Question

Compare and contrast the social classes of Mapungubwe and Great Zimbabwe to the social order in medieval Europe. How were they similar? How are they different?

Answer 1

The social classes of Mapungubwe and Great Zimbabwe had clear hierarchies similar to medieval Europe, with wealth and power central to their structures; differences lie in the nature of wealth and cultural traditions, as well as shifts due to environmental and economic changes.

Step-by-step explanation:

Comparing and contrasting the social structures of Mapungubwe and Great Zimbabwe with medieval Europe reveals both similarities and differences. In Mapungubwe, a clear social hierarchy was present, with the elite residing on Mapungubwe Hill in a stone enclosure, commoners in mud dwellings, and a royal complex suggesting a centralized leadership. Likewise, Great Zimbabwe had a male-dominated society where power and influence were linked to cattle herds, indicating a social stratification based on wealth and property.

In medieval Europe, feudalism was the dominant structure, which also created a hierarchy of lords and serfs, defined by landownership and labor obligations. However, the later weakening of this system due to various crises like the Black Death gave way to the rise of the merchant class and weakened the strictly hereditary nature of the European social order.

Differences between the African kingdoms and medieval Europe include the nature of wealth: cattle in Africa vs. land in Europe. Additionally, stone building in Mapungubwe and Great Zimbabwe symbolizes a different cultural and architectural tradition compared to the wooden and stone fortifications prevalent in Europe.

Both regions experienced shifts in their social structures over time. Mapungubwe declined due to climate changes, while Great Zimbabwe rose to prominence, inheriting and expanding the tradition of stone building. European social structures evolved with the changing economic landscape, especially after crises that preceded the Industrial Revolution.

Answer 2

Similarities between Mapungubwe's social order and European medieval society lie mainly on the fact that both were class-based societies, it means, with a hierarchical order.

The society of Mapungubwe and Great Zimbabwe was ruled by a leading class that was separated from the rest of the people, and this leadership had a sacred nature. This social order was centered around the figure of a king, and the kingdom's territory was separated in different areas ruled by Paramount Chiefs, who depended on the king himself. The society presented three social classes and the kingdom was spatially divided according to this social order:

1) First, the upper class, the royal family and elites that held a sacred role to rule. This class dominated the Mapungubwe hill as a supreme authority.

2) Second, the district leaders, who were located in small hilltops.

3) Third, the commoners who inhabited the low ground.

This configuration is similar to European medieval society in the fact that European social order, in general terms, was also divided into three parts:

1) Church.

2) Kings and feudal lords with a sacred role to rule, but holding secular power.

3) Commoners, peasants, farmers, and merchants.

The main difference is that medieval Europe was a much larger and complex society and covered a larger area than the Mapungubwe Kingdom. Hence, there was no spatial configuration similar to that of the Mapungubwe, instead feuds and kingdoms were disseminated throughout the continent. Also, what was supposed to be the central authority in Europe, the Church, was in constant conflict with the secular powers, such as the Sacred Roman-Germanic Empire which led to many struggles and wars in this particular period.