Is the Unesco World Heritage site built on a foundation of false assumptions? A victim of political expediency, ignorance, or just plain apathy?
The controversy over the origin of the Zimbabwean civilisation has been a thorn in the side of historians for over a century. Archaeologists and scientists on both sides have either been ignored or severely taken to task by their contemporaries for ineptitude, ignorance, expediency, racism, romanticism and a dozen other slanderous shortcomings, and we are still no closer to the truth. Or has it simply been covered over and confined to the bottom drawer?
This blog will attempt prise open this drawer and take a closer look inside. Opinions are welcome, but facts, accompanied by referrals will carry more weight when attempting to convince the editors of encyclopaedias to at least conclude that there is an educated opposition to the so called Bantu theory, to give it some credence, and not simply ignore the alternative because it is easier and less controversial to continue with the status quo.
One of the Wiki editors has an admirable philosophy included in his profile: 'The lack of evidence itself is not evidence that the evidence does not exist'. It is a philosophy that all editors involved with the GZ controversy in particular, should keep in mind.
Wikipedia is a great concept and a great encyclopaedia, but it must remain true to its mandate of being an open book for the people. Anyone may contribute, which is why we have chosen Wiki as the ideal way of introducing the opposing theory to the current established one. In doing so however, we are finding that Wiki can quickly become a closed book. They will not publish any article that is controversial, which is quite understandable, but an opposing theory is already by its nature controversial. And who makes that decision? It is difficult to convince the jury when most of your evidence has been lost, stolen or misinterpreted, and all the evidence you have left is circumstantial, backed up by pure common sense and comparative observation. Encyclopaedias are bastions of knowledge and therefore also need to be the champions of truth.
At the very least it is our intention to establish an alternative theory to that of the current 'so called' Bantu theory', and to get this alternative recognised. For too long, this UNESCO world heritage site has suffered the ignominy of apathy and political expedience.
So… let the search for the truth continue!
The following post was extracted from an email from David Love, an editor of Wikipedia, sent to David McNaughton, who has been campaigning vigorously to establish what he and many others believe to be the truth behind the origin of the Great Zimbabwe Ruins and its builders.
ReplyDeleteTo David McNaughton
From David Love (Wiki)
“You say that there are facts which must be explained before claims of a Shona origin can be “comprehensively vindicated”. What do you mean by “comprehensively vindicated” – can anything be proved to such an extent in archaeology? The Wikipedia article says that there is by now a consensus amongst archaeologists as to Shona origins.....>
The Wikipedia article does mention briefly that “Great Zimbabwe” is also claimed by the Lemba. If there are reliable sources that document that claim further, then by all means add them. ...... As regards the Lemba as possible constructors of Zimbabwe, if you can find suitable citations to expand the discussion from the current single sentence, then by all means do. However it is not appropriate to build an extended discussion without reliable sources. And if the only source raising this issue is your self-published article, it really does become original research to reproduce your arguments from your article in a Wikipedia article.
.... Wikipedia deals with established research, not original research (see the policies I linked you to) and is not the appropriate place for you to pursue your arguments with archaeological community. Wikipedia is not the place to promote fringe theories. And if it is not a fringe theory, then there must be sources out there other than your self-published article – in which case use them to expand the sentence on the Lemba in the Wikipedia article.”
Regards
David Love
Reply from D. McNaughton
ReplyDeleteDear David Love,
I do appreciate the time and trouble which you have spent in replying.
A few days ago, I placed a piece in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Great_Zimbabwe_National_Monument ... It has not yet been challenged.
For easy reference, I have copied it at the end of this mail. The version appended here is actually slightly different from the original - but the gist remains the same. In any event, it includes the multiple quotation marks necessary to render portions of its text in bold or in italics; (those are particularly useful in its 'Reference' section).
Perhaps the most constructive way of judging this piece - is to regard it as a suggestion to archaeologists, anthropologists and historians to examine whether the evidence really does disprove the hypothesis that the Shona artefacts were placed in the various ruins only after they conquered the country. As I am sure you are aware, there are educated people supporting both sides of the controversy [I am not fighting a lone battle here] - so it would be helpful if we could focus on this question.
I could of course add this [attached] contribution myself - right now - into the main Wikipedia "Great Zimbabwe" page, but it would be better to avoid a "war" whereby you immediately remove it, and I then put it back, etc. etc. The "Talk" page associated with the main one is obviously a platform by which differences can be resolved by discussion before making the final article available for public display.
That proposed piece does not include my name, nor does it include a reference-link to my article. I am quite happy to leave these out.
----- From your Last Message -----
... can anything be proved to such an extent in archaeology?
If we are ever going to get to the bottom of this, then we will certainly need more than archaeology can provide - e.g., contributions by geneticists, anthropologists and linguists will also be relevant, as well as references to historical documents.
Yours sincerely,
David McNaughton
Subject: Re: [Ticket#2010020410032882] Wikipedia Discussion-file on Ancient Zimbabwe
ReplyDeleteDear David & Lilty McNaughton,
Thank you for your email.....>
......>
Your post [in the 'Great Zimbabwe' Talk-page] recently received a response:
"The article has not and does not dismiss completely the hypothesis of a Semitic origin - it mentions the Lemba claim and the Jewsih link (which is referenced/cited). However, the fact that none of the above sources are discussing the origins of Great Zimbabwe makes the above argument original research and not appropriate for wikipedia. If an argument such has the above has been advanced in a reliable source then find it, add it to the article where it talks of the Lemba and cite the source. But the above is an original, unpublished synthesis and does not policy requirements for inclusion in the article. Babakathy (talk) 14:11, 4 February 2010 (UTC)"
This response is entirely correct. As an encyclopedia, a tertiary source, Wikipedia summarizes and reports previously published facts and points of view. It does not publish novel facts, or synthesize facts into novel points of view. While we appreciate your interest in using Wikipedia to educate the world on this matter, Wikipedia cannot accept this specific contribution.
Yours sincerely,
Robert Johnson
From: David Love
ReplyDeleteTo: David & Lilty McNaughton ; David Love
Cc: Joe Daly (Wikipedia Info) ; DLMcN@yahoo.com
Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 2:21 PM
Subject: Re: Wikipedia Discussion-file on Ancient Zimbabwe
Dear David
I've responded on the talk page but I am afraid you are missing the point: the material you want to add is your original research, unpublished elsewhere. Wikipedia policy does not accept that. Whether I agree with the arguments you advance or not. Until you can find a published source advancing the Lemba hypothesis we make no progress. Wikipedia as an encyclopedia does not publish original research.
That said, I do agree with you on the constructive interpretation of your piece: it does raise questions and suggest lnes of inquiry. However, that is not what an encyclopedia is for.
regards
David
Hello again David L....
ReplyDeleteFirst, thank you for making a positive comment related to the need to try and resolve this business (your second paragraph of 4th February, first sentence).
Second, Robert Johnson in the WikiPedia Information Team implies that my efforts comprise a "novel" point of view. That is actually very misleading - it is not new at all. Its earliest roots date right back to the beginning of the last century - when members of the Berlin Missionary Society noticed the unusual features of the Lemba community, and wondered whether that tribe might have been associated with Great Zimbabwe.
I have taken you at your word (your mail of February 3rd) - and my revised suggestion is now appended immediately below this letter. It is a completely detached, objective, and accurate account of what Gayre, Murdock, Layland and Hall wrote in various published texts. Those authors all discuss the origins of Ancient Zimbabwe.
Other cited references are essential because they corroborate the important facts without taking sides in the dispute. In other words, those secondary sources provide confirmation that the key points cited by Gayre, Hall, etc. are quite correct. [Some people might try and claim that Gayre is not a 'reliable source' in this context].
I have avoided inserting any interpretation of my own. There is, in any event, no need for additional commentary. My name will not appear anywhere on the "Great Zimbabwe" page, nor will there be any link to my article.
Multiple quotation marks for bold and italic text are still there in the proposed new piece below, but the reference numbers will need to be adapted to the WikiPedia editing format.
Following the lead from your present page, I have retained a mention of Parfitt's DNA tests. This is indeed important evidence in the controversy. Thus, can we assume that your reference [32] to his Jurimetrics paper will still remain on your page under that same number?
Obviously, your suggestions will be welcome regarding changes in the content and presentation.
Hoping that we are now making progress ...
...and with regards,
David McN
Thanks Jerry ... if I can clarify anything, please ask. Keep up the good work! ... David McN, > Website: www.DLMcN.com
ReplyDelete