Great Zimbabwe The African Iron Age Capital

Great Zimbabwe is a massive  African Iron Age settlement and dry-stone monument located near the town of Masvingo in central Zimbabwe. Great Zimbabwe is the largest of about 250 similarly dated mortarless stone structures in Africa, called collectively Zimbabwe Culture sites. During its heyday, Great Zimbabwe dominated an estimated area of between 60,000-90,000 square kilometers (23,000-35,000 square miles). In the Shona language Zimbabwe means stone houses or venerated houses; the residents of Great Zimbabwe are considered the ancestors of the Shona people. The country of Zimbabwe, which gained its independence from Great Britain as Rhodesia in 1980, is named for this important site. Great Zimbabwe Timeline The site of Great Zimbabwe covers an area of some 720 hectares (1780 acres), and it held an estimated population of some 18,000 people at its heyday in the 15th century A.D. The site likely expanded and contracted numerous times as population rose and fell. Within that area are several groups of structures built on a hilltop and in the adjacent valley. In some places, the walls are several meters thick, and many of the massive walls, stone monoliths,  and conical towers are decorated with designs or motifs. Patterns are worked into the walls, such as herringbone and dentelle designs, vertical grooves, and an elaborate chevron design decorates the largest building called the Great Enclosure. Archaeological research has identified five occupation periods at Great Zimbabwe, between the 6th and 19th centuries A.D. Each period has specific building techniques (designated P, Q, PQ, and R), as well as notable differences in artifact assemblages such as imported glass beads and pottery. Great Zimbabwe followed Mapungubwe as the capital of the region beginning about 1290 AD; Chirikure et al. 2014 have identified Mapela as the earliest Iron Age capital, predating Mapungubwe and beginning in the 11th century AD. Period V: 1700-1900: reoccupation of Great Zimbabwe by 19th century Karanga peoples, un-coursed Class R style construction; poorly known[hiatus] may have been the results of a water crisis beginning ca 1550Period IV: 1200-1700, Great Enclosure built, the first expansion of settlement into the valleys, lavish pottery burnished with graphite, neatly coursed Class Q architecture, abandonment in the 16th century; copper, iron, gold, bronze and brass metallurgyPeriod III: 1000-1200, first major building period, substantial clay plastered houses, coursed and shimmed architectural styles Class P and PQ; copper, gold, brass, bronze, and iron workingPeriod II: 900-1000, Late Iron Age Gumanye settlement, limited to the hill complex; bronze, iron, and copper working[hiatus]Period I: AD 600-900, Early Iron Age Zhizo settlement, farming, iron and copper metal workingPeriod I: AD 300-500, Early Iron Age Gokomere farming, communities, metalworking in iron and copper Reassessing the Chronology Recent Bayesian analysis and historically datable imported artifacts (Chirikure et al 2013) suggests that using the structural methods in the P, Q, PQ, and R sequence does not perfectly match the dates of the imported artifacts. They argue for a much longer Phase III period, dating the starts of the construction of the major building complexes as follows: Camp Ruins, Valley Enclosures built between 1211-1446Great Enclosure (majority Q) between AD 1226-1406Hill Complex (P) began construction between 1100-1281 Most importantly, the new studies show that by the late 13th century, Great Zimbabwe was already an important place and a political and economic rival during the formative years and heyday of Mapungubwe. Rulers at Great Zimbabwe Archaeologists have argued about the significance of the structures. The first archaeologists on the site assumed that the rulers of Great Zimbabwe all resided in the largest and most elaborate building on the top of the hill called the Great Enclosure. Some archaeologists (such as Chirikure and Pikirayi below) suggest instead that the focus of power (that is, the rulers residence) shifted several times during Great Zimbabwes tenure. The earliest elite status building is in the Western Enclosure; after came the Great Enclosure, then the Upper Valley, and finally in the 16th century, the rulers residence is in the Lower Valley. Evidence supporting this contention is the timing of the distribution of exotic rare materials and the timing of stone wall construction. Further, political succession documented in the Shona ethnographies suggests that when a ruler died, his successor does not move into the deceaseds residence, but rather rules from (and elaborated) his existing household. Other archaeologists, such as Huffman (2010), argue that although in current Shona society successive rulers do indeed move their residence, ethnographies suggest that at the time of Great Zimbabwe, that principle of succession did not apply. Huffman comments that a residency shift was not required in Shona society until traditional marks of succession were interrupted (by the Portuguese colonization) and that during the 13th-16th centuries, class distinction and sacred leadership were what prevailed as the leading force behind succession. They didnt need to move and rebuild to prove their leadership: they were the chosen leader of the dynasty. Living at Great Zimbabwe Ordinary houses at Great Zimbabwe were circular pole-and-clay houses about three meters in diameter. The people raised cattle and goats or sheep, and grew sorghum, finger millet, ground beans and cowpeas. Metalworking evidence at Great Zimbabwe includes both iron smelting and gold melting furnaces, both within the Hill Complex. Iron slag, crucibles, blooms, ingots, casting spills, hammers, chisels, and wire drawing equipment have been found throughout the site. Iron used as functional tools (axes, arrowheads, chisels, knives, spearheads), and copper, bronze and gold beads, thin sheets and decorative objects were all controlled by Great Zimbabwe rulers. However, the relative lack of workshops coupled with an abundance of exotic and trade goods indicates that production of the tools did not likely take place at Great Zimbabwe. Objects carved from soapstone include decorated and undecorated bowls; but of course most important are the famous soapstone birds. Eight carved birds, once placed on poles and set around the buildings, were recovered from Great Zimbabwe. Soapstone and pottery spindle whorls signify that weaving was an important activity at the site. Imported artifacts include glass beads, Chinese celadon, Near Eastern earthenware, and, in the Lower Valley, 16th century Ming dynasty pottery. Some evidence exists that Great Zimbabwe was tied into the extensive trade system of the Swahili coast, in the form of large numbers of imported objects, such as Persian and Chinese pottery and Near Eastern glass. A coin was recovered bearing the name of one of the rulers of Kilwa Kisiwani. Archaeology at Great Zimbabwe The earliest western reports of Great Zimbabwe include racist descriptions from the late nineteenth century explorers Karl Mauch, J. T. Bent and M. Hall: none of them believed that Great Zimbabwe could possibly have been built by the people who lived in the neighborhood. The first western scholar to approximate the age and local origin of Great Zimbabwe was David Randall-MacIver, in the first decade of the 20th century: Gertrude Caton-Thompson, Roger Summers, Keith Robinson and Anthony Whitty all came to Great Zimbabwe early in the century. Thomas N. Huffman excavated at Great Zimbabwe in the late 1970s, and used extensive ethnohistorical sources to interpret Great Zimbabwes social construction. Edward Matenga published a fascinating book on soapstone bird carvings discovered at the site. Sources This glossary entry is a part of the About.com Guide to the African Iron Age and the Dictionary of Archaeology. Bandama F, Moffett AJ, Thondhlana TP, and Chirikure S. 2016. The Production, Distribution and Consumption of Metals and Alloys at Great Zimbabwe. Archaeometry: in press. Chirikure, Shadreck. Seen but Not Told: Re-mapping Great Zimbabwe Using Archival Data, Satellite Imagery and Geographical Information Systems. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, Foreman BandamaKundishora Chipunza, et al.,  Volume 24, Issue 2, SpringerLink, June 2017. Chirikure S, Pollard M, Manyanga M, and Bandama F. 2013. A Bayesian chronology for Great Zimbabwe: re-threading the sequence of a vandalised monument. Antiquity 87(337):854-872. Chirikure S, Manyanga M, Pollard AM, Bandama F, Mahachi G, and Pikirayi I. 2014. Zimbabwe Culture before Mapungubwe: New Evidence from Mapela Hill, South-Western Zimbabwe. PLoS ONE 9(10):e111224. Hannaford MJ, Bigg GR, Jones JM, Phimister I, and Staub M. 2014. Climate Variability and Societal Dynamics in Pre-Colonial Southern African History (AD 900-1840): A Synthesis and Critique. Environment and History 20(3):411-445. doi: 10.3197/096734014x14031694156484 Huffman TN. 2010. Revisiting Great Zimbabwe. Azania: Archaeological Research in Africa 48(3):321-328. doi: 10.1080/0067270X.2010.521679 Huffman TN. 2009. Mapungubwe and Great Zimbabwe: The origin and spread of social complexity in southern Africa. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 28(1):37-54. doi: 10.1016/j.jaa.2008.10.004 Lindahl A, and Pikirayi I. 2010. Ceramics and change: an overview of pottery production techniques in northern South Africa and eastern Zimbabwe during the first and second millennium AD. Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences 2(3):133-149. doi: 10.1007/s12520-010-0031-2 Matenga, Edward. 1998. The Soapstone Birds of Great Zimbabwe. African Publishing Group, Harare. Pikirayi I, Sulas F, Musindo TT, Chimwanda A, Chikumbirike J, Mtetwa E, Nxumalo B, and Sagiya ME. 2016. Great Zimbabwes water. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Water 3(2):195-210. Pikirayi I, and Chirikure S. 2008. AFRICA, CENTRAL : Zimbabwe Plateau and Surrounding Areas. In: Pearsall, DM, editor. Encyclopedia of Archaeology. New York: Academic Press. p 9-13. doi: 10.1016/b978-012373962-9.00326-5

Technology During World War II - 1082 Words

Technology During and After World War II Marcel Grishaj Seminar in History Professor Troncone December 10, 2015 The preparation for and the acts of war have been greatly influential in technological advancements, economic growth, and industrialization. No war has made a bigger impact in these areas than World War II, as applications in the fields of engineering and science were passed on to the military for future operations that they would have. Prior to World War II, the world that people saw on a daily basis was vastly different from the world we live in today. No one had any idea what the future would have in store for the future generations. New Age of Warfare: Atomic Weapons The creation of atomic weapons†¦show more content†¦The creation of the Manhattan Project occurred in 1942 and throughout its course had employed over 100,000 people. The project had cost U.S. government over $2 Billion from 1942-1945. Most of the money the project was given was used to create factories and produce the materials needed to create the weapons, while very little went to the actual production of the weapons itself. The Germans had been working on their own nuclear weapons project and members of the Manhattan Project were given the responsibility of gathering intelligence to see what progress the Germans had been making on their research of atomic energy. Many workers of the Manhattan Project had gone to Europe so they could gather the materials necessary to develop the weapons, gather documents, and recruit German and Italian scientists who had opposed what the leaders of their respective countries were set out to do. The proj ect had been very secretive and anyone found to be disclosing their research to the Soviets or anyone else, would be given a lengthy jail sentence and they would also have to pay a hefty fine. The use of atomic energy as a weapon to end the war was discussed in great detail as it sparked a debate on the humane use of the weapon. Nobody knew the immense damage the bombs would do, but the U.S. government felt it had no choice but to use the weapon to try and put an end to the war once and for all. The Manhattan Project had

Foundations of Management Morgan

Questions: 1.Which of these images or metaphors applies to Factory system before the development of Scientific Management? Did it change after Taylor's ideas were adopted? 2.Do some organizations have a more difficult time with this than others, What kinds of goals or problems do they deal with? 3.Do you think the term used by Barnard -- "common moral purpose" is a good way to describe what happens in work organizations, Why or why not? 4.What do each of these separate demands mean for organizing and managing, Why they all are desired? Answers: 1. Morgans metaphor and Taylors Scientific Management Morgan says that there is a tendency of human beings to get trapped in their own created webs. He argues that it happens as because organisations are held together by the conscious unconscious ideas of the people about the organisation. The human being becomes prisoners of ideas of their own. This is the metaphor we use. Gareth Morgans eight metaphors of the organisations are one of the models of the management theory. Morgan has eight metaphors and he considers it as the lens that helps to view the organisation. The eight metaphors of Morgan were: Machine Organism Brain Culture System of political Prison of psychic Transformation change Domination instrument Morgan says that the metaphors influence the way one perceives the problems of the organisation. Further, it discusses the process of the solutions. The theory of the Morgan provides some scope to the people to understand the organisations behaviour. The metaphor of Morgan creates insight in the areas of the practices of the organisation. By understanding the eight metaphors of the organisation, the manager understands the operations of the organisation. The manager can get the chance to excel in the field of problem-solving of the organisation(Isaacson, 2012). There are numerous management theories that discuss the behaviour of the organisation. The theories focus solving the problems that are encountered by the organisations(Chan, 2013). Frederick Winslow Taylor has developed scientific management theory advocates that the right people should hire for the job and they should be trained and monitored. The responsibility will be shifted to the managers from the workers. The scientific theory has a greater impact that the theory of Morgan. The theory of Taylor uses the scientific observation in order to analyse the movement of the human and to make a restructure of the workplace(Fiegerman, 2012). This will help to use minimum efforts and to get maximum production.Contemporary management theory offers many insights into the organisational nature. Taylors scientific management is an approach to make a study of the organisation. 2. Rational-bureaucratic organisations In the process of the administration, bureaucracy is called as the division of the labour. It is considered as the form of the organisation that works for preparation dispatch of the documents. The theory bureaucratic organisation advocates that the principles of efficiency focus on the maximum output from the minimum inputs(Taylor, 2007). The theory focuses on the rationality, efficiency impersonality. The theory states that all the rules and regulations will be recorded in the writing form. The continuous hierarchy is the structure of the organisation and the upper level controls the lower level. The individual who holds the position has no rights on it(Crozier, 2009). Each level has their own form of responsibility. The technical competent individuals are appointed in an office. Efficiency stability are the two important factors that make the bureaucratic structure strong in the society. The theory advocates the need of a new class of workers. The most important thing is that each and every outcome is a matter of keeping advance. The relations of the organisations are based on the strategic games. This does not allow people to gain their personal advantage. There are some inward looking power struggles that do not allow the individual to learn from its errors(Mintzberg, 2007). For being rational, the bureaucratic structure sets some impersonal rules in order to cover each and every event. Due to the predetermined decisions, the relationships of the hierarchical are less important. The senior people of the structure do not get power to govern. The people who will be affected by the decisions should not be given the task of making decisions. The individuals those who control the zones of the uncertainty create the parallel structure of power. This causes the difficulty as there are unrelated decisions are made. The makers of the decision should be trained and must report their decisions appropriately to the seniors. 3. Barnards Common moral purpose Barnard views that organisations are like cooperative systems. The organisation is a complex of components like physical, biological, personal social that brings systematic relationships in the form of cooperation of two or more individuals for the specific end. The common moral purpose is defined as the cooperative arrangements in order to accomplish the things that we cannot do all alone. Barnard says that organisation is like a living organism. The organisation requires sustaining itself even in the hostile situations. The organisation is not self-sufficient. It requires to depend upon the resources from the environment that is from outside and this will allow it to function the actions of the organisation are limited. The need of the capital, labour and equipment is very important for the organisation. Barnard says that in order to achieve the equilibrium system involving both the external and internal environments. The contribution of the members of the organisation brings satisfaction to both to the organisation and the members of it as well. Barnard theory is called the theory of Inducement-Contribution. It is ordinarily called the theory of motivation. The theory states that the members of the organisation will contribute to the organisation for the purpose of inducements(ignasi.cat, 2011). The employees work for the organisation only when he or she is worthy to the organisation. The person will continue to contribute to the organisation when he or she gets payment, benefits and satisfaction for the job. If these are not found then the member of the organisation does not work. Barnard focuses on the incentive method that focuses on the incentives that are offered to the members to satisfy them (abraham-maslow, 2017). Persuasive method is a method to alter the motives of an employee. In the persuasive theory, coercion occurs when the member is motivated to cooperate during a threat. Propaganda refers to the persuasions of a person through the importance of mission and products of the organisation. Inoculation refers to t he importance of educating people of the organisation on certain values so that they can carry those values with them (Journalpsyche.org, 2017). These values are like the religious values, the values of the patriotism and the professional values. Bernard advocates that to legitimate the organisation there should be rules, regulations, directives and orders. 4. Economies of scope and economies of scope For the corporate organisation, economies of scale are the main drivers. These scales are very important to discuss in the present context of the transformation of the forms of the organisation. The economies of scale scope are the two important valuable concepts in the economies for the organisations that can help in improving the bottom line of the company. There are 2 types of the scale of economies. They are internal and the external. Internal: This refers to the cost savings. These accumulate to a firm irrespective of industry, market or even in any kind of the environment in which it makes an operation. External: Due the proper organisation of the industry external economies are beneficial to the firm. Internal economies of scale are found in the large firm to execute the overhead of the research and development(beginnerbusiness.com, 2016). The cost to discover the new product is always demanding. The modern companies are willing to spend more on the research and development. There are some demerits of the internal economies. There is no way to count the feelings and quality of experience(www.economist.com, 2008). It is not appropriate for the big business. In the corporate bureaucratic more people they have than the amount of work they do. Economies of scope This shows that it is difficult to produce one product. It is easy and cheaper to produce the range of product together. This kind of economies is applicable in the finance marketing. This is also applicable where the business process is interrelationships. It refers to the input and output(keydifferences.com, 2016). The organisation uses the output of the business in order to find out the input of other. The economies of scope are very much applicable for behaviour of the corporate. This is related to the production of the mass to the acquisitions mergers. Bibliography abraham-maslow, 2017. simplilearn.com. [Online] Available at: https://www.simplilearn.com/abraham-maslow-theory-of-motivation-article [Accessed 03 04 2017]. beginnerbusiness.com, 2016. Economies of Scale vs Scope - Beginner Business. [Online] Available at: www.beginnerbusiness.com/economies-scale-scope [Accessed 04 04 2017]. Chan, J. P. N. S. M., 2013. The politics of global production: Apple, Foxconn and Chinas new working class. New Technology, Work and Employment,, 28(2), p. 100115.. Crozier, M., 2009. The Bureaucratic Phenomenon. London: Transaction Publishers. Fiegerman, S., 2012. Actually, Sometimes It Sucks To Work At Apple Heres Why.. [Online] Available at: https://www.businessinsider.com/the-biggest-complaints-employees-have-about-working-at-apple-2012-6?op=1 [Accessed 03 04 2017]. ignasi.cat, 2011. 73 The Functions of the Executive (Barnard, 1938) | Ignasi Capdevila. [Online] Available at: ignasi.cat/2011/10/05/73-the-functions-of-the executive-barnard-1938 [Accessed 03 04 2017]. Isaacson, W., 2012. The Real Leadership Lessons of Steve Jobs.. Harvard Business Review. Journalpsyche.org, 2017. Alfred Adler's Personality Theory and Personality Types | Journal Psyche. [Online] Available at: journalpsyche.org/alfred-adler-personality-theory [Accessed 03 04 2017]. Journalpsyche.org, 2017. Alfred Adler's Personality Theory and Personality Types | Journal Psyche. [Online] Available at: journalpsyche.org/alfred-adler-personality-theory [Accessed 13 03 2017]. keydifferences.com, 2016. Difference Between Economies of Scale and Economies of Scope ... [Online] Available at: keydifferences.com/difference-between economies-of-scale-and-economies-of-scope [Accessed 03 04 2017]. Mintzberg, H., 2007. Mintzberg on Management. s.l.:The Free Press. Taylor, F. W., 2007. The Principles of Scientific Managemenet. s.l.:Nu Vision Publications. www.economist.com, 2008. Economies of scale and scope | The Economist. [Online] Available at: www.economist.com/node/12446567 [Accessed 03 04 2017].