Talk:Great Zimbabwe/Archive 5

Gayre and Great Zimbabwe

Welcome Wikibedia. First, I want to thank you for allowing me to comment here and give me a chance to express my opinion on the subject.

Second; to avoid the dilemma I will move this portion from the introduction to another section. "The majority of scholars believe that it was built by members of the Gokomere culture who were ancestors of modern Shona, but there are others who believe there is a possibility that the ancestors of the Lemba were responsible" Until decisiveness in the matter

With regard to lemba and their Semitic ancestors and they are the ones who built Great Zimbabwe, this theory developed by Gayre and doesn't have any support or proof on the ground. The position of Gayre from blacks and claimed their inability to construction proves the real objective behind this lie is Denial of Great Zimbabwe African Origin .

The Great Zimbabwe relate to African history, which is the property of its people, including blacks, for this I don't see how cite someone who is racist and has attitudes hostile to Africans in this subject. For this, I will delete all sections in the subject who based on the sayings Gayre. Waslalh (talk) 11:05, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Just thought I'd point out that according to research done by Professor Tudor Parfitt of the University of London, who spent 20 years researching the Lemba and did DNA testing on them, the Lemba are indeed of Semitic origin through the male bloodline. See BBC article on this here. Quote:

"Their oral traditions claim that their ancestors were Jews who fled the Holy Land about 2,500 years ago. It may sound like another myth of a lost tribe of Israel, but British scientists have carried out DNA tests which have confirmed their Semitic origin. ... They wear skull caps, practise circumcision, which is not a tradition for most Zimbabweans, avoid eating pork and food with animal blood, and have 12 tribes. They slaughter animals in the same way as Jewish people, and they put the Jewish Star of David on their tombstones. Members of the priestly clan of the Lemba, known as the Buba, were even discovered to have a genetic element also found among the Jewish priestly line. 'This was amazing,' said Prof Tudor Parfitt, from the University of London. 'They have a common ancestor who geneticists say lived about 3,000 years ago somewhere in north Arabia, which is the time of Moses and Aaron when the Jewish priesthood started' ... The oral traditions of the Lemba say that ... centuries ago a small group of men began a long journey ... from Yemen to southern Africa. ... 'Many people say that the story is far-fetched, but the oral traditions of the Lemba have been backed up by science,' [Parfitt] says."

Also see Jewish Virtual Library, American Society of Human Genetics. Quote from the last of these:

"The results suggest that > or = 50% of the Lemba Y chromosomes are Semitic in origin, approximately 40% are Negroid, and the ancestry of the remainder cannot be resolved. These Y-specific genetic findings are consistent with Lemba oral tradition, and analysis of the history of Jewish people and their association with Africa indicates that the historical facts are not incompatible with theories concerning the origin of the Lemba.".

Hope this is helpful —Cliftonian (talk) 11:33, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Waslalh - Many thanks again for your contributions to this discussion.

1. Regarding your transfer of the sentences on "Who constructed GZim?" - you might like to take a look the note accompanying DougWeller's edit of 23 January 2013‎ (at 16:31), when he recommended answering that point in the "lead", responding to a query by a reader.

2. Professor Gayre is not the only person citing evidence for Semitic influence in Ancient Zimbabwe. Immediately above^, Cliftonian has reminded us of the genetic analyses carried out by Professor Tudor Parfitt: the fact that Lemba priests carry the Cohen Modal Haplotype, indicates that large-scale immigration and settlement was likely. In addition, research and field studies by Magdel le Roux, Nigel van Warmelo, H.A. Junod, the Reverend Jaques, Major Leyland and T.G. Trevor all confirm that we just cannot dismiss the possibility of a Semitic contribution to the Ancient Zimbabwean Civilization. --DLMcN (talk) 12:31, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

To Cliftonian;

Ok, the Lemba have Jewish blood Good No one said no, but what is the link between ancestors lemba and build Great Zimbabwe . The Falashas in Ethiopia have Jewish ancestors Does this mean that the Falashas who built Great Zimbabwe Waslalh (talk) 13:20, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Not Jewish blood - they have Semitic ancestors - that doesn't mean Jewish ancestors, most Semites weren't Jews. There are a few similarities between the Lemba of today and cultural evidence found at Great Zimbabwe. Dougweller (talk) 14:33, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't want similarities I want sensory evidence that Semites who  built Great Zimbabwe.

As you know, building Zimbabwe took nearly three hundred years it means several generations have passed before the completion of construction, if we assume the Semites who built Zimbabwe, why there is no trace of them such as Their writings or their tombs or anything indicating their presence in the region during the construction of Zimbabwe.Waslalh (talk) 15:41, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Waslalh - Nobody has managed to prove beyond all doubt that "the Semitic ancestors of the Lemba built GZim", so that is why the text has had to be worded cautiously; i.e. "There are people who believe that there is a possibility ...> ..."

The prehistoric Semitic presence in Abyssinia (the Falashas) was stronger than it was in Zimbabwe (because the Falashas were closer to the motherland).

Two reports passed by Moorish traders to Portuguese writers in Mozambique, state that in the early 16th century there was an inscription above the entrance to GZim (which was not written in Arabic, apparently) ...

The principal burial site of the Lemba was/is in Dumbghe Mountain near Belingwe. For them, it is a sacred place, so they have refused to allow excavations there. Nevertheless, a few sites have been found elsewhere - distinguished by gold jewellery still on the skeletons (thus associating them with ancient Zim) - where the burials were in a horizontal position, unlike the crouched position adopted by the Shona - but identical to that which is still used today by the Lemba.

According to Junod, the Lemba are/were regarded as the masters and originators of the art of circumcision, and the phallic symbols found at Gzim represented circumcised organs.

During the 19th and early 20th centuries, the Lemba were distinguished from other Bantu tribes for their skills in mining and metalwork (which were important features of the Ancient Zimbabwean Civilization). There is also some evidence that the Lemba continued to build in stone after fleeing across the Limpopo. And their language used to be Makaranga - which ties in with their oral tradition that they came from the region around GZim. --DLMcN (talk) 17:01, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

A few other possible supporting points are mentioned in http://www.dlmcn.com/anczimb.html - (i) Cotton, (ii) Written reports by Bolts and Anderson, (iii) Irrigation systems in the Zoutpansberg. --DLMcN (talk) 17:16, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I wanted to focus in the conversation here on the wikipedia managers only but I will respond to your arguments this time only because I think that you have an agenda here.

First, Belingwe town or what is now called Mberengwa is hundreds of kilometers away from Great Zimbabwe and whoever was buried there from the Lemba or others I don't think that have relationship with building of Great Zimbabwe. Second, you take your sources from Gayre and as I said before, Gayre is racist liar and we cannot adopt anything he said about Great Zimbabwe. Waslalh (talk) 07:40, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out the Belingwe > Mberengwa name change. In her book on the Lemba (its full reference is given in the main article) Magdel le Roux refers to, and shows a picture of Dumbghe Mountain; in addition, her field studies and interviews confirm what I say above. The area controlled by the people whose HQ was at GZim (whoever they were), covered most of [what is now] the state of Zimbabwe; that certainly included Mberengwa .... I do not think, incidentally, that Magdel can be described as a 'racist' - nor can Junod, van Warmelo, Parfitt or the Reverend Jaques: (these are others who have contributed key facts and evidence). The only 'agenda' I have [if we want to call it that?] is to discover and represent the truth - as far as that is possible. Let me emphasize that I am still prepared to listen to, and consider, arguments from both sides of the controversy. With regards, --DLMcN (talk) 08:09, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Seems rather prejudiced, unscholarly and, dare I say, even somewhat racist to dismiss everything Gayre wrote because you think he's a "racist liar". As Parfitt himself says, in a quotation included in our own article here, "The fact that Gayre... got most of his facts wrong, does not in itself vitiate the claims of the Lemba to have been involved in the Great Zimbabwe civilisation". Also I should probably remind everybody that what really matters here is not what I, or you, or anybody on this talk page thinks, but what we can glean from the source material. At no point has our article itself attempted to deny that the proto-Shona construction theory is the one generally accepted by scholars. —Cliftonian (talk) 09:20, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Plausibilty of the "Conquest" explanation

DougWeller - Looking at your edit of a couple of days ago, it is surely true to say that absolutely everybody (in the past and in the present) who sympathizes with the "Semitic" theory - would regard the "conquest" explanation for the collapse of GZim as by far the most plausible one; (it is not just Gayre who is suggesting that)... Regards, DLMcN (talk) 06:54, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Also included in that^ category is James Mullan - see pages 52-61 and 96-98 of his book "The Arab Builders of Zimbabwe" ... as well as Hall, who is quoted by Mullan on page 80. DLMcN (talk) 08:34, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Then attribute it to them. If you have a source that says everybody does, attribute that also. Otherwise it's your own observation/research, right? Dougweller (talk) 09:18, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I have removed the paragraph, since it relies on theories that fall outside the current academic consensus. The point is made in the Lemba section, which deals with these theories, and therefore doesn't need to be mentioned here as well. As a general point, we should confine outdated theories in their own sections rather than bleeding their content all over the article. Johncoz (talk) 12:25, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree entirely - nice to see another editor here, the COI issue has been a problem. I don't have time as I'm going to take a break, but Hall needs more discussion, see [1] and [2]. Dougweller (talk) 14:28, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Undue weight to Gayre's outdated ideas

It seems to me the section on Lemba origin is excessively long and detailed given 1) there is already a discussion of this on the Lemba page, and 2) Gayre's theory hinged on a 7th century construction date (based on early, faulty dating). So I think that given the actual academic consensus has moved on significantly, we can edit this down to avoid giving it excessive weight. Johncoz (talk) 11:21, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Gayre's thesis is by no means based entirely on that 7th century dating. Many of the key points which he makes, are supported by interviews and observations made by van Warmelo, Junod, Jaques, and (more recently) by Magdel le Roux - none of whom are/were primarily concerned with GZim, incidentally. If you feel that there was undue prominence given to the 'Semitic' theory, then it would have been constructive to increase the coverage accorded to the 'Shona' theory - i.e., with a fuller explanation of precisely what it is based on .... and showing where exactly are the flaws in the arguments which favour a Lemba connection. In addition, Parfitt's recent DNA discoveries have put a very different complexion on the controversy. --DLMcN (talk) 15:44, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Johncoz - the report which de Barros quotes in the early 1500s (from Moorish merchants) cannot just be dismissed and deleted without proper justification. Pending input from other editors, here again is the piece concerned: "Symbaoe ... is guarded by a ‘nobleman’, who has charge of ... some of Benomotapa's wives therein... When, and by whom, these edifices were raised ... there is no record, but they say they are the work of the devil, for .... it does not seem possible to them that they should be the work of man"... [This^ certainly does question the 'Shona' theory]. --DLMcN (talk) 17:36, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

While the quotation is not without interest it does not support any theory of who the builders were. If it is to be included it should be in the section "From Portuguese traders to Karl Mauch" Johncoz (talk) 23:45, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Whilst I concur that Gayre's work was not based entirely on the (faulty) date and there are other lines of evidence or similarity that he used, the section did give undue weight. That policy is clear and there for a reason... Current paragraph seems more appropriate.

As I've said before on this page, the DNA evidence is interesting about the history and background of the Lemba and very appropriate on that page, but of little/no relevance to whether they were involved in building Great Zimbabwe or not.

The De Barros quote is relevant under Portuguese traders, although it tells us very little: De Barros says a report he read says that some "Moorish" (?Arab, ?Swahili??) traders told someone (who?) that they were told by someone unnamed ("they say") that they do not know who built the ruins. Even if we assume De Barros has everything correct from what was originally said to the traders (given the extended transmission...) the most it says is that the traders met some people or community who did not know who built the structures. Babakathy (talk) 15:22, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

It does imply more than that - [see the section below which discusses "de Barros's Report"]. --DLMcN (talk) 03:50, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

The DNA evidence is relevant if we are asking whether there might have been a Semitic origin for GZim - see the section below about the Lemba and gold-mining. --DLMcN (talk) 04:02, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

".Gayre's thesis is consistent with interviews and observations"

Who says it's consistent? Do the sources for this mention Gayre and say his thesis is consistent with whatever? If not, please remove all this as original research. Dougweller (talk) 18:00, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Magdel le Roux mentions and cites Gayre's publications to support what she says about the Lemba ... and in his book and articles, Gayre cites relevant evidence presented by the the older writers --DLMcN (talk) 18:19, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

So you can cite what she says about Gayre, but you cannot claim his thesis is consistent with anyone else's interviews and observations because you don't have a source stating that. It's original research. If you don't believe me, ask at WP:NOR. Dougweller (talk) 20:40, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

It's already quite late here - I'll try and reword it tomorrow morning. --DLMcN (talk) 20:51, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Dougweller that this now constitutes OR. Reverting until an acceptable formulation is proposed. As for the dating, this is critical to Gayre's specific claim about the impossibility of the Shona having constructed GZ (see p114 of his book). Johncoz (talk) 23:38, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

btw, the central issue of dating also responds to the request above that "we need to be more specific as to what exactly are the flaws in Gayre's reasoning", without excessively lengthening this section. Johncoz (talk) 03:03, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Johncoz, please give me a good reason why you deleted the reference to Parfitt's publications. His discovery of the "Cohen Modal Haplotype" in Lemba males, is significant and important in this context. And why did you remove the [sourced] reference to the fact that George Murdock supports the Lemba hypothesis? --DLMcN (talk) 03:48, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Murdock did not support Gayre's Lemba thesis (even according to Gayre, p91). Parfitt is quoted on Gayre thesis with what seems a fair observation. The issue of the genetic markers of some Lemba males is appopriate for the Lemba article but are only tangential here—your contention that they are "significant" in this debate is an unsourced OR conjecture. Finally, the entire thesis is now a fringe theory, so the constraints of WP:UNDUE are highly pertinent in maintaining proper balance in this article. Johncoz (talk) 04:18, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Regarding DNA, see my comments below (in the part discussing Lembas and gold-mining). --DLMcN (talk) 03:35, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Murdock wrote his book before Gayre wrote his, when Murdock mentioned many of the key points made later by Gayre - see below.... Parfitt's work certainly cannot be described as "fringe theory"... And once again, the main article does need to be more specific as to What exactly is the evidence which the Shona theory is based on? --DLMcN (talk) 04:58, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Parfitt is primarily concerned with the possible Jewish connections of the Lemba. He is considerably more circumspect about Lemba involvement in GZim (as reflected in our existing quotation). And you cannot misrepresent Murdock as supporting a Lemba origin for GZim. One of the principal problems here is your attempt to synthesise disparate sources to advance original research. Please consult WP:SYN Johncoz (talk) 05:10, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Here's what Murdock says:

"A number of authorities have bracketed the Venda with the Shona as the Bantu tribes associated with the culture of Zimbabwe. As evidence they cite the presence among them of the Lemba, an itinerant tribe of metalworkers, potters, and merchants, who allegedly possess markedly Semitic features and who exhibit a number of cultural traits that distinguish them sharply from their neighbors, e.g., circumcision, absence of totemism, tribal endogamy (unless the alien spouse is ceremonially adopted), a predilection for fish, burial in an extended rather than a crouched position, a distinctive new-moon ceremony, and a taboo on eating the flesh of animals unless their throats have been cut before death. The fact that they reveal no trace of either Judaic or Islamic religion, however, argues against the hypothesis of their descent from Jewish or Moslem traders of the Arabic period. Could they be a remnant of the Cushitic founders of Zimbabwe? Their fondness for fish, to be sure, is un-Cushitic, but the Periplus of the Erythraean Sea records a similar exception for the ancient Azanians (see Chapter 26)."

I don't see how that can be used for the edit suggested on my talk page, "The Lemba claim to Great Zimbabwe was supported by Murdock". Dougweller (talk) 10:31, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

[Thank you for inserting that^ quote from Murdock]. OK, maybe it's a question of exact choice of wording, but I just do not see how you can deny the fact that Murdock was (at the very least) open-minded regarding the Lemba hypothesis; in other words, Gayre was not the only 'flag-bearer' in that regard. --DLMcN (talk) 03:29, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Big difference between being open-minded about a hypothesis and supporting it. I'm opened-minded on it, otherwise I'd argue for only a brief mention of this, like for Queen of Sheba.Babakathy (talk) 06:00, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

"Sympathetic" [to the Lemba theory] might be a suitable compromise way of describing Murdock's attitude. --DLMcN (talk) 20:03, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

No, it wouldn't, unless you can quote him saying he is sympathetic to the theory. Johncoz (talk) 22:39, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

What does he actually say - he is mainly talking about similarities between the Venda and the Shona, and cites the presence of the Lemba among them to support his thesis. Gives some examples of unique features of the Lemba which I imagine Ruwitah disagrees with but not relevant - that's for Lemba page. He suggests Lemba might be Cushitic - same thing. Only mention of Great Zim is reference to the Cushitic founders of Zimbabwe. So he is assuming GtZ has "Cushitic" origins but does not say anything in support of this. Babakathy (talk) 05:29, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Points made by Gayre (and others) supporting the 'Lemba' hypothesis

Johncoz - Here, for the record, are the points which you deleted, despite the fact that they are backed up by properly sourced references. Instead of just removing them, it would be better to explain Why? you consider them to be defective and incorrect... [DougWeller maintains that Mullan's work does not qualify for mention here, so I have (for the moment) left him out - even though Mullan did carry out a lot of research on the topic, citing numerous sources - for which his work deserves to be acknowledged, surely?] :-

---

Arguing that the South African Lemba are probably descended from members of the original community who fled southwards, Gayre, and Murdock point out that the Lemba were esteemed by neighbouring tribes as exceptionally skilled miners and metal workers. A distinct (and partly Semitic) identity for the Lemba is also supported by observations and interviews carried out by van Warmelo. The discovery of models of circumcised male organs in some of the ancient ruins, has been cited by Gayre (and by Lembas interviewed by le Roux) as evidence of a direct link between the Lemba and Great Zimbabwe; (that is significant because surrounding tribes regarded the Lemba as the masters and originators of the art of circumcision). Gayre, le Roux, and Murdock also mention that the Lemba buried their dead in an extended rather than a crouched position, i.e., in the same style as in certain Zimbabwean graves which contained gold jewellery.

---

--DLMcN (talk) 04:36, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

See my reply above @ 4:18. Johncoz (talk) 04:44, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

As 2 of us disagree with you on policy grounds, if you think this is not OR, take it to WP:NORN and defend it rather than try to keep it in the article. Dougweller (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:36, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

A discussion is now underway at WP:NORN on this issue Johncoz (talk) 11:55, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

De Barros's report

I may well be "laying my head on the block" by my failure to obtain permission before reinserting (just now) the report on GZim by de Barros; if so, please accept my apologies. Certainly, I do not see why it should produce an adverse reaction (although I was admittedly surprised by DougWeller's reluctance to acknowledge George Murdock's assessments regarding the Lemba and ancient Zim). Anyway, rightly or wrongly, I decided that it was unnecessary to submit this particular item to the WP:NORN 'Jury' for approval, and that DougWeller has more than enough other projects on the go to be bothered by a specific request for this extra one. It has been relocated in a place which sounds as if it might be acceptable to Johncoz. Let me mention too that there was a fair amount of discussion about this report when it was approved and inserted in December 2011 (right at the very beginning of this present Talk-File). --DLMcN (talk) 21:07, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Looks fine to me :) Johncoz (talk) 22:29, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Uncontroversial, if not very helpful. Babakathy (talk) 15:34, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

However, it does sound as if the people actually living in GZim in the early 1500s had absolutely no idea who might have built it. --DLMcN (talk) 15:45, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Does it? Did De Barros know where the conversation took place, e.g. Great Zimbabwe area or Mutapa or somewhere else? Did the traders have the reported conversation, or was it reported to them? Did the traders write the report, or did someone who spoke with them write it - how many links in the chain? Also, did more recent travelers report the same from community of the area? Babakathy (talk) 05:43, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

It does sound as if those Moorish traders actually visited GZim and spoke to the people living there. That is confirmed by other interesting points which the traders reported (which are also recorded in McCall-Theal's account): for example, that there was an inscription above the main door to GZim. No, the Moorish traders did not provide a written record of their observations - at least, not one which has been found.... Later, William Bolts and A.A. Anderson apparently heard reports implying that the BaLemba were responsible for constructing GZim. --DLMcN (talk) 06:25, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

"sound as if" is a bit tenuous, what did De Barros actually say? Similarly "apparently heard" for WB and AAA. Babakathy (talk) 07:23, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

The University of Zim Library does/did have a copy (in its 'Rare Books' section) of McCall-Theal's translation of de Barros's "Decadas de Asia", or I could try and post you a photocopy - if you really are keen to read more. Or we might be able to locate an online copy - maybe in Portuguese, though. In any event, I am happy to leave that part of the main article as it is; (let me add that my quotation is accurate, if selective). Indeed, different individuals will interpret the account in their own way. --DLMcN (talk) 08:20, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Ancestors of the Lemba - anxious to mine the gold?

Babakathy - Looking at your recent deletion of: "... the Lemba maintain that their male forebears came in ships from a distant country in order to obtain gold.((ref name="VanWarmelo"/))" - I think you are wrong to say that this^ fact is not relevant on this page - because there was, apparently, a very strong association between GZim and the gold mines. Would I be correct in saying that most, if not all scholars believe that the same group of people (whoever they were) were responsible for both, [i.e., constructing the gold mines and building GZim]? ... Elsewhere, the article does mention oral traditions of the Shona (in supporting their claim to GZim), so presumably we are also entitled to mention oral traditions of the Lemba? --DLMcN (talk) 18:02, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Even if it's not directly relevant, I think it is worth mentioning why the Lemba say (and how) their ancestors came to the area. —Cliftonian (talk) 18:12, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Since it's not directly relevant, its appropriate location is the the Lemba page, surely. Also bearing in mind WP:UNDUE I've deleted another extraneous clause from this section. —Johncoz (talk) 02:22, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

The relationship with gold-mining is directly relevant. In addition, the Semitic DNA in the Lemba is also pertinent in this context, because if the Lemba theory is correct, then the genetic evidence points towards a Semitic origin for GZim rather than a Bantu one. Indeed, that is also why the Lemba oral tradition of an overseas origin is relevant. --DLMcN (talk) 03:44, 9 May 2013 (UTC) --DLMcN (talk) 03:46, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Detail of who the Lemba are is appropriate to their page. This page does mention the partial Semitic ancestry, but there is no value to keep repeating it. Oral tradition of why Lemba came to Mberengwa is again 100% relevant to Lemba page. Babakathy (talk) 05:47, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Conquest and Absorption

Johncoz - you should not have removed this piece: "... he [i.e., Gayre] added that the ones who remained would have passed some of their skills and knowledge to the invaders".

Earlier [at 12:10 on 5 May], in the section on [causes for the] "Decline", you removed my statement that Conquest was a very plausible explanation for the collapse of GZim, justifying your action by the fact that this was already covered in the Lemba section. However, you have now deleted both! So am I now entitled to restore it to the section entitled "Decline"?

In addition, Gayre's point is important because it weakens the arguments supporting the 'Shona' theory - namely, the fact that there is an apparent continuity between the pottery and artefacts found in GZim and those used by the Shona in the 18th/19th centuries. In the history of mankind, conquests of territory almost always involve some absorption by the invaders of the original inhabitants - at the same time learning and adopting many of their skills and techniques.

Indeed, that could also help to explain the Karanga [/ Shona] oral tradition that their ancestors built GZim - because some of their ancestors could well have been Lembas. --DLMcN (talk) 05:06, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Um, that's essentially Ruwitah's argument: that the Lemba are a subset of the Karanga, therefore Lemba are essentially Shona with some local differences. On that basis there is no conflict between Gokomere culture vs Lemba origins... NB I am not recommending we add this to page, just showing where scholars have taken Karanga-Lemba common ancestry. Ref: Ruwitah, A. (1997). Lost tribe, lost language? the invention of a false Remba identity. Zimbabwea, 5, 53-71. Babakathy (talk) 05:57, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

The genetic analyses do indeed indicate a substantial female contribution to the Lemba ancestry: [the large Semitic element apparently came through the male line]. --DLMcN (talk) 06:32, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

My point is the common ancestry point you make above cuts both ways: you say Karanga oral tradition could be because some of their ancestors were Lemba and the Lemba did the building not the Karanga (Gokomere). One could just as easily say that the Lemba oral tradition could be because some of their ancestors were Karanga (which at least we know) and the Karanga (Gokomere) did the building not the Lemba.

And if point is pushed further we end up at Ruwitah's conclusion: Lemba is not a distinct ethnic group from Karanga.

And your points and mine are both original research... Unless actually want to quote Ruwitah... Babakathy (talk) 07:20, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

According to van Warmelo and Hammond-Tooke, the Lemba oral tradition (which Gayre quotes) concerned their male ancestors; while according to Spurdle and Jenkins (and Parfitt), their Semitic ancestry also came through their male line. To me, that weakens the possible argument that "that the Lemba oral tradition could be because some of their ancestors were Karanga". And OK, yes, this^ is indeed original research (although backed by reliable sources) - so we won't add it to the main article... But I still believe that the point made by Gayre which was deleted by Johncoz, is important, and should be mentioned somewhere - probably best under "Lemba", otherwise under "Decline". --DLMcN (talk) 08:35, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

The so-called "conquest" theory is mentioned: "The Lemba claim to Great Zimbabwe was also supported by Gayre, who suggested that the Shona artifacts which were found in the ruins, were placed there only after they conquered the area and drove out or absorbed the previous inhabitants." That seems sufficient, particularly since Gayre's proposal was based on the incorrect notion that GZim was built in the 7th century, and was "conquered" by Bantu peoples when they arrived in the 12th or 13th century (citing Dart). None of this has any support in modern scholarship, and indeed is demonstrably false. Johncoz (talk) 10:01, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I concur. That's sufficient. Gayre's comment on skills being passed on between Lemba and Gokomere/Karanga is not relevant to the topic - we are not discussing the origins of metalworking skills in southern Zimbabwe, but who built the structures. Babakathy (talk) 10:49, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Section order change

I have moved the Lemba section to beneath the Queen of Sheba section to create a more logical order, and swapped a couple of pictures to correspond with the text. The Lemba claim is clearly quite old, but is not supported by current archaeological evidence. So we now go from oldest to most recent claims, from oral traditions and impressions to scientific excavations and the most recent scholarly consensus. Johncoz (talk) 00:15, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I think that is a good move, although the initial reports of the oral tradition predate Bent? By the way, do we have an actual citation for Bolts and Anderson - to add to Le Roux mentioning them? Babakathy (talk) 05:43, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I have also added reference on Le Roux re Lemba oral tradition to a proper journal article. Peer-review status of UNISA book is not that clear to me, but the journal is highly reputable and so a stronger citation Babakathy (talk) 05:48, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

"...the initial reports of the oral tradition predate Bent?" Well, not the initial reports, but I don't think they achieved any kind of prominence and substance until after Bent, if that makes sense. Johncoz (talk) 06:34, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Recent Research

BTW, I think it would be a good idea if someone could fill out the "Recent research" section with a bit more detail of the archaelogical findings of the past 30 years. Johncoz (talk) 06:34, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, will do some work on this. Garlake and Pikirayi's more recent work is available in Google books, and some of Beach and Hoffman's is available in full form online too. I will check if I have any papers offline in full if others want to read? Babakathy (talk) 06:40, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Excellent! I'm a bit time-constrained at the moment, but I'll try to dip into the literature a bit myself. Johncoz (talk) 07:03, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

A call for a clearer explanation of the 'Shona' hypothesis

The most serious defect in this GZim article is the fact that it does not offer a convincing explanation as to What is the evidence supporting the 'Shona' theory? for the origin of the building. There is a brief reference to "pottery, oral traditions and anthropology", but (as I have tried to indicate) that is not really enough - in view of the possibility that Shona invaders might have absorbed and learned something from earlier inhabitants.

I have tried writing to prominent supporters of the 'Shona' hypothesis, asking for more details of the evidence in its favour. Some of them did reply, but nobody even attempted to answer my question. A few just called me a 'racialist', perhaps believing that this would be enough to clinch and close the matter. I have also read various books and articles which those 'Shona' adherents have written, but again without discovering an adequate explanation.

All this does raise the question whether there might be political reasons for describing the 'Shona' theory as "proven beyond all doubt". It is true that during the 1960s and 1970s in Rhodesia there was 'political motivation' working in the other direction - but, if there is any truth in that first possibility, then we should remember (to use a trite expression) that "Two Wrongs do not usually make a Right".

An indication that there might be a marked reluctance to give the 'Semitic' theory a fair hearing, came with my efforts to publish www.http://DLMcN.com/anczimb.html (which we are not permitted to use as a 'reliable source' in Wikipedia (i) because it appeared in a right-wing journal, and (ii) because I am "only" a meteorologist/astronomer). I did actually submit the manuscript to other journals before approaching "Mankind Quarterly", and none of those other editors criticized the content of its text; it just seemed that they did not want to "touch the controversy with a bargepole".

Anyway, I am certainly not qualified to 'fill the gap' and remedy [what I call] "the most serious defect" in the GZim page. I was, however, prepared to have a go at presenting what evidence there was in favour of a 'Semitic' theory, if only because the relevant arguments did seem rather plausible (although not 100% conclusive). However, as we have seen, the material which I have put together is unacceptable in Wikipedia (i) because it represents only a minority theory, and (ii) because it is contrary to editorial consensus.

The other reason/accusation which is often thrown at me - namely, that I am guilty of presenting "original research" - is somewhat weaker - or, putting it differently, this problem could easily be overcome. Looking, for example, at the question which I recently put up in the 'NORN' forum (and leaving aside, for the moment, the consideration of "Undue Weight"), could it be argued that the suggested wording cannot be described as "Original Research"? - because it just involves quoting from a published book, and no more. --DLMcN (talk) 19:06, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia policies were developed in large part to stop articles becoming platforms for the pet theories of editors. The Gayre/Lemba theory is discussed and given prominence in accordance with its support in the scholarly community. To quote from WP:UNDUE: "Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public." Johncoz (talk) 19:23, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, we need to put more text into the Gokomere and Recent Research sections, I agree. Other issues, I'll respond elsewhere. Babakathy (talk) 07:03, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

NPOV tag

An NPOV tag has been placed at the top of this article by an editor who by his own admission is seeking to promote a POV that has minority status in current scholarship. Some explanation of why the article in its current state is not "neutral" (ie does not give appropriate weight to different viewpoints) would seem to be required if the tag is not be summarily removed. Please note policy in relation to these tags:

The editor who adds the tag should address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, namely Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag. Tags should be added as a last resort.

Johncoz (talk) 10:52, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

The points concerned - which are repeated here below - have all been raised before in this Talk-File, but without success.

If we look back at my last entry here above^ (calling for more evidence, uploaded on 10th May at 19:06), we see that there was only one reply - but it did not really address the issues which I was trying to highlight - many of which suggest (to me) that there are several items in the main article which definitely need attention.

1. Let us assume, for the moment, that you (and other editors) do not manage to find, in the relevant literature, a more complete answer to the key question: What is the evidence supporting the 'Shona' theory? In that event, what would your [/other editors'] reaction be? - to inserting words like: "[however, Gayre ((ref/)) insists that those phenomena could easily be explained by Shona invaders capturing Great Zimbabwe and absorbing some of the original inhabitants, at the same time learning their techniques and skills in pottery]". Could we put something like that after the reference to "pottery, oral traditions and anthropology" in the "Gokomere" section?

2. Perhaps the real reason why the Lemba hypothesis has prompted such a strong counter-reaction, is its implication that the builders of GZim may have been Semitic. Thus, could we agree that it would be a more accurate reflection of the controversy, if we expanded the heading there to read: "The Lemba, and their Semitic ancestors"?

3. By placing the statement: "However, Gayre's thesis is not supported by more recent scholars such as Garlake and Pikirayi" immediately after mentioning Gayre [in the "Lemba" section] - we convey the misleading impression that Garlake and Pikirayi actually managed to demolish Gayre's arguments. In fact, neither Garlake nor Pikirayi bothered to do that. I have read Pikirayi's book (and also corresponded with him) - but his book does not even acknowledge the existence of the Lemba.

[There are also less important points, e.g.-]

4. Nobody gave me an adequate explanation for rejecting my point that the gold-mining activity was intimately associated with GZim and therefore it is relevant to mention gold when considering the question "Who constructed GZim?" --DLMcN (talk) 17:31, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

The fact the article as currently constructed does not conform with your POV does not mean it violates WP policy on NPOV. Please re-read the policy summary I quoted above and address this issue. Johncoz (talk) 18:27, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Guidelines seem to be more complicated than you imply. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV_dispute also contains the following:

"There are many ways that an article can fail to adhere to the NPOV policy. Some examples are:

"While each fact mentioned in the article might be presented fairly, the very selection (and omission) of facts can make an article biased"....[This one^ is probably relevant to the points I made?]

"The text and manner of writing can insinuate that one viewpoint is more correct than another....

"The subject or title of the article can imply a particular point of view....

"A type of analysis of facts that can lead to the article suggesting a particular point of view's accuracy over other equally valid analytic perspectives".

--DLMcN (talk) 20:46, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

By your own admission, in multiple places, the Gayre/Lemba hypothesis is a minority view with little support in the scholarly community today. That's what the article reflects. You may think that the academic consensus is mistaken, but that's irrelevant, unless you can cite reliable contemporary sources supporting your various contentions.

And since the Gayre/Lemba hypothesis is a minority (if not outright fringe) theory, the appropriate section of NPOV policy, in the first instance, is WP:UNDUE. In other words, we are not dealing with two equal viewpoints that need to "balanced" against each other.Johncoz (talk) 21:03, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks for your contribution. I stll maintain that (despite the fact that they relate to the minority theory) the various points which I raised above, do need to be addressed directly. Let us see what other editors say.

I am, incidentally, still prepared to look at arguments presented on both sides of the controversy. I am genuinely interested in knowing what is the truth. --DLMcN (talk) 05:31, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

On the tag, only: I do not think that the NPOV tag is proper: yes, we continue to debate (pleasingly in a good faith manner and politely) the inclusion or non-inclusion of material into the article. But that does not mean that the current text is violating NPOV, surely? Yes, it would be POV for an article to insinuate that one viewpoint is more correct than another, but it is absolutely right for an article to state what current researchers say. It is not about "equal time" or equal weight, put per NPOV: Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of, or as detailed, a description as more widely held views - we do not want to create a false balance. An editor may feel that existing work does not adequately address certain points. Even if the editor is right about that, it is neither here nor there, as it's not our views that matter, but those of reliable sources. It would be POV if this article only made reference to research supporting the Gokomere culture as origin for GtZ, or it would be POV if other theories were referred to as racist and unscientific without citing who said that. I think we have a good article that says what research was done, and what later sources have said about earlier work - we have Bent's views on Mauch for another example. Babakathy (talk) 07:11, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Proposal

I propose the NPOV tag be removed from the article on the basis that (i) the main text of the article is consistent with NPOV, (ii) the Lemba section is consistent with WP:UNDUE, which is a section of NPOV. Babakathy (talk) 11:04, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I support the proposal. Though there is still ongoing debate about the article's content (as there should be), it is not in breach of NPOV for reasons most cogently outlined in the post "Various aspects of the current debate". Johncoz (talk) 11:17, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Since consensus seems to have been reached (see next section), I have removed the tag. Johncoz (talk) 00:49, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Various aspects of current debate

I am trying to pull together several threads here, so afraid this is a rather long post. But I think it is important to take a step back as to what we are doing, and what we should try to achieve on this page.

If we look at the current state of archaeological scholarship and research on Great Zimbabwe, three observations can be made with regard to the Lemba:

1. It is a historic theory: the original research on the Lemba as builders of GtZ was done a very long time ago. More recent work is either synthesis or addressing other issues (such as the Lemba genetics).
2. It was a minority viewpoint in its time, and it is not a viewpoint supported by current research.
3. The main current support for a Lemba origin for GtZ is among laypeople.

This is a classic fringe theory. Indeed that DLMcN's manuscript was not accepted by mainstream academic journals is another indication of this - See also this on peer-reviewed sources and fringe theories. We are not obliged to assume good faith on the part of academic journals, but it makes our lives much more complicated if we start thinking they have some politically-based reluctance to accept a theory. (And I mean no offense, if I tried publishing a manuscript in say theology, which I have a deep interest in but only a little formal training, I'd expect a similar response). And an editor who promotes a particular theory in real life (off Wikipedia) should be careful to avoid suggestions that edits are promoting one's own work. That's advice, not accusation please. From the fringe theories guideline: Wikipedia is not a forum for presenting new ideas, for countering any systemic bias in institutions such as academia, or for otherwise promoting ideas which have failed to merit attention elsewhere.

None of this means that I am saying the Lemba hypothesis is disproved. It is not up to an article on Wikipedia to prove or disprove any theory. All that we can report is what reliable sources say is proved or not proved, supported (by whom?), not supported (by whom?). To go beyond this and say that if you put X work together with Y work, can't you see it shows us something is synthesis. We cannot "reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources" - this would be original research. Whether it makes sense to another editor or not is neither here nor there. In fact it is rare for a theory to be "conclusively disproved", unless it is very narrowly defined. It would be quite simple to disprove a theory that GtZ was constructed in the 4th century BC, or to prove a theory that GtZ was inhabited during the 12th century AD, as either of these theories is easy to test against carbon dating. To conclusively prove or disprove that the Lemba built GtZ would be far more complex, given among other things the partial common ancestry of the Lemba and Karanga (and in itself that's my opinion and original research!). But what matters is for the article to reflect the current status of scholarship on the topic.

If the archaeological consensus changes, then the page should change to reflect this. Indeed, if any reliable source is published explicitly supporting a theory that is currently treated as fringe or historic, then the article should give greater prominence to that theory. But until that happens the article should reflect current scholarship.

In the same way, it is not up to editors to decide whether or not a claim made in a reliable source is valid. In Wikipedia, it matters a lot what Pikirayi has to say about Gayre's archaeological research, or what Le Roux has to say about Ruwitah's documentation of oral tradition. It does not matter at all what Babakathy or DLMcN think about their claims. It is not for me to say whether a reliable source has sufficient evidence for the claims the source makes - surely if I am right that that is not really enough, I can find another reliable source who has criticized the first one. If I cannot find such a source, my criticism is itself original research. It is not up to editors here on Wikipedia to prove that current research is accurate and has sufficient evidence to satisfy another editor (or the converse). It is up to us to report what researchers have discovered and determined. If we take the issue of Shona pottery, the article does give Gayre's theory on this, and states its place in more recent research (and yes that needs expanding). There is no added value in repeating Gayre's views in the section on Gokomere culture - just as we don't repeat Garlake and Pikirayi view's on Gayre's work when we talk of their work in later sections. If Gayre had something to say on e.g. Bent's work, it would be worthwhile to add that to the section on Bent. For obvious reasons, an early source like Bent has nothing to say on Pikirayi's work, or Huffman's. Even if it is a contemporary source A saying X which appears to contradict B saying Y, we cannot say that A is disproving B (or attempting to disprove B) unless A actually said that - or if reliable source C says that A's work clearly refutes B's. Otherwise it is original synthesis. All we can do is report A's work and B's.

Let me address the matter of Lemba origins. It is disingenuous to push for more prominence on the Semitic ancestry of the Lemba in this article, which is not about the origins of the Lemba, and then suggest others have an agenda (political reasons) for rejecting work supporting Semitic origins. To make such an accusation is exactly the same as to suggest DLMcN had some political agenda for suggesting Semitic origins in his MQ manuscript (and I don't allege that, it's an example). Further, to suggest that the real reason why the Lemba hypothesis has prompted such a strong counter-reaction, is its implication that the builders of GZim may have been Semitic is unhelpful. Firstly, it gives twinges of fringe and conspiracy theory by suggesting ulterior motives in the archaeological research community and secondly (far more importantly) because unless there's a reliable source alleging this, the suggestion of bias is itself original research. We have a statement of the Lemba's Semitic ancestry in the first sentence on their possible involvement in construction. This also mentions their Bantu ancestry and is a clear statement of current, up to date research on the topic. It is also sufficient, as the main topic of that section is research on GtZ, not research on the Lemba. More is not needed here, and belongs on the Lemba page. A detailed discussion of the Bantu origins of the Gokomere culture would not be relevant here either. It would be equally inappropriate to re-title to The Lemba, and their Semitic ancestors or The Gokomere and their Bantu ancestors. The issue of a political controversy over origins is documented well in the Political implications section. If there's a reliable source documenting a current political controversy over possible Lemba origins, then the source can be written in there.

The current text gives appropriate prominence to research on the Lemba, and gives a clear account of some of the evidence cited by the original researchers. It also gives reliable sources' views of that research. From the fringe theories guideline: Articles which cover controversial, disputed, or discounted ideas in detail should document (with reliable sources) the current level of their acceptance among the relevant academic community - the article does this, covering several different comments. To say Gayre's thesis is not supported by more recent scholars such as Garlake and Pikirayi is precisely appropriate. It's not up to editors to decide whether or not this criticism is valid. If another reliable source has dismissed this criticism (or dismissed Mufuka's comments or whatever) then we can also include that.

And yes, there are other areas of this article that need more, work, especially to bring the detail of the recent research out. Let's spend some time on that... Babakathy (talk) 07:58, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• Excellent post. —Cliftonian (talk) 08:20, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

BabaKathy - Many Thanks! for going to all that trouble, and for wording it so politely.

All things considered - I believe, now, that it would be better if I withdrew from the GZim page - and probably from the Lemba page and the Gayre one too. I shall be deleting them from my watchlist.

Presumably, according to Wikipedia protocol, this means that (because I am no longer a participating editor) it will then be extremely easy for you to remove the NPOV tag.

If, as a result of your further reading, you do manage to discover any concrete evidence in favour of the 'Gokomere' theory, then I would really like to hear about it. In that event, you could leave me a message on my personal Talk-page, or (perhaps better), send an e-mail to DLMcN@yahoo.com

With compliments and sincere regards,

Sala kahle,

--DLMcN (talk) 15:07, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Let me say two things:

1. Strongly appreciate the civil tone you have always taken in these discussions
2. I'd suggest that at a minimum you still watch the article page and perhaps comment from time to time on what is being added, if you do not plan to actually add in material yourself. Babakathy (talk) 16:03, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Glad you're still with us... Babakathy (talk) 07:27, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, it might well be possible to notice items now and again where I could make 'low-level' contributions - [e.g., in the piece which you have recently been editing, looking at " ... colonial and black nationalist groups invoked Great Zimbabwe's past to support their vision of the country's present, through the media of popular history and of fiction" - I had to spend a few seconds wondering whether 'former' and 'latter' referred to "colonial/black nationalists", or [more likely?] to "history/fiction"].

Thank you for your sentiments, but no - if I were to continue here, it is likely that something would eventually appear which I would find very provocative. Similarly, there were items in your long piece above which did seem to merit a reply and further comment - but it is undoubtedly best just to leave it now. My personal talk-file will still remain capable of receiving messages. Cheers! --DLMcN (talk) 09:28, 14 May 2013 (UTC)