Talk:Mutapa Empire

[Untitled]

A much better time frame should be established... --Joy [shallot] 17:58, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The sentence: "Johannesburg is stilln often referred to a the "city of gold" and in fact it's name in nearly all indigenous languages translates as exactly that (compare Gauteng in Sotho and Egoli in Zulu)." is absolutely nonsence if related to Munhumutapa. You can't related an expression from the 19th and 20th centrury to the medivial age, where this expression did not exist. To win gold in Witwatersrand needs a technological knowledge, which could not exist in that time in Africa. - compare it with the German version here in Wikipedia.

Maps

What, no maps?

;>

I wonder where the best sources of GIS maps is for pre-european african states.

Pazouzou 05:11, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Spelling of Empire name for article?

I think that we should choose one spelling of the name and stick with it to simplify things.

--Thefirechild 12:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC).

Please, this is garbage. It was not an Empire. It was a an area where a particular people(s)lived with a very modest 'city' built largely by Arab slave-labourers who had stonemasonry knowledge. There was no central administration or anything remotely like it, no literature or anything else. For 1500 in the rest of the world that is absurd. Don't make such futile attempts to give credit to this lot when it is undeserving. Revisionist history should be kept out of this project. 81.131.57.137 09:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Please delete this comment, it WAS an empire, a magnificent one at that, racial prejudice has completely, and I mean completely, left Shona culture and history in total shambles, the great ancient sites and spiritual grounds got robbed by foreigners, the researchers sent to the Hreat Zimbabwe plateau gave false history in their research articles until much later when a white lady and a team of all female archaeologists got the story of Ancient Zimbabwe straight, and it wasn’t easy- their research got rejected several times, because the westerners wanted to believe that it WAS NOT black people that built such a massive kingdom. I truly urge anyone that wants the truth to avidly search and research and contribute to more information about this magnificent palace. I heard there’s an animated series about monomotapa that’s gonna be released in a year or so, should be a great way to honour the great ancestors. 105.186.164.8 (talk) 04:27, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Your claim that it was "built largerly by Arab slave-labourers" is complete and utter baseless conjecture. PROVE IT, or don't comment.

Given that older descriptions of Great Zimbabwe and other African archaeological sites have been made in environments of institutionalised racism, disregarding newer research as “revisionism” would be absurd. However, in order to maintain NPOV it would be good if the article covered more perspectives, current and historical. Incidentally, Wikipedia defines masonry as “the building of structures from individual units laid in and bound together by mortar“; Great Zimbabwe (and the two hundred or so lesser zimbabwes) are entirely dry stone. -Ahruman 12:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Clarification of lists

The article has two lists of "Mwenes or Monomatapas." It looks like those are lists of names of individuals, but I'm just guessing because the article doesn't say what "Mwene" or "Monomatapa" means. Is it some kind of title borne by the rulers of the empire? If so, does "Monomatapa Empire" basically mean something like "Empire of the Emperor"? Someone please clarify. PubliusFL 06:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Clarified. --Ghirla^-трёп- 21:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Much clearer, thank you! PubliusFL 14:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Prince Nyatsimba Mutota, who was bent on extending the boundaries of the kingdom, took his court north and established his capital at Gota Hill just south of the Zambezi River. He named it Chitaka-Changonwa. From there he systematically waged war against all those who would not submit to his rule. The conquered tribes named him Wilayatu ‘l Mu’anamutapah; or the Lord of the Plundered lands.

He took their curse as his praise name and was thereafter known as the Mutapa.( Research done by a lady from South Africa called Cassandra Puren - wrote research based off of Dr Abrahams research of Great Zimbabwe) 105.186.164.8 (talk) 04:33, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Here is my analysis of "mwenemutapa" and "munhumutapa". I am a first language speaker of the Shona language of Zimbabwe.

"mwene", in the Karanga dialect of the Shona language of Zimbabwe, means "the owner". "ku-tapa" means "to capture or to conquer" whereas "ku-tapwa" means "to be conquered or captured". "mu-tapa" means "the one who conquers or captures" and "mu-tapwa" means "the conquered one" or "the captured one". Synthesising the two gives either "mwene wemutapa", which means "the owner of conquerors", or "mwene wemu-tapwa", which means "the owner of the conquered ones".

"Monomotapa" is a foreign rendering and does not mean anything to us Shona speakers ... so I will not bother analysing it.

"Munhumutapa" is a contraction of "munhu mu-tapa". "munhu" means the same as "umuntu" in Zulu and Ndebele and means "a person" in a gender neutral sense derived from the concept of "unhu" in Shona or "ubuntu" in Zulu/Ndebele. BTW the term "unhu" or "ubuntu" cannot be easily translated into English and is not exclusively a ZULU/South Aftican concept as the Ubuntu Linux people seem to claim - its a concept that spans and permeates all cultures of Sub-Saharan African cultures including Shona culture. "munhu mutapa" literally translates to "to be a person (munhu) is to be (mu-) a conqueror (-tapa)". This give us a totally different meaning to the one above. This is essentially due to the difference in meaning between "mwene" (owner) and "munhu" (a person who embodies "ubuntu" or "unhu").

"Ravager of the Lands" is not a correct translation of either Mwenemutapa or Munhumutapa. The idea was not to "ravage" the lands and the peoples it was more the idea of conquering for the purpose of bringing the lands and peoples under the dominion of the conqueror.

Shona names ALWAYS HAVE A MEANING in the Shona language. Shona names are always an embodiment of history. The word "ravage" translates to the Shona word "kuparadza". "ravager of lands" translates to "muparadzi wematunhu", which contracts to "Muparadzidunhu" and this is nowhere near "munhumutapa" or "mwenemutapa". Whoever contributed the translation that involve any notion of "ravaging" does not understand Shona language and is certainly not a native speaker of the language.

To answer the above question:

• "Mwenemutapa Empire" means "empire of the owner of the conquerors"
• "Munhumutapa Empire" means "empire of the one who conquers"

As to which one is correct, I cannot tell at this point. Wikipedia might have to include these two and DISCARD "monomotapa", which has no meaning in the Shona language, being a foreign rendering. -- Mwana wevhu 18:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

ok, it looks like the history section was written by a 5 year old. for example, "great king" is an opinionated statement, and has no place in an encyclopedia like entry. second of all, I know there were arguments about the spelling of "monomotapa", but the article entry should not clarify that "monomotapa" is in fact the correct spelling. also, the general tone of the history section sounds like it was written as a lower school history paper. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.199.162.154 (talk) 21:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Racism and White Supremacism

I have deleted the following statement:

"African folklore has it that this polity was preceded and loosely based on the empire of "the strange ones", reported to have had white skins, red hair and green eyes."

The above statement has no real foundation except the usual racist and white supremacist and evil machinations. Being an African and a Shona person borne and bred at and around Great Zimbabwe and whose ancestors have lived near this ancient city, I am not aware of any African folklore that makes this preposterous claim. The only time in Zimbabwean folklore that we encounter white skinned people is long after the establishment of and not at the inception of the Mwenemutapa Empire. In our folklore, Zimbabwean folklore, there is also no notion of "the strange ones" or their role in shaping the people's history. Also, in Zimbabwean folklore, there exists no description of a people with the attributes given in this statement. Whoever contributed this statement does not know Zimbabwean folklore. Furthermore, white people in Zimbabwean folkore do not exist as rulers up until 1890 when Rhodes and his Pioneer Column appeared. Besides, why talk of "African folklore" when you can be specific. The only folklore that would be directly relevant and worth considering with respect to the Munhumutapa/Mwenemutapa Empire is specifically Shona Folklore of Zimbabwe and part of Mozambique. -- Mwana wevhu 19:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Or long before the Shona ever showed up. Not British or Afrikaner "white people", but the ones who were the actual "Monomotapa". By the way, 'Great Zimbabwe' wasn't even part of yhis so-called "empire". It was a trading post, where the actual "Monomotapa" would trade with Portuguese, Somalian and Malaysian traders, who weren't allowed inside the boundaries of the actual area. After the actual area declined (and there's another whole reason for that), the trading post declined, and was abandoned. And then, centuries later, the Shona, then the British showed up. It's preposterous to claim that just because a peole are in a majority in an area now, that anything in that land must have been built by their ancestors. Or, for that matter, that becausepeople are in the majority in a region today,that that means they must be indigenous. Using that 'logic' "white people" must be the indigenous people of Australia and New Zealand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.86.143.140 (talk) 05:48, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Well the Racist, White Supremacist appears to be an amateur black Historian from Harare who has a special interest in the Shona. The original source is uncited but the content that it comes from 'appears' more detailed and authoritative than this article. According to the author -

"The Empire of Great Zimbabwe (also called Munhu mu tapa, Mwene Mutapa, Manhumutapa, Monomotapa, Mutapa, all meaning "Ravager of the Lands") was a medieval kingdom (c. 1450-1629) which used to stretch between the Zambezi and Limpopo rivers of Southern Africa in the modern states of Zimbabwe and Mozambique. Its capital city was the Great Zimbabwe.

The empire is thought to have been established by the Rozvi whose descendants include the modern-day Shona people. African folklore has it that this polity was preceded and loosely based on the empire of "the strange ones", reported to have had white skins, red hair and green eyes. The founder of the ruling dynasty was Mbire, a semimythical potentate active in the 14th century. Great Zimbabwe reached its zenith around the 1440s on the virtue of its brisk trade in gold conducted with Arabs via the seaport of Sofala south of the Zambezi delta. The fabrics of Gujarat were traded for gold along the coast.

By the beginning of the 16th century, the pressures from European and Arab traders began to change the balance of power in the region. Mbire's purported great-great-grandson Nyatsimba was the first ruler to assume the title of the "Ravager of the Lands", which became hereditary among his descendants. It was he who moved the capital from Great Zimbabwe to Mount Fura by the Zambezi."

It's lacking sources but I was momentarily interested in Greater Zimbabwe a while back and I too can recall the inhabitants of Greater Zimbabwe being described as not Shona by the local Shona peoples when first asked about it by Europeans. I'll seek the original source. 2001:8003:70F5:2400:65CA:C8D1:782C:10D0 (talk) 12:40, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Mutapa and Great Zimbabwe the same or not?

Going through my old world history textbook (World History: Patterns of Interaction by Dr. Roger B. Beck, Linda Black, Larry S. Krieger, Dr. Phillip C. Naylor, and Dahia Ibo Shabaka) the book states that Great Zimbabwe was in great decline by the begining of the 15th century and completely abandoned by 1450 while the seperate Mutapa Empire established by one Mutota conquering the lands formerly controlled by Great Zimbabwe. Does anyone hav information on this contradiction? --Harel Newman 23:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree , I think the article needs to be changed as Great Zimbabwe was abandoned sometime in the 1400s. I recall that Goncalo de Silveira was at the court of the Mwenemutapa in what is now Mashonaland North around 1560 and when Antonio Fernandes explored the Manicaland around 50 years earlier nobody knew anything about an inhabited city where Great Zimbabwe now stands.--AssegaiAli 22:15, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I have been trying to get the location of the Mwene Mutapa court when António Fernandes vijsited it circa 1514 (José Clara) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.133.84.150 (talk) 11:58, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Zulu from north of Zambezi??

I have never heard of this origin for the Amazulu, who did not exist as a unit people but were welded together by amalgamation of smaller Nguni-derived peoples in what is now South Africa during the mfeqane/difiqane in 18 and 19th century. (see Dingane, Chaka zulu, etc). As far as I know the Nguni came down through waht is now Mocambique. Unless you are referring to the Barotse now in the NW of Zambia. I think the statement that Zulu weakened Mwenemutapa is suspect and should be changed or bettter researched. Khumalo/Zulu people went to Zambia under Mzilikazi but that was in 1825 or thereabouts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.27.90.186 (talk) 23:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Religion

Please be precise about the part of Africa where these chibadis were found by this misionary. It seems this was recorded in Mutapa and Kongo Kingdoms in the same year by the same misionary. Is this not a simple cut and paste. (Comment made in main page by Special:Contributions/82.37.187.104) Touchatou (talk) 12:49, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Whose Empire was it?

There was an interesting discussion on another website about this "African civilization".

Some interesting images (I can't upload here):

(I have also deliberately NOT included any of the conjecture from the website. As such, there is no "conspiracy" here, ONLY authentic images from the time of Monomotapa.)

1. The Capital City was not in 'Zimbabwe' Rather it was on the exact spot of modern-day Pretoria.

https://www.stolenhistory.org/attachments/pretoria_map_1_1-jpg.22032/

2)But, WHO precisely ruled this "Empire"? Well, here's a 1522 Portuguese illustration..

https://www.stolenhistory.org/attachments/king_old-jpg.22035/

We see the Ruler sitting on the spot where modern-day Pretoria is., ie. NOT in 'Zimbabwe'.

And a closer look at that King reveals his ethnicity as well.

https://www.stolenhistory.org/attachments/hengi_1-jpg.22028/

This was the Reality of Southern Africa in 1522. Before the 1652 landing of Jan van Riebecck. 197.86.143.10 (talk) 06:23, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Coat of arms

Hello, can anyone explain to me the description of the Coat of arms file? I just read the German article about the Kingdom of Mutapa and found this text: (English: Coat of arms granted in 1569 to 'The Emperor Monomatapa' (Mwenemutapa) by the King of Portugal. Blazon: Gules between two arrows Argent an African hoe barwise bladed Argent handled Or - The shield surmounted by a Crown Oriental.) The first sentence is fine with me. The second part seems to be a strange translation from French? maybe Catalan/Spanish/Portugease? to English, but there is no French text nor Portuguese. What is „Gules“? „Barwise“? „Argent“ must be „silver“, „Or“ = „“gold(en)“, I guess. Thank you very much for your help! Erbsenesche (talk) 19:10, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

I found myself an answer for the word "gules" (in Wikipedia, of course :):

"In heraldry, gules (/ˈɡjuːlz/) is the tincture with the colour red. It is one of the class of five dark tinctures called "colours", the others being azure (blue), sable (black), vert (green) and purpure (purple)." :The words "argent" and "or" are mentioned there,too. Still missing "barwise"".Erbsenesche (talk) 16:09, 4 February 2023 (UTC)