Great Zimbabwe

Shona speaking Bantu people constructed them from a period of 1000 AD to the 16th century. The site was originally settled in 400 AD but it expanded as the population grew. The people who built it came from a settlement called Mapugumbwe which also had cut drystone stone architecture.Yhe people that built Mapugumbwe were mixed Khohesian and Bantu.
Great Zimbabwe was composed of hundreds of these stone ruins that formed the civilization from the coast to the Limpopo river.
Oh and anyone who thinks that Aliens or a lost tribe of Phoenicians built it is retarded

>Oh and anyone who thinks that Aliens or a lost tribe of Phoenicians built it is retarded
Still more credible than Bantus.

Ian Smith

Any thing that goes against my bais is wrong

Was it really that great

Like I said they did genetic test on
bones from Mapugumbwe and they were Negroid go look up some articles on it. Plus Shona speakers after Great Zimbabwe was abandoned moved to Khami and founded more settlements and resumed trade.

Bantus NEVER built anything like that, nowhere else, despite being one of the largest ethnics, widespread on half of the continent. I don't find it very credible.

>Oh and anyone who thinks that Aliens or a lost tribe of Phoenicians built it is retarded

Ok, now the sjws are blackwashing the aliens too.

So evidence is wrong because I don't like it

>evidence

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Zimbabwe

>Oh and anyone who thinks that Aliens or a lost tribe of Phoenicians built it is retarded

>they were Negroid
That's not an ethnicity. It could be anyone from Senegal to Swaziland.

Great Zimbabwe is akin to the missipian mound builers

Built by the Shona people

WE

WAZ

KANGZ

If your very flawed logic was true then Ancient Pueblo people who lived in stone houses and enclosures and Mississippian's that lived in wood and thatched huts mounds are different races right?
Just because Bantu people are wife spread doesn't mean they are a monolithic culture. The Zulu have an entirely different way of life and customs from people living in the Kingdom of Kongo. They are all genetically similar just have different cultures.

It's all ooga booga. Nobody cares about these cannibals.

We was dumbass

Stop being racist. Not all blacks are dumb.

The...Zimbabweans?
/pol/fag, please go back to /pol/

Yeah but no. It would be like saying Germans built Notre Dame just because they're genetically related to French. Bantus are the Hans of Africa, they claim every culture they phagocyted.

>Bantus are the Hans of Africa, they claim every culture they phagocyted.

What are you talking about?

West africans built tichitt Benin djenne all the tichitt settlements Kano

Kumasi Kamen etc

This
Ancient Aliens

These were a series of stone settlements

The jews

I don't really get why this is a big deal.
It's not like this is an impressive construction

Because it is this weird reaction to /pol/-posting that Africans were stuck in the paleolithic, then some mulattos get upset and start to post about the glorious civilizations of Africa.

Truth be told, they had some advanced cultures but nothing particular, just mediocrity.

Explain, what do you know about these civs ? What characterize their "mediocrity" ?
If you are so knowledgeable on African history, do you have any thoughts on the Kouroukan Fouga ? How this event could be described as "mediocre" ?
If you have nothing to say >> /pol/

What about any given medieval city, with their massive stone walls and wooden houses?

I'm genuinely interested in learning about African history. Got any books you can recommend to read?

- indigenous African institutions
- African Archaeology (Third Edition), by David. W. Phillipson
- The Oxford Handbook of African Archaeology
- Ancient African Town(Metropolis (Pb))

Whites are known for building stone walls
Blacks are known for mud castles

Yes.

Where you go wrong is in assuming that one is inherently superior to the other.

And furthermore that does not mean that blacks cannot, on occasion, build stone walls. It's just a bit uncommon.

One is still there since the middle age

The other had to be rebuilt in 1907 and must be remudded every week ever since

And all the temples in Japan burn down and have to be rebuilt every generation. So what?

Maruoka Castle is one of the oldest surviving castles in Japan and is rumored to have been constructed with a human pillar which can be found in the legend of "O-shizu, Hitobashira".

When Shibata Katsutoyo, the nephew of Shibata Katsuie, was building a castle in Maruoka, the stone wall of the castle kept collapsing no matter how many times it was piled up. There was one vassal who suggested that they should make someone a human sacrifice (itobashira). O-shizu, a one-eyed woman who had two children and lived a poor life, was selected as the Hitobashira. She resolved to become one on the condition that one of her children be made a samurai. She was buried under the central pillar of the castle keep. Soon after that the construction of the castle keep was successfully completed. But Katsutoyo was transferred to another province, and her son was not made a samurai. Her spirit felt resentful, and made the moat overflow with spring rain when the season of cutting algae came in April every year. People called it, "the rain caused by the tears of O-shizu's sorrow" and erected a small tomb to soothe her spirit. There was a poem handed down,"The rain which falls when the season of cutting algae comes Is the rain reminiscent of the tears of the poor O-shizu's sorrow"

Neat.

Weeb

poor O-shizu...

- you can change the architecture of mud buildings very easily unlike stone buildings
- maintenance is really easy because you literally just have to collect some mud and slap it on
- cool in summers and warm in winters
- building cost is very low because you have no long transportation costs for stone

Yeah, fuck whitey and his palaces, castles, skyscrapers...etc
Mudhut is the intelligent man's feti....housing

- stone is solid
- mud is not, and this is why the wall of Benin has been destroyed in less than 2 seconds by the British.

Beside you, nobody is talking about whitey here, mate.

Mud has some advantage over stone in term of productivity when it comes to building in certain regions in a certain time...

you should stop thinking that building with stone is something that requires some enormously high iq. it's down to what is more convenient. incas used stone, africans didn't. doesn't mean incas were more sophisticated or something.

also, stone buildings are not going to last very long if you don't maintain.

Does not outweigh the downsides from building things out of mud. Mud is inferior to stone and wood as a building material and west african reliance on mud as a building material is an example of their inferiority to most other cultures.

That's nothing but your own cultural bias.

This argument doesn't stand because
1. How can a material be "inferior"
2. Africans use stone, iron and bronze, just not for architecture.

Even then, they did use stone for building in Ethiopia, the Horn etc.

People in Scotland were living in turf huts until well into the 1800s.

They did this not because they were "inferior" but because turf was the most economical material to use, and actually preferable to stone for its ability to keep the building warm.

And that is literally the only practical benefit of stone.

How many cannons did Africans have to deal with before the 1800s?

It's not like a stone wall would have been terribly more effective against a 1900 modern military super power.

they weren't particularly effective since 1453

Arabs(And other ME peoples.) most likely, it dates to a time wheb Arabs dominated in that part of Africa.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilwa_Sultanate
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Zimbabwe
"Construction of the stone buildings(Of Great Zimbabwe) started in the 11th century"
"The Kilwa Sultanate was a Medieval sultanate, centered at Kilwa (an island off modern-day Tanzania), whose authority, at its height, stretched over the entire length of the Swahili Coast. It was founded in the 10th century by Ali ibn al-Hassan Shirazi,[1] a Persian prince of Shiraz.[2] By 13th century, the Swahili coast came under sphere influence of Ajuran Empire"

>the kilwa sultanate were arabs

>the persians were arabs

>zimbabwe is on the swahili coast

do you even rome bro?

>great zimbabwe is was built by arabs, despite the fact it doesn't look like anything else built by arabs, ever

Lmao, you praise the oral tradition of a collection of rules and laws whereas the by Veeky Forums deemed primitive Germanic tribes literally had the same tradition except they did manage to codify.it 700 years earlier.

Get the fuck out with your pathetic apologism.

>Mud is inferior to stone and wood as a building material
That's kind of a broad stroke. Weighted for cost and labor, mud is often superior for some applications. For instance, a mud hut in a hot environment should have a cooler interior than wood or stone. In a dry, seismically inactive environment, this may be worth a lot more to inhabitants than whatever stone or wood might offer -- which, I suspect, is either aesthetics or defensive capacity. If these aren't priorities than why would you go to all the trouble?

Materials are rarely "inferior" or "superior". They are better suited to some applications than others. We'd say steel is superior to iron, but a steel-tipped pilum would be inferior to an iron-tipped one. We'd say bronze is inferior to iron, but bronze is superior for sculpture. Since there are many building environments and applications, you should be careful not apply sweeping statements of objective value to building materials.

Mud can be a great building material if left to Europeans.

Arabs constituted a significant portion of their society(Though the majority where mostly Black.)
I mainly used the term Arab because Middle Easterner is more clunky also there is significant scholarly dispute about whether the Middle Eastern settlers where Arab or Persian with the majority leaning towards the Arabs. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shirazi_people
"There are two main theories about the origins of the Shirazi people. One thesis based on oral tradition states that immigrants from the Shiraz region in southwestern Iran directly settled various mainland ports and islands on the eastern Africa seaboard beginning in the tenth century, in an area between Mogadishu, Somalia in the north and Sofala in the south.[9][10] According to Irving Kaplan, prior to the 7th century, the coastal areas frequented by the Persian migrants were inhabited by non-Negroid Africans. By the time of the Persian settlement in the area, these earlier occupants had been displaced by incoming Bantu and Nilotic populations.[11] More people from different parts of the Persian Gulf also continued to migrate to the Swahili coast over several centuries thereafter, and these formed the modern Shirazi.[12]

The second theory on Shirazi origins posits that they came from Persia, but first settled on the Somalia littoral near Mogadishu.[9] In the twelfth century, as the gold trade with the distant entrepot of Sofala on the Mozambique seaboard grew, the settlers are then said to moved southwards to various coastal towns in Kenya, Tanzania, northern Mozambique and the Indian Ocean islands. By 1200 AD, they had established local sultanates and mercantile networks on the islands of Kilwa, Mafia and Comoros along the Swahili coast, and in northwestern Madagascar.[13][3][14][15][16]"

Nice arabic buildings.

So there were some arabs, but they very quickly integrated with the local population.

You're left with the problem that Zimbabwe isn't the Swahili coast, and Great Zimbabwe doesn't look like an Arab style fort.

"Some academics have questioned the authenticity of the primarily Persian origin claim.[17][18] They point to the relative rarity of Persian customs and speech, lack of documentary evidence of Shia Islam in the Muslim literature on the Swahili Coast, and instead a historic abundance of Sunni Arab-related evidence.[19] These academics state that the evidence confirms mass migration to the African coast over the centuries from the Persian Gulf and Arabia, but Persian Gulf is much more than a Persian coast.[19] There are also several different versions of stories about the settlement of Shirazi along the Swahili Coast.[20] According to Ari Nave and Irving Kaplan, the Shirazi ethnic group is likely the result of "a combined African, Arab and Persian" elements.[2][11] Jack Drake indicates that through these intermarriages between Persian and Arab male settlers and local Bantu women, the offspring learned Persian and Arab terms related to culture, navigation merchandise, war, artisanal tools, products and travel, as well as Bantu agricultural and daily vocabulary.[21]"
I fucking know that it isn't directly on the coastline you fucking pillock. It is however in the same region of Africa as the Swahili coast and is not that far inland.
It is a simple defensive structure built in a colonial environment, there probably wasn't much time to add various architectural flourishes.

It was built by the sea peoples/Mycenaeans and covered by Mugabe

>I fucking know that it isn't directly on the coastline you fucking pillock. It is however in the same region of Africa as the Swahili coast and is not that far inland.

It's nearly 400 kilometers. Is there any actual evidence the Swahili reached that far inland?

>It is a simple defensive structure built in a colonial environment, there probably wasn't much time to add various architectural flourishes.

We're not talking about architectural flourishes, we're talking about the most basic level of construction. And if it was a "simple defensive structure" then how come it's actually massive, monumental drystone construction that would've taken thousands on man-hours, as opposed to a simple wooden palisade?

Ummmm sweetie, what do you mean West-Africa was mediocre? Go back to /pol/ lmao.

Arabs built their forts square, and with towers, like the Romans. Zimbabwe is circular.

...

...

Not made by subsaharan negroes.

White Rhodesians

>It's nearly 400 kilometers. Is there any actual evidence the Swahili reached that far inland?
Swahili languages are known to be spoken commonly as far west as the Congo.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swahili_language
>We're not talking about architectural flourishes, we're talking about the most basic level of construction. And if it was a "simple defensive structure" then how come it's actually massive, monumental drystone construction that would've taken thousands on man-hours, as opposed to a simple wooden palisade?
Its simple in the same manner many early American structures where simple; they lack the flourish and sophistication of their home country and often times even large projects didn't attempt fully replicate their home countries styles.

The left pictures are, the right ones aren't. But they are built in the same era and the houses are built with the same material, except one is vastly superior to the other, despite what the relativists faggots here say.

Yes I know Arab fortresses are typically allot more complex then Great Zimbabwe. However I've already addressed this point and circular fortifications aren't something completely unknown to the Arabs.

>Swahili languages are known to be spoken commonly as far west as the Congo.

Language ≠ people

Again, is there any actual evidence that Swahili political power extended into Zimbabwe by the time Great Zimbabwe was built?

>Its simple in the same manner many early American structures where simple; they lack the flourish and sophistication of their home country and often times even large projects didn't attempt fully replicate their home countries styles

Again, we are not talking about flourish or sophistication. We are talking about the most basic construction. Great Zimbabwe isn't simple. It's huge, far too huge to be practical. It's a monument to power, very similar to European hillforts from the iron age.

They are simply not part of the same material culture.

Do we have any other evidence of Arab occupation? Arab style pottery? Steel? Coins?

>Posts pictures of inferior Sub/Lower Saharan negro architecture who despite their immense mineral wealth which was used to purchase the aid of the much older Middle Eastern civilizations still couldn't build anything to match.
>All cultures are equal go back to /pol/

Ethiopia is not subsaharan africa. Or is it?

Ethiopia is Ethiopia.

Who built Akan houses?

It’s somewhat similar to the bronze age forts from Italy though the Italian forts had multiple towers

...