CC BY
20
THE CONCEPTS OF 'ZULU TRIBE' AND 'ZULU NATION' AND THEIR USE TOWARDS POLITICAL ASPIRATIONS IN SOUTH AFRICA
Mthandeni Patric Mbatha1, Mxolisi Bongumusa PraseGod Cebekhulu2
department of History, University of Zululand, KwaDlangezwa Campus, South Africa
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6915-9886
2Department of History, University of Zululand, KwaDlangezwa Campus, South Africa
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8009-0848
E] Corresponding author: Mthandeni Patric Mbatha, e-mail: MbathaMP@unizulu.ac.za
ARTICLE INFO
Article history: Received date 22.11.2022 Accepted date 21.12.2022 Published date 30.12.2022
Section: Communication Studies
DOI
10.21303/2313-8416.2022.002869
KEYWORDS
Ethnic group Zulu tribe nation
colonial system
colonialism
bantu
Europeans
civilization
ABSTRACT
The object of research: This article presents an overview of how the concept of tribe and nation has been manipulated for political end. The first part of the paper clearly establishes that the two concepts are not only different but also represent different epochs in Zulu history.
Investigated problem: this article interrogates this neglected subject by focusing on how Europeans used different terms to denegrate Africans during colonialism. The main objective is to reveal social agency, showing that the African ethnic groups were also capable of making nations before the arrival of colonialism.
The main scientific results: The findings of this paper indicated that the concepts 'tribe' and 'nation' present different epochs in Zulu history therefore using them interchangeably as if they refer to one thing is politically incorrect. Moreover, findings indicated that there is nothing wrong with the words as they are defined by dictionaries but the way in which they were used created confusion.
Innovative product: The result of this study will be incorporated in our history curriculum, which specifically focuses at how the process of colonization affected the Zulu monarchy.
The area of practical use of the research results: The study is of importance to South African historians and those who are interested to study the transition of AmaZulu from a tribe to a nation.
© The Author(s) 2022. This is an open access article under the Creative Commons CC BY license
1. Introduction
1. 1. The object of research
The purpose of this paper is to clearly establish that the concept Zulu tribe and Zulu nation are not only different in Zulu history but also represent different epochs. The paper also establishes how the concept was political manipulated for political ends.
1. 2. Problem description
Historically, the Bantu-speaking people of South Africa were divided along lines that were partly geographical, partly dialectal, partly historical, and partly cultural [1]. The shifting composition and open boundaries of social and political groups over centuries resulted in residual names, still found as family names and place names. European observers used common political history, common culture, and language to associate African people with tribes.
Historically, in Southeast Africa, the Nguni were organized in fairly small groups, often largely made up of members of a single tribe and containing not more than a few members [2]. It appears that each group was politically independent and there were several hundred of them in Zululand and Natal alone. In each group, there was a supreme head of the community (inkosi). The inkosi had the last word in all matters of law or policy and he was also the primary religious figure, but he did not rule as a dictator [2]. Every group was divided into districts, each under an induna [3]. In addition, the inkosi had a large number of officers called izinduna. The izinduna were generally chosen from families with no claim to royalty so that they would have no temptation to usurp the throne [2].
The sub-division of tribes into two or more independent sections was very common, for the land in South Africa was copious for grazing and farming. As a result, the population increased by leaps and bounds. Frequently, as tribes became too large for easy government, they would split up [2]. This often happened at the death of the inkosi, for it was unusual for succession to be undisputed. The amaZulu provide a typical example of this division. They had an Inkosi Malandela who fathered two sons, Zulu and Qwabe. After the death of Inkosi Malandela, the was divided into two, the Qwabe under Inkosi uQwabe and AmaZulu under Inkosi uZulu [4].
1. 3. Suggested solution to the problem
Colonial administrators and ethnographers began to write about the African people in their ethnic reorganization and the formation of political and administrative structures in the region. Writing about the people, and documenting their military encounters and processes, became an important colonial engagement in the region.
This article posits that the involvement of European scholarship in trying to understand African ethnic groups resulted in the interchangeable use of different words to refer to the same group of people. Of interest is the fact that the application of certain concepts by European administrators and ethnographers was viewed only as fit for regions outside Europe. This is the case because some of the terms that were applied in African communities confused political units and genealogical groups and failed to distinguish between political units of different types. For instance, AmaZulu were referred to as both tribe and nation. In any part of the region, the continuation of the use of the terms 'tribe' and 'nation' effectively prevented analysis of change in basic social relationships.
This confusion made people think that there is no difference between the two concepts. Other people think tribes and nations are different when one looks at the size of the groups of people, how they organize themselves, and how they communicate with the rest of the world. This, therefore, necessitated the clarification of the meaning of these concepts used in this article.
The usage of the concept 'tribe' has been abandoned by many academics and political leaders not because it is pejorative, but it was used to complement time and space for colonial rulers. The idea that every African belonged to a tribe was central to how colonial rulers understood African communities and to how they justified colonial projects [5]. This is to say that the notion of the tribe took on a very particular role in the era of colonial expansion. For colonial anthropology, the notion 'tribe' referred to people who were outside civilization or who had not received civilization [6]. When one tries to understand its meaning one would argue that the basic frame of this analysis rests on understanding civilization as perceived by Europeans.
The article does not deny that indeed tribes existed in Africa, but it posits that the concept should have been approached in terms of the basic elements and attributes such as language, dress, culture, religion, and territory as opposed to European political ends. In the European context, the reorganization and the formation of political administrative structures in Africa were not considered to be changed as the tribes remained tribes even after they have undergone the process of change. There is a general consensus amongst historians that in Southern Africa in the late eighteenth century some tribe-based chieftaincies began a process of transformation into stratified, centralized states. These states were built on a much larger scale than the old political units - whether one considers the area of land controlled or the density or extent of the population - and they developed radically new administrative structures, which had far-reaching social and economic repercussions. The amaZulu are taken to represent the most complete example of this process. The term tribe became the standard term for the African political groups who were considered barbarians. It was also institutionalized as an administrative category throughout the colonized world. In British Africa, the term tribe became an indispensable feature of British rule. Local rulers were maintained and installed as 'chiefs' of their 'tribes' [7].
It is noticeable that several definitions were put in place to define the term. Croze [8] posited that the term refers to a group of people, many of whom may be related, live in the same general area and live off the products of a shared, speak the same language and practice a common set of rituals. In line with Croze's definition, Majumder [9] defined tribe as a collection or group of families bearing a common name, the members of which occupy the same territory, speak the same language, observe certain taboos regarding marriage, profession, or occupation and have a well-de-
fined system of reciprocity and mutuality of obligation [9]. In the isiZulu language, the concepts 'tribe' and 'nation' mean the same thing (isizwe).
It appears that, when Europeans began to move outside of their own countries, they began trying to understand the different forms of society and culture they encountered, including writing their history [9]. For many European scholars, AmaZulu are a 'tribe.' Hameso [10] is of the view that the term tribe in the African context was popularized by the eighteenth and nineteenth century Europeans who applied it indiscriminately to describe the supposedly 'uncivilized' communities into which the indigenous peoples of Africa were divided before imperial partition. He continues to argue that afterward, the word 'tribe' and its functional expression 'tribalism' were then used in manners that denigrate 'native' institutions and the political leadership of the post-colonial African states.
The purpose of this paper is twofold. Firstly, to clearly establish that the concepts of Zulu tribe and Zulu nation are not only different but also represent different epochs in the history of the Zulu people. The notions Zulu tribe and Zulu nation have interchangeably been used to refer to the same group of people. Secondly, to discuss how the concepts were used for political ends.
2. Materials and Methods
The nature of the subject under investigation in this article and the period covered,
determined that data generation should be done through a combination of desktop and qualitative research. The main challenge experienced in the desk-top research was the limited scholarly writing on the interchangeably use of the concepts 'Zulu tribe' and 'Zulu nation', and no scholarly literature exists on how these concepts were manipulated towards political aspirations in South Africa. The bulk of desk-top data for the study was gathered from local newspapers, books, speeches and newspapers from libraries and archives in South Africa.
The qualitative research provided rich and informative data grounded on the experiences of members of the Zulu society. Interviews were carried out with 45 respondents who were identified through purposive and snowball sampling, but the determining factors for being chosen as a respondent were their knowledge of Zulu history. Some of the interviewees were knowledgeable on Zulu governance and how the imposition of colonial rule has disturbed Zulu social setting. In several instances the responses of these respondents were similar and, as a result, not all respondents are cited in the text. The respondents ranged from academics, cultural experts, king praise singers, princes, princesses and traditional leaders. There were no fundamental differences in responses between the different categories. No attempt was made to come up with a representative sample of the interviewees. The true identities of the respondents (whether they participated or commented) are revealed and the names used in the text are real names.
3. Result
3. 1. The history of the amaZulu tribe
The amaZulu was formed between the black and white Umfolozi rivers. Most of the earlier amaZulu potentates built their homesteads close to small streams that flow into the white Umfolozi. The names of those streams are Mkhumbane and Nzolo [11]. In this area, the amaZulu lived almost side by side with the amaButhelezi. The two clans were separated by a valley, which was called Udonga Lwamankankane [12]. In the quest to probe issues around Nguni identity, one needs to do comprehensive research on the ancient story of Malandela and his sons (Zulu and Qwabe).
AmaZulu share their roots with all the Nguni peoples whose ancestral and linguistic roots are Ntu. Oral tradition indicates that Ntu had a son Mnguni; Mnguni had a son begot Xhosa, Luzu-mane, Swazi, and Ndebele. Each of the descendants of the sons of Mnguni subsequently established their own tribes and territories. Luzumane is the progenitor of amaZulu. Luzumane was succeeded by Malandela, who had two quarrelsome sons, Qwabe and Zulu. At this time, there was no Zulu nation as such. In fact, there were several traditional communities that were semi-independent entities, but not nations [12].
Before Malandela died historical tradition indicates that he proclaimed that Qwabe, his elder son, would inherit everything that belonged to him including Malandela's position as inkosi. Nozidiya, their mother, insisted that something be given to Zulu. This created a family dispute. To prevent the dispute from escalating into a physical fight, Nozidiya took Zulu and their livestock and relocated towards Mthonjaneni where she built her own house. Qwabe remained behind, looking
after his father's homestead, and further expanding the family. As a result, Malandela's clan was divided into two, the amaQwabe and AmaZulu [13].
Prince Bhekizizwe Zeblon kaNqama Zulu wakwaMandlakazi [14] disagrees with the above version. Instead, he states that both Princes Qwabe and Zulu left their father's Nkomonye royal homestead. He says that there was no quarrel as many historical sources have claimed. Prince Zeblon Zulu [14] argues that the aim of their separation was twofold. Firstly, they wanted to expand the domains of their father's rule. Secondly, he states that, according to old Nguni custom, when the inkosi died he was buried in the kraal, as a result, his sons were forced to build their new homestead which would have contained new kraals.
Zeblon Zulu [14] continues to say when Inkosi Malandela died, Prince Qwabe went to Inkosi Malandela's other palace called oDwini. This harem was located across the Mhlathuze River. He later built his homestead called Mthandeni near the oNgoye hills. Prince Zulu went to build his homestead near his father's Nkomonye palace. Prince Zulu's homestead was called iNdlovana. Prince Zeblon says that Qwabe, as an elder son of inkosi Malandela, continued to look after his father's palace (Nkomonye) and the graves that were in the palace.
Despite different historical versions in the history of Princes Qwabe and Zulu, it is interesting that Prince Zeblon's version concurs with other versions that each of the descendants of the Malandela moved out of their father's Nkomonye kraal. They subsequently established their own clans and territories. At this time, there was no amaZulu nation as such. There were several traditional communities that were semi-independent entities, but not kingdoms. They lived in a loose confederation from the hills of Babanango to the uMhlathuze River. The borders of KwaZulu were the White uMfolozi River to the north and the uMhlathuze River to the south.
The continual growth of the population brought about different types of development in the region. At this time the quarrels between groups became more frequent. Previously, wars had been minor affairs but towards the end of the eighteenth century they began to assume a new character. Three great leaders emerged who brought large numbers of tribes under their control. These leaders were King Sobhuza of AmaNgwane eSwatini, King Zwide of the AmaNxumalo Kingdom, and King Dingiswayo of the Mthethwa. As these kings rose to prominence, wars became frequent. While these developments were going on, a young man was growing up who was to change the history of Southeast Africa. His father, inkosi Senzangakhona, was then a leader of a very unimportant tribe, called AmaZulu.
In what was to become the amaZulu nation territory, there were many Amakhosi. Each contributed to the building of the amaZulu nation. Each lived separately from the others, including Senzangakhona. At this time, there were no real attempts to unite the tribes, until two groups emerged as overlords over weaker neighbouring clans and tribes. These two groups consisted of Ndwandwe Kingdom of King Zwide kaLanga to the northwest and the Mthethwa kingdom of King Dingiswayo kaJobe to the southeast [15].
The history of the Southeastern coastal region during the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries was characterised by warfare between the large tribes. Most of the tribes and clans in Southeast Africa fell to the most powerful kingdoms, such as Mthethwa and Ndwandwe [16]. The Mthethwa confederacy, led by King Dingiswayo absorbed the Zulu, an ordinary clan on the White Mfolozi [17]. They also incorporated the communities between the Black Mfolozi and the Mhlathuze rivers into the political system over which Zulu kings would later come to take control and reform. As tribes suffered dispersion, fragmentation, and incorporation other tribes aggregated into larger units, in particular, the Ndwandwe, the Ngwane, the Hlubi, and the Mthethwa.
3. 2. From Zulu tribe to Zulu nation
The installation of King Shaka inaugurated a new period of rapid political change and of sharply intensified conflict in the mid-White Mfolozi region [18]. There was a political transition in the region as the system of countless tribes was gradually demolished. King Shaka deviated from the idea of a loose confederation of semi-autonomous tribes. He gathered a diverse collection of tribes into one mighty nation. But before he embarked on the journey of combining these tribes and kingdoms, he began by implementing changes in the Zulu army. He re-organised and expanded the Zulu army, making it an efficient machine to subjugate the autonomous clans, tribes, and kingdoms in the region.
Under King Shaka, a new era in Zulu history was inaugurated. The warriors of Shaka kaSenzangakhona tasted victory throughout Southeast Africa. Through unique military strategies and the rigorous discipline imposed by Shaka to his regiments, the Zulu army became unstoppable. A nation was being built, tribe by tribe, clan by clan, incorporating those who would give allegiance and destroying those who would not. What King Shaka built remains today. It lives in the grandsons and great-grandsons of warriors and amakhosi. It lives in the spirit of the Zulu nation, in its values, social structure, traditions, and their songs. It lives not because of the legacy of conquest, but because of the legacy of unity. King Shaka waged war in order to build. He conquered to unite. What he birthed was one nation, so powerful that it could not be defeated by anything less than the full might of Queen Victoria's army. His leadership in this part of Africa changed history.
The first tribe to be engaged in battle was the eLangeni, who were conquered without resistance after their main kraal was surrounded by a Zulu amabutho. Following the incorporation of the eLangeni tribe, Shaka turned his focus to the Buthelezi tribe under Inkosi Phungashe. King Shaka's amabutho destroyed Buthelezi homesteads and captured all their cattle and women and children, while Inkosi Phungashe fled to seek refuge with the Ndwandwe under King Zwide in the north [19]. King Shaka began placing his people in positions of leadership for his political purposes. From the ranks of the Buthelezi, King Shaka elevated one of his confidants, Ngqengelele kaMvulana, to the chieftaincy of the Buthelezi [20].
The Qwabe chiefdom became one of the largest tribes to be subjugated to the Zulu rule under King Shaka. The Qwabe was controlling most of the region from the mid-Mhlathuze River to the sea and between the Mhlathuze in the north and the Thukela river in the south. It is important to mention that, during their phase of expansion, the Qwabe had displaced several smaller clans, including the Ngageni, Cele, and Luthuli, and achieved almost total control over a region encompassing over two thousand square miles [21]. Kennedy [22] argues that the Qwabe chiefdom incorporated the Chili, Makhanya, Khuzwayo, and others that were King Shaka's important allies.
The incorporation of the Qwabe into the Zulu nation occurred slightly earlier in King Sha-ka's reign. At the time that King Shaka ascended the Zulu throne, the Qwabe were next to the Nd-wandwe kingdom, the most powerful polity in Southeast Africa [23]. When Shaka had established himself as the king of the Zulu nation, King Dingiswayo of the Mthethwa became involved in an encounter with the Ndwandwe [24]. The significance of this encounter is that it was planned that the Mthethwa and the Zulu would join forces against the Ndwandwe of King Zwide. However, it did not work out as planned because King Dingiswayo allowed his army to move before they had shared the plan of their attack. The Ndwandwe defeated King Dingiswayo's amabutho and King Dingiswayo was captured and assassinated. King Zwide captured and killed King Dingiswayo near his kwaDlovunga palace (few kilometres east of the present-day Nongoma) [24].
When King Dingiswayo was killed, the confederation began disintegrating. During this transition, with King Shaka watching the disintegration, he decided on a very different administrative model that had never been seen in the region. After conquering tribes and kingdoms in the north of the Thukela River, Shaka began his conquests across the Thukela river (South of Thukela river). The clan that King Shaka incorporated on his southward course was the emaNcubeni. The emaNcubeni was a small and insignificant remnant of the great emaChunwini tribe.
When the emaChunwini travelled southward, Zokufa, inkosi of the emaNcubeni, chose to remain behind. Zokufa's territory was located between two powerful clans, the amaMbo on the one hand and the amaNyuswa on the other. When the Zulu amabutho marched southward, Inkosi Zofuka submitted to them and was left in peace. Shaka's other campaigns were against the AmaM-bo (Mkhize), eMasomini (Hlombe), amaNgcolosi (Bhengu), eMakhabeleni (Makhaye), eMaphep-hetheni (Gwala and Nzimande), amaNxamalala (Zuma), amaZondi, amaXesibe, amaNgcobo, ama-Dunge (Chiliza), amaPhumulo, eManganeni, amaHlongwa, amaNtshinga (Mtshali), amaBombo, eNyamvwini, amaCele, oNdlovu, and amaLuthuli [25].
Fuze [26] argues that when Shaka received the news about the death of King Dingiswayo, he was furious and began to marshal AmaZulu, Mthethwa, and the Hlubi people to arm against King Zwide. This led to many of King Dingiswayo's supporters joining the Zulu. The death of King Dingiswayo meant that only Shaka was left, and he began to plan his conquests. The incorporation that Shaka did after the assassination of King Dingiswayo made the Zulu amabutho strengthen its position to continue to advance against King Zwide [24]. This campaign contributed to the growth and
development of the Zulu nation because, during this campaign, Shaka began to incorporate conquered tribes. This made his nation grow rapidly as defeated warriors supplemented his regiments.
The Ndwandwe campaign made Shaka realise that there was a need to increase the number of his amabutho, so that they would be able to outmatch the Ndwandwe of King Zwide. Shaka succeeded in establishing alliances to expand his domains, but the Qwabe chiefdom remained hostile. Ultimately, the Qwabe resisted being incorporated by Shaka. The conquest of the Qwabe quickly became an issue of necessity rather than a choice for the new Zulu king. Shaka turned against the Qwabe under the pretext that they did not support him during the Ndwandwe campaign [27]. As a result, the Qwabe were overrun by the Zulu amabutho, and Inkosi Phakathwayo was killed. King Shaka replaced him with Inkosi Nqetho, a member of the Qwabe ruling lineage who had been exiled by Inkosi Phakath-wayo. In this way, Shaka was able to ensure the continued support of the tribe [20].
The attack of abaThembu of the lower Mzinyathi-Thukela region began in the early 1820s [21]. After resisting amaZulu attack, the abaThembu, under their inkosi Ngoza kaMkhu-bukeli crossed the Thukela moving southwards through the Natal midlands, killing, plundering, and destroying as they went. They then made their way through Mzimvubu into the territory of amaMpondo. After an initial warm reception, the abaThembu were attacked by the Mpondo, who killed Ngoza and scattered his people. Some remained in the vicinity; others eventually made their way to the Zulu nation and gave their allegiance to King Shaka [21].
Another conquest started in Natal in the early nineteenth century by the Mchunu under Mac-ingwane kaJama [21]. He apparently exercised authority over a number of amaChunu clans and defeated several neighbouring tribes in the course of his reign [26]. The Mchunu territory bordered the east of the region which was abandoned by the Thembu. After the flight of the Thembu, the Mchunu too fled southwards to escape the threat of Zulu attacks [21]. The Mchunu crossed the Thukela and forced their way through the tribes of the midlands.
The was another attack of a confederacy of the Dunge, Fuze, Nyamvini and, for a while, Bombo tribes from the upper Mvoti region, together with two Nhlangwini tribes from the middle uThukela, and the Memela from the Ndaka river. These tribes were left exposed to Zulu attacks by the flight of the Thembu and Mchunu. It is important to note that these tribes had made an alliance prior to their attack in order to force their way through the tribes which barred their way to the south. Shortly after the flight of the Mchunu, the confederates struck out along a nearly similar route. After fighting their way to the uMkhomazi river they split, with the Nhlangwini and Memela continuing southwards across the uMzimkhulu, while the rest retraced their steps to the territories that they had formerly occupied [21].
A significant aspect of King Shaka's administration south of the uThukela river is that, although he was not present, he ruled through his appointees like Magaye, Jobe and Zihlandlo. For instance, in case of the Cele, King Shaka appointed Inkosi Zihlandlo to look after the southern Thukela region. Inkosi Zihlandlo carried Shaka's instructions with delight and won himself a position as a regional governor in King Shaka's administration of that ever-expanding nation. Mbokodo kaSilule-kile said King Shaka took a fancy to Inkosi Zihlandlo, referring to him as his brother "mnawe wami" and taking him along on his military expeditions against Sikhunyane and against the Mpondo to the south [28, 29]. Inkosi Zihlandlo continued to organise some minor campaigns in a bid to consolidate his position as a strong satellite of the growing Zulu nation [30].
The expansion of Zulu rule across the Thukela river was also marked by the establishment of cattle posts, such as the Mfume post near the iLovu river [31]. Another cattle post, the Mpiyakhe post, was established south of the Mkhomazi river [31]. The Shiyabantu post was built near present-day KwaDukuza [32]. Another post was located on the Mlaza river [21]. Further cattle posts were built such as Mdimbili which was near Mhlali, ENhlangwini which was near the EmuShana river and the kwaGqikazi establishment which was established north of the Mdloti river. Evidence also indicates that one cattle post was located as far south as the Mzimkhulu [18]. The kwaKhange-la cattle post was built on the site today known as Congella and was probably the largest of all the posts [33]. This establishment was raised by a section of the uMgumanqa ibutho, which was known as the uKhangela amankengane [34]. The cattle posts south of the Thukela appear to have been in the care of lower-class amabutho or of the amaThuli and amaCele [26].
According to European scholarship, even after the conquest of kingdoms, tribes and clans, amaZulu continued to be referred to as a tribe. The concept 'tribe', after the reign of King Shaka, did not represent the true reflection of amaZulu.
3. 3. AmaZulu system of government
The incorporation of the coastal and mid-Thukela chiefdoms into the Zulu kingdom expanded the domains of King Shaka's kingdom. It is of importance to look at how King Shaka governed his state. The loosely decentralized confederation of clans that King Dingiswayo created was still largely in place [35]. But the weakness of this system became obvious when King Dingiswayo was killed, and the confederation began disintegrating. While there was this transition, King Shaka decided on a very different administrative model that had been new in the region. His administrative model was different from that of his predecessors. He decided to claim absolute authority over his kingdom. This means that he created a law-and-order government with a highly centralized structure that lasted to the present day [35].
During his reign, King Shaka established a hierarchy of civil and political officials subordinate to him. At the helm of this centralized hierarchy, he was the kingdom's spokesman to the spirit world, the ultimate legal court of appeal, the supreme commander of the army, and the head of the civil government. He used the military structures, the bureaucracy and the secret service to maintain his command over this highly centralized kingdom.
3. 4. The role of amabutho in the administration of the state
Amabutho functions were to protect the kingdom. The introduction of amabutho structures helped King Shaka prevented people from becoming centres of political opposition and kept the kingdom's most useful resource - manpower - directly under his control. The amabutho system, run by an efficient bureaucracy staffed by King Shaka's key officials in regional positions of authority, was the heart of the kingdom structure. The amabutho became an instrument of royal control throughout King Shaka's growing kingdom [20]. This was because their membership was recruited from all clans that were incorporated into the Zulu kingdom and instilled with a sense of national, rather than local, identity. These amabutho served as an instrument both of internal control and external defence, keeping the peace, enforcing King Shaka's punishments, defending the population against raiders.
Speaking about the Zulu amabutho, Bryant said the following:
While ease and freedom were abundant, stern discipline continuously reigned....... They
were there for the sole purpose of fulfilling the king's behests. They acted as the state army, the state police, the state labour-gang. They fought the clan's battles, made raids when the state funds were low - the state funds, of course, being the king's cattle; they slew convicted and even suspected malefactors and confiscated their property in the king's name; they built and repaired the king's kraals, cultivated his fields and manufactured his war-shields ... In such ways as this was every individual of the Nguni clan, boys and girls, maids and men alike, taught, first to father, then to king, to be ever obedient, docile, disciplined, self-sacrificing unto the last, unto the supreme test of offering one's life on the field of battle [21].
The male subjects were first members of an ibutho and then members of the Zulu kingdom. The men felt intense loyalty toward the king because he gave them food, arms, regalia, position, rewards of cattle, and eventually their wives. Each king Shaka's ibutho had its ikhanda and herd of cattle for food. The amabutho were quartered at separate amakhanda. Like the cattle, the war shields of the members of the amabutho belonged to the king, because they were made from the hides of the royal herds. Thought to have powerful ritual properties, they were kept in a special hut at a nearby royal kraal. Meals were eaten family-style, with meat and milk provided by the state (as was millet beer, when the occasion warranted it), while staple grains were provided by the families of the men in the ibutho. To further the process of socialization, during meals the warriors would shout Shaka's praises and thank him for his generosity [35].
During king Shaka's rule, service in the army was continuous and long-term. Every warrior remained most of the time with his ibutho, leaving only when Shaka permitted the entire regiment to retire. Shaka postponed the married status for as long as possible for his warriors, to keep them under his control. Several amakhanda or royal homesteads were built around King Shaka's state [36]. These amakhanda served as quarters for the various amabutho. What is noticeable is that the amakhanda were built at strategic points in the state to defend against enemies, serve
as centres of administration, and offer support as symbols of royal authority. King Shaka had a number of these royal homesteads. It appears that when not at war he would travel between them, taking residency in turn. The largest ikhanda was kwaBulawayo which stands in the hills above the Mhlathuze Valley [14].
The ikhanda besides being in a military kraal was a repository for the cattle, most of which were taken in wars. These cattle were the property of the state and drawn on for state purposes, but the king would not take any from a kraal without consulting the induna in charge [35]. Because there was no regular pay for these people, those who had been outstandingly brave in battle king Shaka gave presents of cattle, which they could take home, and the spoils taken in war were nearly liberally distributed. Beads and other ornaments were also given by the king's favour to warriors who distinguished themselves in war.
3. 5. The role of Amakhosi and Izinduna in the administration of the state
Amakhosi were able to wield power over their subjects by effectively and systematically controlling major resources at their disposal. The land was the most important resource for bolstering the powers of the amakhosi. The right to control and allocate land to newcomers into the area was an important way of exerting control over them. Other institutions which amakhosi managed to control were the First-Fruit ceremony, i.e., Umkhosi wokweshwama, Age-regiments, i.e., Am-abutho and clientship, i.e., ukusisa. Amakhosi could call up their young men to form amabutho, i.e., age regiments, and use them as a source of labour and a military force to maintain law and order within their chiefdoms [18]. As time went by, they were marshalled as armies to pursue expeditions which were characteristic of this period [20].
Izinduna were central figures in the administration of the Zulu state. These people acted as representatives of the king. The izinduna acted as the king's deputies and they had power over life and death. These people also commanded the amabutho. They also played a key role in the central administrative structure of the Zulu state. They were the king's walking embodiment; as chief intermediaries between king Shaka and his subjects. They were the executors of king Shaka's commands. They occupied important military and administrative posts. They replaced the power of the traditional clan inkosi who was removed by king Shaka [35].
Amabutho were the major institutional mechanism for generating masculinity. Even when they ceased to enrol young men the training received there, such as stick fighting and deference to authority, was deeply entrenched at the lower level of the homestead [37]. Amakhosi, assisted by izinduna, i.e. district headmen, exercised administrative, criminal, and civil jurisdictions over their subjects before the colonial era. Inkosi was also the coordinator of the various aspects of the everyday life of his people. Amakhosi also 'liaised' with the ancestors of their land, and they were regarded as spiritual heads of their people, however, this is not to suggest that amakhosi did not abuse power. Some amakhosi could impose unreasonable sentences on certain culprits while others close to him enjoyed great favours.
It is important to state that in the earlier years of his reign, when clans submitted to the Zulu kingdom, King Shaka accepted the ruling family as subordinate leaders in his administrative hierarchy. When some chiefdoms resisted incorporation, King Shaka immediately put one of his subordinates in charge; then as time passed he would add additional supporters in positions of power within the chiefdom. If appointees were resistant to his rule, he simply had them killed and replaced them with candidates more to his liking [35].
It is important to draw some hints in the selection criteria of izinduna and subordinates for his administration. King Shaka did not often look to members of the royal family though he had several half-brothers. He preferred commoners, often regimental leaders exceptional for their prowess in warfare, who had little or no traditional right to be amakhosi, and who were, therefore, indebted to and dependent upon king Shaka for their position. With no hereditary authority of their own, they were more likely to support king Shaka faithfully. What must be pointed out is the fact that the land under amakhosi in KwaZulu Natal is not ancestral land in every case, but includes in most cases, land given by king Shaka himself to some of the ancestors of the present amakhosi as rewards. These rewards were for the heroism displayed by those ancestors in the various wars in which they participated [12].
The limitation of this paper is that it did not discuss how South African Zulu politicians used the concepts to garner support for national political aspirations in South Africa. Further research
should look at how Zulu politicians such Mangosuthu Buthelezi and Jacob Zuma have used the concept in their political campaigns. Another study should be conducted on the effect of politicization of ethnic differences which can have deep effects on whether members of different groups perceive each other as friends or foes.
4. Conclusion
This paper has attempted to clearly show that the concepts 'tribe' and 'nation' represent different epochs in Zulu history and should not be used interchangeably as if they refer to the same thing. The paper has also shown that there were certain political aspirations behind the use of the concept 'tribe' to refer to amaZulu by European academics and ethnographers. Some European sources claim that before King Shaka there were great kings such as King Zwide of the Ndwandwe Kingdom and King Dingiswayo of the Mthethwa Kingdom. These sources claim that these were the large kingdoms in Southeast Africa before the rise of Zulu nation. They even went to an extent of depicting an illustration that shows the territory occupied by these kingdoms. When Shaka ascended the Zulu throne, he amalgamated all these kingdoms into one mighty nation. In Southern Africa, it is only in the case of Africa that a person amalgamates kingdoms, tribes, and clans, but still, his people are called a tribe.
A conclusion reached by this article is that amaZulu cannot be referred to as a tribe. After the reign of King Shaka, the AmaZulu sphere of influence went beyond the borders of KwaZulu Natal one sees today, one's eyes stretch even further to the Caledon River (Drakensberg Mountains on the Lesotho border) and as far north as Maputo and Leydenberg in Mpumalanga province. When one goes further to look at the consequences of the rise of Zulu power one sees even further afield. It is that Zuluness which Mzilikazi kaMashobane carried across the Transvaal and into what is Zimbabwe today to establish what is now known as the amaNdebele nation. It is also that Zuluness which Soshangane carried across the Ubombo Mountains into Mozambique to establish the Shan-gaan nation north of Delagoa Bay. It was also the same Zuluness that was carried by Zwangendaba to create the Ngoni nation in present-day Zambia.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest in relation to this paper, as well as the published research results, including the financial aspects of conducting the research, obtaining and using its results, as well as any non-financial personal relationships.
Funding
The study was performed without financial support.
Data availability
Data will be made available on reasonable request
Acknowledgements (if any)
We would wish to acknowledge our participants who participated in this paper.
References
[1] Schapera, L. (Ed.) (1937). The Bantu Speaking Tribes of South Africa. London: G. Routledge & Sons, ltd., 453.
[2] Dlamini, N., de Villiers, J. (2004). Effective History. Empangeni: Excellentia Publishers.
[3] Klein, M. A., Johnson, G. W. (Eds.) (1972). Perspectives on the African past. Boston: Little, Brown and Comp, 674.
[4] Thorpe, S. A. (1991). African Traditional Religions. Pretoria: University of South Africa, 129.
[5] Duminy, A., Guest, B. (1989). Natal and Zululand from earliest times to 1910: a new history. Pietermaritzburg: Shuter & Shooter.
[6] Yapp, M.; Tapper, R. (Ed.) (1983). Tribes and States in the Khyber 1838-42. The Conflict of Tribe and State in Iran and Afghanistan. London: Croom Helm.
[7] Lewin, J. (1938). The recognition of native law and custom in British Africa. Journal of Comparative Legislation and International Law, 20, 16-23.
[8] Croze, H. (2006). Africa for Kids: Exploring a Vibrant Continent, 19 Activities. Chicago: Chicago Review Press.
[9] Srinivas, M. N. (2004). Social Change in Modern India. New Delhi: Orient hangman.
[10] Hameso, S. (1997). Ethnicity in Africa- towards a Positive Approach. London: TSC Publications.
[11] Lamula, P. (1931). UZULUKAMALANDELA- a most practical and concise compendium of African history combined with genealogy, chronology, geography and biography. Durban: Josiah Jones Ltd.
[12] Buthelezi, M. G. (2019). The Unconquerable Spirit of a Conquered Nation: Telling The Zulu Story. Available at: https:// www.ifp.org.za/newsroom/the-unconquerable-spirit-of-a-conquered-nation-telling-the-zulu-story/
[13] Mahoney, M. R. (2012). The Other Zulus: The Spread of Zulu Ethnicity in Colonial South Africa. Durham: Duke University Press. doi: https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv11sn3n8
[14] Zulu, Z. B. (2005). Umongo kaZulu/ The marrow of the Zulu nation. Cape Town: Lotsha.
[15] Knight, I. (2003). The National Army Museum Book of the Zulu War. London: Sidgwick and Jackson.
[16] Allen, M. C. R. (2014). Shaka Zulu's Linkage of Strategy and Tactics: an early form of operational art? Kansas: School of Advanced Military Studies United States Army Command and General Staff College Fort Leavenworth.
[17] Hedges, D. W. (1978). Trade and politics in southern Mozambique and Zululand in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. London: University of London.
[18] Wright, J. (1989). The Dynamics of Power and Conflict in the Thukela-Mzimkhulu Region In The Late 18th and early 19th Centuries: A Critical Reconstruction. Unpublished thesis. Johannesburg: University of Witwatersrand.
[19] Morris, D. (1965). The washing of the spears. London: Simon and Schuster.
[20] Laband, J. (2007). Daily lives of civilians in wartime Africa: from slavery days to Rwandan genocide. Westport: Greenwood Press, 301.
[21] Bryant, A. T. (1929). Olden Times in Zululand and Natal- containing earlier political history of the Eastern-Nguni clans. London: Longmans, 710.
[22] Kennedy, P. A. (1981). Mpande and the Zulu Kingship. Journal of Natal and Zulu History, 4 (1), 21-38. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 02590123.1981.11964211
[23] Hadebe, M. M. (2003). A contextualization and examination of the impi yamakhanda (1906 uprising) as reported by J. L. Dube in Ilanga Lase Natal, with special focus on Dube's attitude to Dinuzulu as indicated in his reportage on the treason trial of Dinuzulu. Durban: University of Natal.
[24] Chadwick, G.A. (1983) Research on historical places of importance to KwaZulu and the formulation recommendations. Bloemfontein: University of Free State.
[25] Bryant, A. T. (1964). The history of the Zulu and Neighbouring Tribes. Cape Town: C. Struik.
[26] Fuze, M. (1979). The Black People from whence they came. Pietermaritzburg: University of Natal Press.
[27] Flint, J. E. (Ed.) (1976). The Cambridge History of Africa. Vol. 5. London: Cambridge University Press.
[28] Webb, C., Wright, J. (1976). The James Stuart Archive of Recorded Oral Evidence Relating to the History of the Zulu and Neighbouring Peoples. Vol. 1. Pietermaritzburg: University of Natal Press.
[29] Masina, E. M. (2006). Zulu Perceptions and Reactions to the British Occupation of Land in Natal Colony and Zululand, 1850-1887: A Recapitulation Based On Surviving Oral and Written Sources. KwaDlangezwa: University of Zululand.
[30] Webb, C., Wright, J. (1979). The James Stuart Archive of Recorded Oral Evidence Relating to the History of the Zulu and Neighbouring Peoples. Vol. 2. Pietermaritzburg: University of Natal Press.
[31] Webb, C., Wright, J. (1982). The James Stuart Archive of Recorded Oral Evidence Relating to the History of the Zulu and Neighbouring Peoples. Vol. 3. Pietermaritzburg: University of Natal Press.
[32] Isaacs, N. (1836). Travels and Adventures in Eastern Africa, Descriptive of the, Travels and Adventures in Eastern Africa, Descriptive of the Zoolus, Their Manners, Customs, Etc. with a Sketch of Natal. Vol. 2. London: Edward Churton.
[33] Killie Campbell Collections: File 02 (Zulu History) MS 1406 'information regarding Zulu Royal Kraals and Grave Sites', 132.
[34] De Vries, M. F. K. (2005). Lessons on leadership by terror: Finding Shaka Zulu in the attic. United Kingdom: Edward Elgar Publishing.
[35] Madi, P. M. (2000). Leadership lessons from emperor Shaka Zulu the Great. Randburg: Knowledge Resources, 119.
[36] Morrell, R., Wright, J., Meintjes, S.; Morrell, R. (Ed.) (1996). Colonialism and the establishment of white domination. Political Economy and Identities in KwaZulu-Natal: Historical and Social Perspectives. Durban: Indicator.
[37] Thabethe, S. (1999). An examination of the institutions of power and the changes in the powers of chiefs in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries in the Natal-Zululand region. Durban: University of Natal.
