Why exactly did Native Africans build a stone structure in Zimbabwe and then never make another structure like it every again? It makes no sense and i have to question if Africans had anything to do with it
Great zimbabwe really is not that impressive compared to what Egytians, greeks, and Romans have done, but still it is odd
Fuck you.
>>388836
>literally in the stone age
![stonehenge[1].png](https://i.imgur.com/tXYxUqn.jpg "stonehenge[1].png")
Why exactly did Native Europeans build a stone structure in Britain and then never make another structure like it every again? It makes no sense and i have to question if Europeans had anything to do with it
>>388817
>never make another structure like it every again
but there are dozens of structures like that in the region
Why are people so obsessed with this? It has NO relevance for history
Memes
>>388975
Just wondering who built it
>>388971
>Stonehenge
>3600BC
>"great" Zimbabwie
>11th century
Actually there are tons of monolithic structures all over England,
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newgrange
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Callanish_Stones
Darkie BTFO
>>388975
Rhodesians found it and couldn't believe Africans could stack blocks, so they said it was built by Arabs/Phoenicians/Aliens instead and wouldn't let anyone say otherwise. Of course not a single serious archaeologists has ever though it was anything other than a native construction, but Stormshits still won't let it go.
>>388975
Because not only relevant cultures are interesting. Desu I love the gigantic variety of human cultures and considering how many people study anthropology, I'm not the only one.
>>388981
Just like there are plenty of structures similar to the great zimbabwe.
Your retarded implications make no sense.
>>388971
There is actually a lot of "structures" like stone henge all over Britain.
>>388986
>Rhodesia
It had to be about that fucking meme country again.
>>388996
Exactly, just like the zimbabwe.
For fucks sake you guys.
>>388993
>3600 BCE
>11th century
Do you not see the difference here?
For comparison, here is an 11th century English castle.
>>389002
>3600 BCE
Vs.
>11th century
>>388986
Because that's why they found Arab coins around the sight?
>>389008
Please don't start up the fuck war over Rhodesia again, I have tried in every damn thread to defend it and the same fucking autistic nigger comes in and spams DAS RAYYYCISSS x1000.
>/pol/ with dates
>>389002
Is there? Being 100% honest to say I had no idea. I never really cared either so that might have something to do with it.
>>389030
The difference is, Zimbabwe only constructed these things in the 11th century.
Stonehenge was built in 3600 BCE.
Much more significant accomplishment.
>>388996
You wouldn't see a point if it came and slapped you in the face.
>>389003
>Gothic architecture
>11th century
>Stonehenge
>3600 BC
Are you this retarded? Get your fucking dates right.
Great Zimbabwe and other stone structures in the region were built about a thousand years after agriculture arrived in the region after 200 AD. British Megalithic culture was imported from France, where it developed around 4000 BC, again after agriculture had been practiced for about a thousand years since 5000 BC.
>some piddly little huts made of stacked stones
Vs.
>a monolithic structure of architectural and physical challange.
Some people say Stonehenge was a giant hut.
>>389017
Because the /pol/ boogieman is real.
>>389029
Source?
And even if there is semitic admixture, and foreign coins, how exactly would this suggest it was built by foreigner? and not just suggest that people travelled and traded?
>>388971
They didn't it was obviously aliens
>>389067
Africans did not make it get over it
>>389045
All of the pictures I posted were from the 11th and early 12th century.
Great Zimbabwe was in the 11th century.
Stonehenge was in 3600 BCE.
You're comparing 11th century achivements of Zimbabwie to -3rd century achivements of people of the British Isles.
>>389029
>I guess it's hard for morons to see the point.
Think it had more to do with people giving you the benefit of the doubt to not be a /pol/tard.
>>389077
Kek nice source m8
>>389082
>dates and history is now /pol/
You might want to go to where you speak of.
You seem triggered stormdumblr.
>>389087
I wasn't that guy, but the earliest known writing of the region is in 1400s.
Only 300 years after it was established.
The way I see it is that colonizers from the middle east built them, and then we're raided by shnoa people and it fell into complete disrepair.
It makes no sense why it would have fallen apart if the Africans themselves had built it.
>>389008
Gee, I guess the Arabs must have also built everything in Sweden in Britain too.
>>389078
>All of the pictures I posted were from the 11th and early 12th century.
Gothic architecture did not exist in the 11th and early 12th centuries, you dumb fuck. I mean, it's not like there weren't plenty of brilliant examples of Romanesque architecture from that period that you could have posted, but no, you're too fucking dumb to do an ounce of research so you just posted the first picture you found on google images.
>Great Zimbabwe was in the 11th century.
13th
>Stonehenge was in 3600 BCE.
2500 BC
>You're comparing 11th century achivements of Zimbabwie to -3rd century achivements of people of the British Isles.
Because agriculture arrived in Zimbabwe thousands of years after it did in England. Do you not understand that? Do you not understand that agriculture is important? Except for an extremely rare handful of exceptions like Gobekli Tepe, hunter-gatherers don't build monumental architecture.
>>388817
Why is this posted so much?
I can understand if you asked, "what is the history of central Africa" or "What and who are the Berbers" but this shit is just getting stupid
>>389100
Societies can and do regress, look at the collapse of the maya or norse in greenland
>>389113
Stonehenge was built before the arrival of agriculture, "great" Zimbabwe was not.
>what is Mutapa
>what is Mapungubwe
>>389120
And why did they collapse good sir?
>>389128
>Stonehenge
>before agriculture
Out of my board you fucking faggot.
>>389128
>Stonehenge was built before the arrival of agriculture
Well, you've just completely discredited yourself m8. Good job.
>>389131
Different causes in different regions, IIRC correctly the Mayan collapse was likely due to an irregularly long drought, combined with a large population size which no longer has sufficient resources to remain urbanised
>>389116
>Keks getting butthurt that their wifes' lovers werent kings at all
Never change /his/
>>389087
Really? Why the fuck did Africans not continue to make stone structures? If Arabs can go all the way to Tanzania then they damn sure can make a stone structure in zimbabwe
>>389161
>Why the fuck did Africans not continue to make stone structures?
But they did? There are Zimbabwes besides the Great Zimbabwe, you know. And there are thousands more stone structures elsewhere in Africa
>>389161
What's so hard to accept about Africans building it? It's a visibly native tradition (all the other Zimbabwes) and looks nothing like Arab architecture.
>>389161
I hope you understand that you're now on the same level as the kind of people who claim that Mozart was black.
You've become a living meme.
>>389131
Kingdom of Zimbabwe got weaker economically over time so as it's trade status got lower people were more willing to trade in a better kingdom like the Kingdom of Mutapa so eventually it got abandoned because it lost it's flow of income which allowed it to sustain itself and it's army..
>>388975
/pol/ niggers get triggered by black people and /his/ autists get triggered by people being wrong on the internet.
>>388971
European went from this to building castles and cathedrals
Zimbabweans supposedly went from building the shit on OP pic to living in mudhuts, which makes no sense
>>389500
First, you are dealing with intervals of time different by thousands of years. Second, societies collapse. Greeks lost writing and most of their culture at the end of the Bronze Age, it took them hundreds of years to start being a grear civilisation once again.
>>389029
There is Eurasian DNA in all Black/Khoisan/Pygmy Africans, especially East Africans.
What's your point?
>>389500
Tasmanian Aborigines lost the ability to create fire. I don't see the big deal.
>>389564
I wouldn't put too much faith in that statement, Rhys Jones was drawing the longbow when he came to that conclusion. There are early explorer's accounts that mention fire-making tools.
>>389564
They apparently didn't lose it since they didn't even get the most updated technologies to make it from beyond North, owing to the island being cut off after the ice age. Truly the children of humanity. Kant had it right: some don't leave Unmündigkeit - immaturity.
>>390169
They obviously did lose it, as they're descended from people who had fire.
>>390169
>It is claimed that they only possessed lit fires with the men entrusted in carrying embers from camp to camp for cooking and which could also be used to clear land and herd animals to aid in hunting practices.[16][17]:313 However, other scholars dispute that the Aboriginal Tasmanians did not have fire;[18] and, indeed, a document from 1887 clearly describes fire-lighting techniques used among Tasmanians.
from wiki
>>390196
There's some fuckery going on here regarding the conflicting reports. Either: a) the British observers willfully ignored firemaking, b) the Tasmanians didn't receive technology to make it readily, or (what I suspect happened with these lil guys), c) the Tasmanians facing (mega)fauna extinction started a religious taboo of making fire. Interestingly the Aryans conquering India and Hindus and Zoroastrians today worship fire. India, Bharat in Sanskrit means fire borne or bearers. Fire taboo at work, but not taken so far.
>>390247
What the fuck are you talking about they were setting fire in the drier lowlands by the time of European contact.
"Fire taboo" like really?
>>388817
Because it wasnt them
Phoenicians did
>>390612
Any evidence other than a statement from one random Rhodesian book?
