it" but does support the material about racist interpretations and other tribes claiming the ruins!

On 4 April I reinstated the original meaning of the passage regarding the Lemba. The same anon reverted my change, describing it as "POV pushing". Given the above, the POV-pushing seems entirely the other way.

Ezeu has reverted the anon edit. If anyone disagrees, perhaps they can supply refs and and make their statements in accordance with those refs. Cheers, JackyR | Talk 21:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

The anon is certainly trying to push POV. There is little basis for the claims he is trying to make. --Ezeu 07:35, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, the anon reverter appears to be User:Ernham, from this edit. He is currently indefinitely banned from editing due to aggression, POV-pushing and revert wars; he seems to have a particular thing about anti-semitism and German "superiority". So I don't think any of his edits can be considered to be in good faith. JackyR | Talk 22:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Gayre's work

Come on now... Are we really going to cite the work of Robert Gayre, a well-known member of the Racial Preservation Society as an expert on this subject? His political motives are so obvious that he can hardly be considered a neutral observer on this issue. Pascal.Tesson 04:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Gayre's work is an authoritarive classic in this topic. Besides, the other early 20th century people cited were racists too like most people of their generation. Arguments related to the political motives of scientists are irrelevant. For the record, I tried to argue that the political biases of (self-defined) Communists like Noel Ignatiev are too biased in the article about white people although I wasn't succesful.

However, unlike the Ignatiev's theories Gayre's theory that the ancestors of Lemba people built the site is reputable and mainstream.

See these books:

http://www.amazon.com/Journey-Vanished-City-Tudor-Parfitt/dp/0375724540

Tudor writes: "Among the Lemba, as I was soon to discover, these ideas are axiomatic: once, long ago, there had been a golden age when they had been white, free, rich and long-nosed"

Also: http://www.amazon.com/DNA-Tradition-Genetic-Ancient-Hebrews/dp/1930143893/ref=pd_sim_b_2_img/103-3916711-5488648 http://www.amazon.com/Lemba-Tribe-Israel-Southern-Africa/dp/1868882837/ref=sr_1_3/103-3916711-5488648?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1189139785&sr=1-3

MoritzB 04:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

It is widely established that the Shona ancestors are responsible for the great enclosure, but even if the Lemba were responsible even in part, they definitely were never white, that is Eurocentric fringe nonsense that has been discarded years ago.. One modal haplotype says nothing bout their overwhelming relationship with other Bantu Africans. They even speak Bantu (and always have) so any crap about an external origin is original research fringe nonsense, as I just stated. Your obvious racism from the edits you make is disgusting.Taharqa 05:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Mainstream geneticists generally agree that the Lemba are of Jewish origin. Otherwise the presence of the Cohanim modal haplotype in the Lemba population cannot be explained.

http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/resolve?id=doi:10.1086/302749&erFrom=-7936180669352239357Guest

"A previous study using Y-chromosome markers suggested both a Bantu and a Semitic contribution to the Lemba gene pool, a suggestion that is not inconsistent with Lemba oral tradition. To provide a more detailed picture of the Lemba paternal genetic heritage, we analyzed 399 Y chromosomes for six microsatellites and six biallelic markers in six populations (Lemba, Bantu, Yemeni-Hadramaut, Yemeni-Sena, Sephardic Jews, and Ashkenazic Jews). The high resolution afforded by the markers shows that Lemba Y chromosomes are clearly divided into Semitic and Bantu clades. Interestingly, one of the Lemba clans carries, at a very high frequency, a particular Y-chromosome type termed the "Cohen modal haplotype," which is known to be characteristic of the paternally inherited Jewish priesthood and is thought, more generally, to be a potential signature haplotype of Judaic origin."

Intermarriage explains their relationship to other black Africans.MoritzB 06:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Which of course has no relevance whatsoever. The diff you added was to the effect that the Batu had nothing to do with the constructions. Pascal.Tesson 06:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

No, the Bantu were the laborers who built the constructions according to Gayre.MoritzB 06:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok. How does the quote you provide above relate in any way shape or form to that hypothesis? Pascal.Tesson 06:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The Semitic ancestors of the Lemba were leading the construction.MoritzB 06:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Like Pascal says, it doesn't matter since the dominant view by the vast majority of archaeologists is that the Shona people are responsible. Any argument by way of the Lemba's origins based on one haplotype (even they they are clearly overwhelmingly African) is irrelevant. Intermarriage from trade with Jews is actually the better explanation and one most used to describe the Lemba situation. The "black Falasha Jews"" of Ethiopia have high frequencies of the same lineages, yet they are Africans. The Lemba claim to have settled in Ethiopia. Who knows; it's all speculation but the dominant view is that the Shona built the great enclosure and that the Lemba didn't, and that the Lemba are and always have been Africans, which is why they speak Bantu and not Afro-Asiatic. MoritzB, your pov-pushing fringe nonsense is overtly apparent, cut it out before you get in trouble.Taharqa 06:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

There is undeniable genetic proof of an ancient migration which makes the hypothesis that immigrants built the constructions much more likely. Middle Eastern religions and technology spread to Zimbabwe with those immigrants. MoritzB 06:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Your speculation is never welcome. The genetic testing shows that their Y-Chromosome markers are overwhelmingly Bantu, at around 80%.. Only 20 percent is consistent with with the said admixture. Notwithstanding the the maternal markers show no such thing, suffice to say the the Lemba are entirely less "Jewish" than even the Falasha in Ethiopia. At only 10%.. You can get that from trade.

In any event, it doesn't matter since the predominant, text book view is that Great Zimbabwe was a creation of the iron age societies among the indigenous Shona. There is no evidence whatsoever of a Lemba presence and most definitely not a Jewish one; that's laughably absurd. In summation, the Lemba have always been Bantu and spoke Bantu and there is nothing to suggest otherwise, and they had nothing to do with the great Enclosure at zimbawbwe anyhow since pottery, crafts, artifacts, etc discovered by archaeologists at the site have all identified as belonging to the Shona. This is the data we have on great zimbawbwe and no amount of Eurocentric distortion can obscure the facts, but thanx for sharing your theories with us anyways. Pretty entertaining. :)Taharqa 18:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

History lesson from metmuseum

Stone Ruins

The ruins of this complex of massive stone walls undulate across almost 1,800 acres of present-day southeastern Zimbabwe. Begun during the eleventh century A.D. by Bantu-speaking ancestors of the Shona, Great Zimbabwe was constructed and expanded for more than 300 years in a local style that eschewed rectilinearity for flowing curves. Neither the first nor the last of some 300 similar complexes located on the Zimbabwean plateau, Great Zimbabwe is set apart by the terrific scale of its structure. Its most formidable edifice, commonly referred to as the Great Enclosure, has walls as high as 36 feet extending approximately 820 feet, making it the largest ancient structure south of the Sahara Desert. In the 1800s, European travelers and English colonizers, stunned by Great Zimbabwe's its grandeur and cunning workmanship, attributed the architecture to foreign powers. Such attributions were dismissed when archaeological investigations conducted during the first decades of the twentieth century confirmed both the antiquity of the site and its African origins.

Great Zimbabwe's most enduring and impressive remains are its stone walls. These walls were constructed from granite blocks gathered from the exposed rock of the surrounding hills. Since this rock naturally splits into even slabs and can be broken into portable sizes, it provided a convenient and readily available building resource. All of Great Zimbabwe's walls were fitted without the use of mortar by laying stones one on top of the other, each layer slightly more recessed than the last to produce a stabilizing inward slope. Early examples were coarsely fitted using rough blocks and incorporated features of the landscape such as boulders into the walls. Over the years the technique was refined, and later walls were fitted together closely and evenly over long, serpentine courses to produce remarkably finished surfaces.

Great Zimbabwe's Inhabitants

Little is known about the Bantu-speaking people who built Great Zimbabwe or how their society was organized. The ruling elite appears to have controlled wealth through the management of cattle, which were the staple diet at Great Zimbabwe. At its height, Great Zimbabwe is estimated to have had a population greater than 10,000, although the majority lived at some distance from the large stone buildings. Only 200 to 300 members of the elite classes are thought to have lived within Great Zimbabwe's massive edifices.

The enormous walls are the best-preserved testaments of Great Zimbabwe's past and the largest example of an architectural type seen in archaeological sites throughout the region. The function of these stone walls, however, has often been misinterpreted. At first glance, these massive nonsupportive walls appear purely defensive. But scholars doubt they ever served a martial purpose and have argued instead that cattle and people were valued above land, which was in any event too abundant to be hoarded. The walls are thought to have been a symbolic show of authority, designed to preserve the privacy of royal families and set them apart from and above commoners. It is also important to note that the walls surrounded and later adjoined huts made of daga (mud and thatch), linked with them to form a series of courtyards. Daga was also used to form raised seats in particularly significant courtyards, and was painted to enrich its artistic effect. Since Great Zimbabwe's daga elements have long since eroded, the remaining stone walls provide only partial evidence of the architecture's original appearance.

Soapstone Birds

In addition to architecture, Great Zimbabwe's most famous works of art are the eight birds carved of soapstone that were found in its ruins. The birds surmount columns more than a yard tall and are themselves on average sixteen inches tall. The sculptures combine both human and avian elements, substituting human features like lips for a beak and five-toed feet for claws. Excavated at the turn of the century, it is known that six of the sculptures came from the Eastern Enclosure of the Hill complex, but unfortunately their precise arrangement can only be surmised. Scholars have suggested that the birds served as emblems of royal authority, perhaps representing the ancestors of Great Zimbabwe's rulers. Although their precise significance is still unknown, these sculptures remain powerful symbols of rule in the modern era, adorning the flag of Zimbabwe as national emblems.http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/zimb/hd_zimb.htm Taharqa 06:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

How is this article factual and impartial?

It states matter-of-factly that this was the centre of a great "Empire of Zimbabwe". But no such documentation exits that makes any reference to such a "Great Empire". While it is admirable that people are trying to fight racial prejudice, the facts all very clearly point to "Great Zimbabwe" being an Arab-built slave-trading post. If people wish to celebrate a building that enslaved and dehumanised their ancestors... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.158.152.207 (talk) 09:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Prove it. Let's see your "facts"/counter-evidence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.52.49.118 (talk) 04:37, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Name change

Is the current long title really necessary? It seems to me as if "Great Zimbabwe" is the most common name, not the official one.

Peter ^Isotalo 18:35, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Huge "Name" section right at start of the article

It is *really* awkward to have the huge "Name" section right at the top of the article. Might be fine for most articles where the name section isn't very big, but here we've got seven huge paragraphs. The article would flow better if the Name section were moved down to just above the images. CraigWyllie (talk) 20:30, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Name

The section is rather lengthy which is not necessarily a problem, but without references much of it reads as original research. Some input on this would be appreciated. Babakathy (talk) 18:23, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Larger and Older

"the ruins at Great Zimbabwe are some of the oldest and largest structures located in Southern Africa." Are there any surviving larger ancient structures in Africa below the Congo River? I would be curious to know what other structures exist. I believe the article would be improved if these comparisons could be made. Nitpyck (talk) 20:10, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Highveld?

What's the Zimbabwe highveld? I assume it's a geographical feature. Is it a continuation of the highveld in South Africa, or distinct? Should it have its own page?

Also, if there are lots of little zimbabwes, shouldn't there be a page for that?

(I would be bold, but as you can probably tell, I know absolutely nothing about the subject.) -- Walt Pohl (talk) 10:01, 2 November 2009 (UTC)