Talk:Great Zimbabwe/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Peter Tyson and the Lemba

Peter Tyson's claim that "... by this time the Lemba would have already been assimilated and would have been indistinct from other local African populations" denies and ignores evidence from van Warmelo and others (see below) - that even as late as 1900, the Lemba were markedly different from surrounding tribes. In http://www.dlmcn.com/histcorr.html#Nw I actually challenged Tyson on this matter - and he did not offer a very convincing defense of his views.

Does Tyson's website (as cited on the main page) really constitute a "reliable, peer-reviewed publication" conforming with Wikipedia criteria?

References supporting what I say^ include: van Warmelo, N.J. - 'The copper miners of Musina and the early history of the Zoutpansberg'; Ethnological Publications no. VIII (1940), Dept. of Native Affairs, South Africa; see pp. 52-53, 63-67. The vernacular account of the MaLemba is given by M.M. Motenda.

van Warmelo, N.J. - 'Zur Sprache und Herkunft der Lemba'; Hamburger Beiträge zur Afrika-Kunde Bd. 5 (1966), pp. 273-283; Deutsches Institut für Afrika-Forschung; see pp. 273, 279, 281-282.

Schapera, I. - 'The Bantu-speaking tribes of southern Africa'; Routledge and Sons, London, 1937, and Maskew Miller, Capetown, 1966, see pp. 65-66, 153, 257, 276.

Jaques, A.A. - 'Notes on the Lemba Tribe of the Northern Transvaal'; Anthropos vol. XXVI (1931), pp. 245-251; see pp. 247, 249.

Junod, H.A. - 'The life of a South African tribe', vol. I: - 'Social life'; MacMillan, London, 1927; see pp.72-73, 94. DLMcN (talk) 03:44, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

As far as I know, Tyson does not supply any evidence to support his claim.

Thus, I strongly believe that the following sentence should be added:

"However, that statement by Tyson is completely at odds with descriptions of the Lemba given by van Warmelo, Junod, Jaques and others – who cite evidence that even as recently as 1930 this tribe (with its Semitic features and customs) was very different from the others which surrounded it."

References would then be added in accordance with those mentioned earlier^, i.e. at 03:44 today. DLMcN (talk) 10:54, 27 May 2011 (UTC) DLMcN (talk) 10:58, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

No objection - nor indeed any type of comment - has been registered regarding my above^ suggestion, so presumably that means that I can now go ahead and make the requested change? I also placed a note in Taharqa's personal Talk-File, but it has produced no response. DLMcN (talk) 07:33, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

No objection, but two questions:

1. "Others, such as Peter Tyson ...". Are there really "others", apart from Tyson? If yes, are they worth mentioning?

2. Could the section "History of research and origins of the ruins" include subtitles? (e.g. From Portuguese traders to Karl Mauch / Theodore Bent / David Randall-MacIver and Gertrude Caton-Thompson / Builders: the Shona and Gokomere culture / A Lemba origin ? / Recent research / Damage to the ruins). Touchatou (talk) 16:01, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks for your contribution !

1. I am inclined to doubt whether there are any "others". However, we would really need to check with Taharqa, who put that sentence in.

2. I strongly agree with you that it would be helpful and illuminating to break "History of research and origins of the ruins" into sections, with subtitles like yours. Would you prefer to do that? (assuming of course that there is no opposition) ... or shall I take care of the editing?

DLMcN (talk) 18:50, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

OK. I do it, despite my poor command of English. Now, it is up to you to improve on it.

There may be a need for an introductory sentence on the relationship between political (and ideological) developments and research results - or not, since the next section deals with it. There could also be more details on Karl Mauch (with sources). Touchatou (talk) 21:23, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Further

Peter Tyson maintains that even in entertaining claims of the Lemba, it would not affect the idea of native Bantu foundations; he believes that by this time the Lemba would have already been assimilated and would have been indistinct from other local African populations[55]. On the other hand, Van Warmelo[56][57], Junod[50], Jaques[58] and others[59][60][61][49][62] cite evidence that as recently as 1930 this tribe (with its Semitic features and customs) was distinct from the others which surrounded it.

I wonder how much the sentences on Tyson's views and those of much earlier authors like Van Warmelo actually add to this article? They are not addressing the origins of the ruins but rather the origins of the Lemba. The Lemba have certain distinct differences from neighbouring (sub)-tribes. I wonder if anyone disagrees with that anyway? Tyson's point is that they are still "native Bantu", whether or not they participated in the building. Is that in dispute? But really, how relevant are those two sentences here as opposed to in the Lemba article? I would actually favour removing the two sentences. Babakathy (talk) 09:45, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I definitely must disagree ... in particular, I do believe that those references are relevant and important here, and should remain. I have actually corresponded with a prominent archaeologist and also with a historian who did not seem convinced that the Lemba were significantly different from other Bantu tribes. Understandably, there are fewer distinctions nowadays - but according to reports written 75 to 100 years ago, the Lemba were quite markedly different then. --DLMcN (talk) 11:01, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

My question is whether or not a detailed discussion of divergent views on Lemba ethnicity is relevant here. My suggestion is no: this shoudl go in the Lemba article not this one. Babakathy (talk) 15:44, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I would like to ask that we submit this dispute to neutral arbitration, please. Presumably Wikipedia will find and nominate someone who has never heard of the Ancient Zimbabwe controversy? - in order to approach the subject with a completely fresh mind....> Here is the question which the arbitrator should consider: "By leaving those two sentences in, are we throwing more light on the question of the origins of Great Zimbabwe ?". (I maintain that we are).--DLMcN (talk) 20:43, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

If you think it is really necessary to do so. It seems a bit tangential to me, and if there are questions as to whether Tyson is a reliable source, would we not be better off dropping reference to his argument? Certainly to argue that the Lemba were completely indistinct from neighbouring tribes makes no sense at all - or else they would not currently identify themselves as an ethnic group.

However, if you really do think discussing Tyson's point has merit, the point to note is Tyson is saying that even if the Lemba claim is accepted it would not affect the idea of native Bantu foundations - he appears to be implying that the Lemba are (more or less) Bantu. Schapera seems to think so too given the title of the book. But honestly, it strikes me as splitting hairs: the evidence of a Semitic bloodline in the Lemba seems straightforward enough - at the same time surely no-one would argue the Lemba have no Bantu ancestry? Babakathy (talk) 06:38, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Have re-read Tyson, which I should have done first. The text we have referring to him is erroroneous: he says the Lemba are intermixed with Bantu Africans - which is already obvious from our opening sentence referring to Karanga descent. Tyson does not claim that the Lemba are indistinct from other local African populations, he says they are intermixed with Bantu Africans over many hundreds of years that today, among other African traits, the Lemba have dark skin and speak a Bantu language. I think the best thing is to add to the opening statement with Spurdle (current last sentence) to add to the aspect of Semitic descent (DNA tracing) and Tyson to add to the aspect of Bantu descent (skin and language). Tyson does not contradict the recent work on Semitic descent, he merely adds to the discussion of the Bantu descent. The current sentence is thus wrong and implies a contradiction between sources where none exists. Babakathy (talk) 06:47, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Proposed opening

The construction of Great Zimbabwe is claimed too by the Lemba, an ethnic group with a tradition of ancient Jewish or South Arabian descent through their male line and female ancestry derived from the Karanga subgroup of the Shona. Recent DNA studies involving members of the Lemba tribe has confirmed their claim of descent, through their male line, from Semitic immigrants. Inter-mixing with Bantu Africans is shown by the Lemba's dark skin and their speaking of a Bantu language. The Lemba claim ... (continues unchanged and then delete from Peter Tyson maintains... to end)

OK, I accept [most of] what you suggest, but would prefer to leave out the link to Tyson's web-page. The sentence "Inter-mixing with Bantu Africans is shown by the Lemba's dark skin and their speaking of a Bantu language" is self evident and does not require a specific citation. And there does seem to be a serious vacuum in Tyson's thinking: what the Lemba are like now cannot necessarily be equated with how they were 800 years ago, surely?

Incidentally, I would still like to find a way of including, somewhere, a brief reference to van Warmelo's observations - which are relevant to the origins of Great Zimbabwe.--DLMcN (talk) 09:15, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I would support removing Tyson, yes. Which of van Warmelo's observations do you want to include - current text refers only to the Lemba being distinct from others, which I would say is self evident. Babakathy (talk) 09:37, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Done. Babakathy (talk) 07:53, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

However

I often waver between wanting to use 'however' and removing or not using it. See WP:Editorial which says " Words such as but, however, and although may imply a relationship between two statements where none exists, perhaps inappropriately undermining the first or giving undue precedence to the credibility of the second." The issue is whether the use of the word does this. Dougweller (talk) 07:28, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks ... so we should remove the word "however" ? DLMcN (talk) 04:39, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Also "even" I believe. Babakathy (talk) 08:48, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Lead

The article makes it clear that there was political pressure on archaeologists to come up with findings that satisfied the white colonial government. That it was a white government is clearly relevant and isn't name-calling as was suggested in an edit summary. Dougweller (talk) 13:34, 30 July 2011 (UTC) ... See below > --83.41.233.244 (talk) 20:21, 14 August 2011 (UTC) --DLMcN (talk) 20:24, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Archives

The links to the two archives are not functioning. Is anyone aware of the status of the two archives? IrishStephen (talk) 20:54, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. Babakathy (talk) 06:40, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Attitude of the Rhodesian Government to the "Shona" theory

Doug …

The complaint aired on 28-29 July by Wiki-editor Stickler4accuracy is to some extent justified – because the present wording in Paragraph 2 [namely: “… political pressure being placed upon archaeologists by the then white supremacist government of Rhodesia to deny that it could have ever been produced by native Zimbabweans”] does not really give the complete picture>

> When the early explorers questioned the Bantu who were living near Great Zimbabwe, the explorers were told that no-one knew who had constructed the GZim temple. However, the Shona claim that their ancestors had built it, gathered momentum in the early 1960s with the formation of their political parties. Before then, no political party had ever featured the name “Zimbabwe”.

Thus, the claim that Shona-speakers were responsible for the Ancient Zimbabwean Civilization, was interpreted (rightly or wrongly) as being politically motivated.

In this regard, Section 4 of the Wiki-article [“Political Implications”] needs to be re-examined. [At present, it says: “When it was finally proven that the builders were Africans, the site was then characterised as 'product of an infantile mind' built by a subjugated society. The Rhodesian government confirmed this condescending view …]"

Three points:

1.“Africans” is not a good word to use in this context. The Semitic-speaking builders of ancient Axum in modern-day Ethiopia could certainly be described as “Africans” – and Professor Gayre would have been quite sympathetic to a suggestion that they^ contributed to Great Zimbabwe.

2. If we now change the word “Africans” to “Bantu”, it is incorrect to state it was “finally proven” [that they were the builders] – because there is a plausible alternative hypothesis - involving the partially Semitic Lemba. Surely we are not justified in using the words “finally proven” until this alternative hypothesis has been disproved?

3. Is there a specific citation for the statement “the site was then characterised as 'product of an infantile mind' built by a subjugated society”? – and for its alleged endorsement by the Rhodesian government? If we cannot find a reliable source to confirm that, then we will have to remove it, surely? I personally am inclined to doubt that it ever represented a widely held viewpoint. DLMcN (talk) 19:37, 11 August 2011 (UTC) DLMcN (talk) 19:41, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Wording of the lead second paragraph: the current statement is factual and supported by the article. It is not necessary for the lead to give all the details of every aspect of the article - else it would become the article. The lead should summarise some of the key issues only. See the guidelines

Political implications: This section could do with some work - it was written long before we did all the extensive work on the research section - but I am afraid that your criticism is focussing on Gayre's theory and not the article. The text quoted in this section deals with African or Asian origins (see the first part of the research section too) and so the use of the word "African" is fine. Further, the Lemba are (at most) partially semitic - they are according to the article Shona from the female line, and partially semitic from the male line, so I would say that comes out as well over 50% Shona. But (and can I please stress this): that was not the main controversy. The main controversy during Rhodesian times, as documented at several points in the article was whether the builders were Arab/Asian or African, not whether they were Karanga or Lemba.

Generally:You may describe the Lemba hypothesis as a plausible alternative hypothesis, but it is not broadly supported by any scholarship in its field in the last 40 years (the most recent reference on archaeology is Van Wermelo 1966, more recent work on the Lemba's ethnicities does not speak to their role at Great Zimbabwe). The Lemba hypothesis is what is referred to as fringe theory, not supported within the scientific community but with some popular (non-academic) support. Per guidelines it is fine to mention this, and I think the work we have all done on this is good, but it is not proper to keep bringing it up in other parts of the article. Babakathy (talk) 07:08, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks, BabaKathy, for your reply and comments.

1. It is, however, misleading to regard "African" and "Asian" as compartmentalised, mutually exclusive categories. In our context, looking in particular at the close historical relationships and contacts across the Straits of Aden between the Axumites and the Sabaeans, we would not be justified in assigning those two communities to different 'worlds'. When writing about ancient Zimbabwe, if we mean 'Bantu' then we should use this term, rather than 'African'.

2. Describing the Lemba as "well over 50% Shona" does not seem consistent with figures quoted by Spurdle and Jenkins in [present] reference 50. In any event, rather than looking at what the Lemba are now, it would be more relevant to consider what they probably were 800 years ago. It is reasonable to suppose that the practice of taking Bantu wives and concubines has been continuing for many centuries. Thus, it is quite possible that the Lemba oral tradition is correct - i.e., that there was indeed a large-scale [male] Semitic immigration into Zimbabwe in the distant past.

Academics do need to look seriously at this 'alternative hypothesis', instead of just dismissing it out of hand. But - unfortunately - the Semitic theory is regarded as 'politically incorrect' nowadays.

Pending revision, I have deleted the section which I thought requires a complete reworking.--DLMcN (talk) 10:16, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

1. The question is not whether you/I/we mean "Bantu" or "African" but what word the source is using. In fact the sources cited in this paragraph talk of "blacks".
2. The source describes the Y chromosomes as 40% Negroid, and we have said elsewhere the X (female line) is Karanga, which seems to me to come to well over 50% of genetic material. As you say, that is current % not historic. As I say, this is not the main controversy under political implications.
3. The point for wikipedia is not whether academics should or should not consider a particular hypothesis/theory/idea/position, but whether academics do or do not consider it. You feel academics should take the Lemba hypothesis seriously. I might or might not agree with you but that is not the point. For wikipedia, the question is whether an idea/theory/hypothesis is broadly supported by scholarship in its field. Currently the Lemba hypothesis is not, so it remains a fringe theory. If tomorrow we start seeing peer-reviewed literature in archaeology supporting the Lemba hypothesis, then it is not fringe theory. Another way of putting this is that you clearly feel mainstream archaeology is currently biased against the Lemba hypothesis, but (quoting wikipedia guidelines), "Wikipedia is not a forum for countering any systemic bias in institutions such as academia, or for otherwise promoting ideas which have failed to merit attention elsewhere". See also the guidelines on synthesis of published material that advances a position.
4. I am in agreement with your deletion. The remaining text in the first two paragraphs is clear and supported by citations. Babakathy (talk) 07:07, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Prose and word usage

Thank you, BabaKathy ^^ …

Writing good prose is of course an art – which must undoubtedly have an important place in Wikipedia, as well as anywhere else. I remember how, in “Atmospheric Refraction”, our [three-way] discussion ran to several pages before we eventually managed to agree on a suitable wording for just one sentence. Fortunately, the English language does enjoy a rich vocabulary, making it capable of conveying many shades of meaning.

If the precise meaning of a word (like “African”) was not 100% clear in an extract quoted from a particular source – then I’m sure we would be able to find an acceptable way of clarifying exactly what was intended – assuming that it was important [and possible !] to do so, obviously. [I say “possible” because some writers have been known to deliberately leave that word ambiguous !] As another example, if somebody were to write that “it has been proved beyond all doubt that Great Zimbabwe was built by Bantu”, then I would probably still be tempted to try and justify and suggest an alternative, less dogmatic wording – even despite the ‘uphill battle’ which I seem to be waging. In this forum here, we have of course solved the problem simply by deleting the offending passage.--DLMcN (talk) 17:50, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Question for StarMagicxxx - (citation needed)

StarMagicxxx ... Have you actually read the above^^ discussion ? ... I do not want to get into an edit-war with you, but the piece which you have inserted twice (which includes one after my recent reversion) does need justification, e.g. through a specific citation... As I said earlier (11th August), I doubt whether it ever represented a widely held view. Regards, (E-mail: DLMcN@yahoo.com) --DLMcN (talk) 16:52, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Quotation from Peter Garlake

[Also see the discussion above ^, particularly the one entitled "Attitude of the Rhodesian Government to the 'Shona' theory".]

I do not, unfortunately, have easy access to the 2002 book by Garlake ... Does he actually cite any specific individuals, or any official Government announcements regarding their alleged "characterization as a product of an infantile mind"?

1. [Explaining my change: "African" > "Bantu"] ... The Semitic builders of ancient Axum were certainly Africans. However, I feel sure that Peter Garlake would oppose any suggestion that the Axumites were responsible for creating the Zimbabwean Civilization.

2. [Explaining my rewording of "... finally proven":] I have been working on a new article regarding an 'alternative possible hypothesis' for the origins of Great Zimbabwe, and have received a promising reply from a peer-reviewed journal. We cannot really maintain [that the 'Shona' theory has been] "finally proven". DLMcN (talk) 11:06, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Looking through recent edits on this section it is a bit messed up. The citation of Garlake p23 refers to the first sentence, quoting Caton-Thompson. I think the citation got moved in the edits. The quote on infantile mind is accurate, but the sentence is not: C-T both showed that the site was built by African and described it as a product of an infantile mind.

The sentence dealing with Rh government attitude does not really add to the following material quoting Sinclair.

Garlake says C-T spoke about "infantile mind" which are her words, not Rh government ones. However, Garlake does say something relevant on censorship.

I will edit the section to reflect what Garlake and C-T actually said.Babakathy (talk) 16:13, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

And before anyone asks, I use the terms "African" "bantu" or"indigenous" depending on what the author used, rather than re-interpretting. Babakathy (talk) 16:23, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - but can we please say "maintained" (or perhaps "insisted"?) instead of "showed"? --DLMcN (talk) 22:05, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Insisted etc is considered a "loaded" term - please see the Manual of Style.Babakathy (talk) 20:20, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

AD > CE, and dates ... Decline somewhat *before* 1500 ?

Doug -

Although I was not the person who changed "CE" to "AD", I personally am inclined to support "AD" on the grounds that it is likely to be more widely known and understood. Maybe some non-Christians (but not that many?) might argue that "CE" is more 'neutral'? Is there a Wikipedia guideline about that?

On the subject of dates, incidentally, David Beach's [quoted] sentence: "The city and its state, the Kingdom of Zimbabwe, flourished from 1200 to 1500 [ref. 10] ..." is somewhat at odds with the account given in de Barros's "Décadas da Asia", composed in Lisbon in 1552 (which therefore must have been based on a description which he had heard earlier) - which states that the people living near the ruins had absolutely no idea who might have built it, such that they thought it must be "the work of the devil".--DLMcN (talk) 17:43, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree on both points. As a Jew I have no problem with "AD", and de Barros's 1552 account certainly seems to indicate the Kingdom falling some considerable time before 1500. —Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 18:34, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:ERA governs this. The article started with AD. I prefer CE for history and archaeological related articles, and I also note that a number of Christian theologians use it in scholarly works, but as it started AD it should stay that way unless there is a consensus to change it. Dougweller (talk) 07:16, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

So, as suggested in WP:ERA, we can just leave it out. In addition, I removed the 1500 date given by David Beach - which differed from the 1450 stated earlier; (in fact, even 1450 is difficult to reconcile with the de Barros report cited in ref 28).--DLMcN (talk) 12:36, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I think leaving it out would be best. It would only lead to another argument and it isn't really necessary. —Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 13:38, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

If we are quoting Beach then we use his dates as it is what he said. Beach, a modern historian, is a reliable source, so we should maintain his chronology. Babakathy (talk) 18:10, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

So I have reverted. If you want to make the change, please find a reliable source that contradicts Beach's statement and eplains why. Babakathy (talk) 18:22, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I already have mentioned a source - it is "Decadas de Asia" compiled in Lisbon by de Barros in 1552, and republished in Capetown by McCall-Theal in 1900; after 18.36 today it was reference 11. I do not, unfortunately, have easy access to David Beach's article, so I would like to ask you what evidence Beach cites to support what he says. In any event, as I have mentioned, Beach's "1500" is [slightly] later than the 1450 given in the opening sentence of this Wiki-article... Thus, we need to decide whether or not Beach's evidence is more reliable than de Barros's account. Or would it be better to somehow try and incorporate both points of view? --DLMcN (talk) 06:08, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Why not simply write that "Beach, a modern historian, says that the kingdom fell around 1500, significantly later than implied by de Barros's 1552 account"? Or something similar. We can incorporate both points of view this way. —Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 11:14, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Done - Thanks for your suggestion. After rereading de Barros's account, it seemed worth including a significant portion of it in the main article - in the section entitled "First scientific site excavations ..."--DLMcN (talk) 18:36, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

That looks very good. Nicely done. —Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 19:14, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Nice. Babakathy (talk) 09:00, 16 December 2011 (UTC)