Talk:Great Zimbabwe

City or village?

Is the term "city" really justified for something this size? Wouldn't "village" be more accurate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.195.1.165 (talk) 13:06, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Lemba

Is it necessary to have the paragraph about the Lemba genetic and cultural origins? It is covered in Lemba people, and this level of detail is not pertinent to discussion of the hypothesis of their involvement in Gt Z. Babakathy (talk) 17:20, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

The ancestors of the Lemba are postulated as being the originators of Greater Zimbabwe (a discussion that is repressed in Zimbabwe) so I guess it is pertinent. Although I note there is no note of their semitic DNA which would be especially relevant in that semitic peoples were heavily involved in the trade of ores from the region in History. 2001:8003:70F5:2400:4D5D:CCB:F17F:E633 (talk) 02:51, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm happy not relying on Gayre, but now we have the Lemba claimed sourced only to Bolts and Anderson, both unreferenced. Anderson's main work archived doesn't mention the Lemba at all, saying no black people could be the builders. Babakathy (talk) 09:56, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

@Babakathy Sorry. I'm not at all sure this is ok, but see Lemba people#Migration into Africa. That article has had a lot of pov editing in the past. Doug Weller talk 10:45, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, as does this one.

What we need in the Lemba section is to be able to summarise research done in the relevant period, as we have on Mauch and Bent and so on.

Bolts I can only find the primary reference, Gayre and his derivatives.

Bolts, W.B., 1777. “Report sent to Mr Andrew Daniel Pollett (Agent for their Imperial Majestics)”, p. 6; Transvaal Argief A497.

Babakathy (talk) 10:52, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

As this is a subsection of history of research would it be better to put Bolts in his correct historic epoch, rather than under Lemba? Babakathy (talk) 10:55, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Probably. But we should use nothing to do with Gayre. If we can't find anything better maybe it should be left out. I thought I'd fixed this some time ago, hopefully I didn't make it worse! Doug Weller talk 13:59, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Date of abandonment

User:Kowal2701 The Museum source does say 15th century. "Great Zimbabwe in Historical Archaeology: Reconceptualizing Decline, Abandonment, and Reoccupation of an Ancient Polity, A.D. 1450–1900" says "However, even when both oral and written sources become available after A.D. 1500, Great Zimbabwe remains peripheral to mainstream developments on the Zimbabwe Plateau and the western Indian Ocean zone. Clearly it must have been abandoned then," The Current Anthropology aticle says up to the first half of the 16th century What have I missed about the date? Doug Weller talk 16:17, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

The Conundrum of Great Zimbabwe says 1100-1700, however I'm happy to put 16th century. Truth is, we don't know. This from 2020 also says c. 1600. This from 2019 says The doubling of existing radiocarbon dates showed that most unwalled settlements were occupied post-AD 1450, with settlement persisting into the 17th century. 15th century is definitely outdated, it used to be thought states in Southern Africa were linear, such that Mapungubwe ended 1300, Zimbabwe began 1300 ended 1450, Mutapa began 1450, but this has effectively been ripped up in the past decade. Kowal2701 (talk) 16:56, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

San people

100,000 years must be wrong. Doug Weller talk 16:19, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

It's what the Mlambo source says, also this and this support it Kowal2701 (talk) 17:03, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll replace the NYT source in their article with this. Should it be in the lead there? Doug Weller talk 14:22, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Or maybe not. Go to the Wikipedia library and search for "Primordialism and the ‘Pleistocene San’ of southern Africa". "The fundamental problem with trying to identify a ‘San culture’ in the Pleistocene is that this taxonomic unit holds little internal or external validity" Doug Weller talk 14:33, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't read the source properly (Pargeter et al from 2016). There seems to be some academic debate on this. This source dated 2023 says

Based on the primacy of fossil evidence, eastern Africa has typically been considered the locus of origin for humans (Campbell & Tishkoff, 2008). However, in just the past decade, genomic evidence is nearly unequivocal in demonstrating that the deepest population divergence is between the Khoe-San and all other human groups. Eastern Africans simply do not carry the highest levels of genetic diversity nor the deepest divergent lineages among sampled populations. The absolute date of this Khoe-San divergence varies widely depending on the types of loci included, the mutation rate, and the method of analysis. Almost all dates range from 200 to 100 ka with a mode around 150 ka-120 ka, which corresponds roughly the marine isotope stage (MIS) 5 to MIS 6 transition (Knight et al., 2003; Poznik et al., 2013; Henn et al., 2018).

and cites Pargeter et al later in the article saying

Future interdisciplinary research is necessary to further unravel southern Africa’s prehistory, though this is not without challenges. Different mediums, methods, and varying definitions across disciplines have given rise to opposing conclusions, further complicating interdisciplinary discussions (Pargeter et al., 2016)

I can't access this Oxford Research Encyclopedia article annoyingly. What do you think about including it in articles accompanied with a note about criticisms of drawing ethnic groups back that far? Kowal2701 (talk) 15:04, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Sounds good. I've asked for the article.[1] Doug Weller talk 16:01, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. There’s a technical issue atm, hopefully it gets fixed soon Kowal2701 (talk) 16:03, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

As do I. Doug Weller talk 16:20, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

But I hope someone else who does have access will get a copy to me. Doug Weller talk 16:21, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Copy coming soon, show you tomorrow. Doug Weller talk 18:16, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

The source sort of sidesteps a firm statement on the issue, implying the debate is very much ongoing, and says In this sense, should archaeological evidence that contradicts ethnographic features not be found, the analogy between Bushmen and their hunter-gatherer ancestors strengthens;. I think that supports putting 100-200 kya with a note? Kowal2701 (talk) 17:14, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

yes Doug Weller talk 17:40, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Commoner housing

@Johnbod Hi, I don't think the source provided supports It is assumed that the majority of the population lived in huts made of wood and other plant materials, and the number of these can only be estimated. It is equally assumed that the stone structures were royal or official buildings, and elite dwellings.? Also, this source says The area between the core and the peripheral structures revealed dense mud-built structures, interpreted as commoner housing Kowal2701 (talk) 22:01, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Ancient or medieval?

There’s not yet an agreed periodisation for African history, and the terms ancient, medieval, and modern have been criticised a lot (although Oliver and Atmore published Medieval Africa from 1250-1800). Basically, the European periodisation shouldn’t be used here as the terms ancient and medieval are relative to the region. Pikirayi 2013 calls Great Zimbabwe an “ancient polity”. Chikumbirike 2016, Huffman 2014, Pikirayi plus 7 others 2016 Thodhlana, Chirikure, and Chitima 2021 all call it ancient (these are all the big names). Some other sources call it medieval, although high quality sources only refer to it as such when refuting the myth that it was built by ancient Europeans and the like [2] [3]. This’d be inline with Mapungubwe and Empire of Kitara which are both described as ancient by sources despite being of the same time period as Great Zimbabwe. What do people think? Kowal2701 (talk) 23:38, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

All such terms are probably best avoided, and should be accompanied with date ranges if used. Johnbod (talk) 02:26, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Doug Weller talk 09:50, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Idk, it’s not what the sources do. Would a note accompanying it suffice, noting the relativity of periodisation and the lack of agreed upon dates while listing sources that support it? Kowal2701 (talk) 09:51, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Aren't the actual dates reasonably aligned in recent scholarship? Let's see, do we have Ancient Africa or Medieval Africa? Johnbod (talk) 20:21, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Ok, we do, sort of. The lead of the latter is not much help; it reads, in its entirety:

The medieval and early modern history of Africa spans from the medieval and early modern period until the colonial period in the history of Africa."

They seem to use the European periods. Johnbod (talk) 20:25, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia’s status quo doesn’t line up with the scholarship, I’m in the process of rewriting those pages (Draft:Medieval Africa etc.). For periodisation, see Talk: History of Africa#Periodisation, it’s got incredibly thin support from sources but it’s the best I’ve been able to come up with. Bear in mind that that is only a periodisation for the whole continent’s history. In Southern and Central Africa, state formation came much later, meaning what’s considered ancient and medieval is very different. We should be looking at how Zimbabwean history is periodised Kowal2701 (talk) 20:42, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

• A History of Zimbabwe (Mlambo 2014) doesn't mention the terms ancient or medieval, with the precolonial chapter titled "Early states". (probably the best source, the intro reads The first single-volume history of Zimbabwe with detailed coverage from pre-colonial times to the present
• Becoming Zimbabwe (Raftopolous and Mlambo 2009) also just have a single chapter for precolonial history, but call Great Zimbabwe ancient.
• History of Southern Africa (Shillington 2004) doesn't mention the terms ancient or medieval.
• A History of Southern Africa (Mlambo and Parsons 2019) unfortunately doesn't let me see the contents or search inside.
• A History of Sub-Saharan Africa (Collins 2007) calls 1200 in the northern African Great Lakes ancient (as well as the Kingdom of Rwanda), calls the Kingdom of Kongo ancient, and calls Great Zimbabwe ancient. Only uses medieval in reference to Ethiopia and Kilwa Sultanate (Swahili city-states date from 50 CE)
• A History of Sub-Saharan Africa (Collins and Burns 2014) calls Portuguese Africa ancient (i.e. 15th and 16th centuries)

Basically it's all relative. I don't think there'll ever be consensus or consistency for the dates of the terms medieval and ancient in African history, new terms will have to be created or found. Kowal2701 (talk) 21:45, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

No, so just avoiding these terms is best. Note that Early Modern period for Europe is nearly as bad - no-one can agree when it begins or ends, or what to call the next period. Indian history has somewhat similar problems, though not as bad. For the Americas, there's a consensus to junk all such terms, along with the Metal Ages, which obviously don't work well there, and use a rather confusing set of "horizon"s. Johnbod (talk) 21:55, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Lol. Idk I still think sources support ancient with a note, but I appreciate it's incredibly unsatisfying and at worst misleading. The lead immediately gives dates in the following sentences so I think the harm will be minimised Kowal2701 (talk) 22:01, 24 December 2024 (UTC)