Login
Get your free website from Spanglefish

27 Feb 1939 Clay (1)

[Grateful thanks to Dr. Fay Gotting for proof-reading this page]

MR. CLAY'S STATEMENT GIVEN TO THE COMMISSION
ON 27th FEBRUARY 1939,
ON BEHALF OF THE BAROTSE

(preceded by a presentation by George Suckling on behalf of the Lunda and Lovale)

[Page 1, File 044]
Pre-Makololo History.

The Malozi claim that the founders of their tribe lived in the Balovale District and that artificial mounds exist which show the sites of their ancestors' villages.  This claim cannot be proved, but it is worth remembering because the Lunda also claim later sites of their big chiefs on the Nkondo river, and one claim appears to be as difficult to disprove as another.  For the early history of the Malozi concerned with the district in question, I refer to pages 1 & 2 of Mwanamuke's statement of 25th November 1939[sic – actually 1938].  I do not feel that I can add anything to that statement.  I have searched to find any evidence that the Malozi claimed prior to the present dispute that they came from the land in question, and in Hill Gibbons' book, Vol. I, p.143, I have found such evidence.  He says, "So far as I can gather, the Aalui, the forefathers of the Barotse of today, invaded the plain now known as Barotse between 250 & 300 years ago.  Prior to this, for a period which I have been unable to estimate even approximately, they dwelt 200 miles to the north-east on the Middle Kabompo.  A section of the tribe which did not take part in the invasion of the plain still occupies the old haunts under the name of Lukwakwa, though in these early days they were known as Aalukdui.  There is little doubt but that the Aalui originally migrated from the far north, though Lewanika, from whom I gleaned out of this history of his people, has but a hazy idea of events prior to the Kabompo settlement.  This quotation supplements the Malozi claim given by witnesses before the Commission.  The fact that these incidents are not mentioned in Mr.Jalla's history would be more worthy of note if there had been no previous mention of them at all.  Of outside and unbiased evidence prior to the time of Coillard and the Paris Mission there are only available the books of Lacerda and Livingstone.  The translation of Lacerda's book has not been available in Mongu, but it is understood that at the time he travelled through the land in diepu1 towards the end of the 18th century, he found only the Aalui and the Ambwela on his route.  I would particularly ask that, if his book is

[Page 02, File 045]

available in Lusaka, further reference might be made to it in the light of the increased Knowledge gained by the Commission within the Province.  It is also understood that the Lunda are not mentioned in this book, and this is important when considering the claim made by the Lunda & Lovale that the Aalui came from Mwatiamvwa & left at the same time as the Lunda & after the Lovale.  With regard to this claim it can only be said that it is now flatly denied by the Balozi themselves, but that at the same time the derivation of the word Malunda in the two editions of Mr.Jalla's book, and his own statement that he was told this at some time, do support the claim that there may have been some common origin for these tribes.  Coillard was told by the Lunda Lovale that they had a common origin (p.603), but there is no mention that the Malozi came from the same stock.  Mr.Jalla's history of the Malozi does not give their origin as being connected with Mwatiamvwa, but he does say (p.4) that Mbuyamwambwa, the first chieftains went up to Kaumbu in the Lunda country, where she was followed by common people, & that she then repented and returned.  It may be pointed out that Mwatiamvwa's empire was once on such a scale that it seems natural that smaller tribes within journeying distance would wish to connect their own & their neighbours' histories by legend with the great empire still surviving to the north-east.  The Malozi themselves do not in any way dispute that the Lunda & Lovale claim to have come from Mwatiamvwa may be true.

That the language of the Lunda & Malozi differed even in the time of Livingstone is shown by his remark on page 272 that, "Shabando could speak the language of the Barotse well.”  If the languages had been the same this remark would have been pointless.  

The Malozi say that the customs of the two tribes differ in about every respect, and the custom of circumcision which the Lunda & Makololo practice, in common with many other tribes, is not a Malozi custom at all.  Mr.Jalla's history, p.16, says circumcision is "a practice not indulged in by the Barotse", and on p.24 that Sebituane had made Mpipi "induna in charge of the circumcision.”  

Prior to the time of Mulambwa there is little to note of interest in the Barotse history of Mr.Jalla.  On p.5 he says that

[Page 03, File 046]

Mwanasilundu conquered the Liuwa and Mambowe people.  This is denied by their descendants today, who seem to be entirely assimilated.  It has been noticed that a war against the Balovale took place under Ngombala, but Mr.Jalla's history does not mention this, though he does say that Ngombala took an army to the Nyengo among other places (p.11).  Under Mulambwa the Malozi also sent an army to the Lovale country (Jalla, p.15) in revenge for a raid on the valley.

Before the coming of the Makololo, the Malozi under Mulambwa were a strong tribe, and the advent of the Mambunda under Mwenechiengele increased their power and importance.  That they were a strong and powerful fighting tribe is evidenced by Livingstone when he says on p.87 that "Sebituane spared their chiefs, even though they attacked him first.”  As Sebituane and his Makololo had already fought many battles and acquired a name as a fighting unit, this attack made on him by the Malozi does demonstrate that the Malozi of those days were fighters.  When however we look for evidence of the fighting ability of the Lovale or Lunda we find in Livingstone that the first mention of the Lovale, on p.222, was that they fled precipitately, and with regard to the Lunda we have only to refer to Livingstone's comment on p.282, when speaking of the Lunda with Manenko that "the constant habit of wearing arms is probably only a substitute for the courage they do not possess.”  Again on p.292 Livingstone says that Sambanza (a Lunda) told him that he "ought to have taught the Makololo that first for the Balunda never attacked them, yet they had assailed the Balunda.”  This seems to have been one isolated raid and otherwise there seems to have been little contact between the Makololo and the Lunda.  It is interesting to speculate what contact there was between the Makololo and Lovale, and it is worth noting that while Lovale witnesses claim that they did  not actually come in contact with the Makololo at all, Livingstone on p.222 (as previously quoted) "came to a number of people from the Lovale region...before coming to the Lueti”, and later, on p.275, “Nyamoana was afraid, too, that the Balovale, whose country lies to the west of the river, not knowing the objects for which we had come, would kill us", and then later "that the Balovale would not kill me, but the Makololo would

[Page 04; File 047]

all be sacrificed as their enemies." What then was the cause of the enmity of Makololo & Balovale?  There is no evidence of Makololo going north of at any rate the Lungwevungu, while there is no claim put in evidence that the Lovale lived south of that river.  There appear to be two solutions.  The first is that the Lovale came down to hunt and possibly even raid in the border country, while the second of course is that the Lovale of those parts were even then tributary to the Malozi and as such, not having come under the Makololo, would be considered enemies.  The fact that Litondo, a pro-Malozi Lovale from north of the Lungwevungu, has stated that his ancestor came in in the time of Mulambwa, gives colour to this possibility.  A third solution, that the Malozi were blood-friends of the Lovale, and, in the person of  Imbua, had been succoured by them, is not admissable because when Livingstone went up the river, Imbua was still at Nyengo, and it was only later on his return journey that  Imbua began his journey to the Lukwakwa during which he is said by the Lovale to have been succoured by their chief Chikelete.  When. Mr.Jalla's history says on p.18 that the Makololo were then left masters of the whole of Barotseland, it is necessary to look in the original Silozi where the word used may refer to the valley country only (mulena a bu-Lozi kaofela).  See Hill Gibbons p.143, Vol.1 - the broad long plain now known as Barotse.

Livingstone. 

It is particularly unfortunate for the Malozi that Livingstone should have made his journey through the country at a time when their power was at its lowest ebb.  Driven out by the Makololo, the disappointed and discontented chiefs fled north-east and went to the Lukwakwa and the Nyengo.  Livingstone says (p.203) that Masiku lived 5 days' journey nearly due east of the Kabompo-Dongwe junction.  Actually must have been north-east as due east was south of Kabompo.  Malozi claim he was on Kanchalia (see Mwenechiengele etc.).  Natives pointing are notoriously unreliable.  Livingstone also says at p.245 that Masiku had fled high up the Leambuzi (Kabompo).  Further, Livingstone himself never saw Masiku or Imbua, and what he says about them is therefore obviously obtained from native rumour.  The fact that he had with him a number of Malozi as paddlers does not much better the matter because these paddlers

[Page 05, File 048]

would have been considered by either Masiku or Imbua as rebels (see Livingstone p.255), and further as people living in the valley would hardly be au fait with the doings of their chiefs.  It is true that before meeting Shinde, Livingstone saw an important embassy from Imasiku, but unfortunately no history of the times from a Malozi standpoint seems to have been given.  Much that Livingstone says about Imasiku and Imbua was told him by Shinde.  lf, as has been claimed by old Noyoo, the Malozi received tribute from the Lunda before and even during the Makololo interregnum, there can be little doubt that the Lunda had in fact become independent when Livingstone visited Shinde, and further it is at least arguable that they were moving down into the uninhabited border country mentioned by Livingstone on page 250.  This movement may perhaps be shown by Livingstone's statement on p.273 that Nyamoana's people had but recently come to the present locality and had erected only 20 huts.  On p.245 Livingstone describes a raid under a Makololo called Lerimo to the north and up the Leiba, and says that this "party had taken some of this Masiku's subjects prisoners and destroyed several villages of the Balunda, to whom we were going”.  This tantalising quotation might mean that Masiku had power over the southern area north of the Kabompo and Lungwevungu, because the raid was directed against Masiku; and unless the Balunda villages were under him, there was no reason why they were attacked.

Livingstone speaks of Manenko & Nyamoana as female chiefs of the Lunda, but it has been shown in the cross-examination of Shinde (p.14) that daughters and relations of Shinde's would be given villages to look after and referred to as chiefs, when really they were simply village headmen.  It seems likely that Nyamoana and Manenko were in this category and that in fact there were no real Chiefs of the Lunda between the Lufize and the Kabompo.  It is only fair to add that the presence of small villages under females of the Royal Family does not suggest that there was any danger of trouble from the south.

Of Livingstone's first visit to Shinde there are only two points to notice - first that Shinde said (p.296) that "he had

[Page 06, File 049]

always been a friend to Sebituane and now that his son Sekeletu was in his place, Shinte was not merely a friend but a father to him", and secondly "that I had now left Sekeletu far behind and must henceforth look to Shinte alone for aid.”  On the return journey, however, we get some interesting information on p.483 and 485-6.  First "Shinde entered into a long detail of his troubles with Masiko, who had prevented him from cultivating that friendship with the Makololo which had inculcated, and had even plundered the messengers he had sent with Kolimbota to the Barotse valley.  In view of Shinde's profession that he was a father to Sekeletu, it is interesting to hear that he now talked of being prevented from cultivating friendship with the Makololo.  Shinde was evidently good at making himself appear important. Then on p.485 we come to the important passage concerning the trouble, with Imasiku and Imbua.  I would like to quote the most important passage.

"When Masiko fled from the Makololo country, in consequence of a dislike of being in a state of subjection to Sebituane, he came into the territory of Shinte, who received him kindly, and sent orders to all the villages in his vicinity to supply him with food.  Limboa fled in a westerly direction with a number of people and also became a chief."

It is particularly unfortunate for the Malozi that Livingstone should have made his journey through the country at a time when their power was at its lowest ebb.  Driven out by the Makololo, the disappointed and discontented chiefs fled north-east and went to the Lukwakwa and the Nyengo.  Livingstone says (p.203) that Masiku lived 5 days' journey nearly due east of the Kabompo-Dongwe junction.  Actually must have been north-east as due east was south of Kabompo.  Malozi claim he was on Kanchalia (see Mwenechiengele etc.).  Natives pointing are notoriously unreliable.  Livingstone also says at p.245 that Masiku had fled high up the Leambuzi (Kabompo).  Further, Livingstone himself never saw Masiku or Imbua, and what he says about them is therefore obviously obtained from native rumour.  The fact that he had with him a number of Malozi as paddlers does not much better the matter because these paddlers

[Page 05, File 048]

would have been considered by either Masiku or Imbua as rebels (see Livingstone p.255), and further as people living in the valley would hardly be au fait with the doings of their chiefs.  It is true that before meeting Shinde, Livingstone saw an important embassy from Imasiku, but unfortunately no history of the times from a Malozi standpoint seems to have been given.  Much that Livingstone says about Imasiku and Imbua was told him by Shinde.  lf, as has been claimed by old Noyoo, the Malozi received tribute from the Lunda before and even during the Makololo interregnum, there can be little doubt that the Lunda had in fact become independent when Livingstone visited Shinde, and further it is at least arguable that they were moving down into the uninhabited border country mentioned by Livingstone on page 250.  This movement may perhaps be shown by Livingstone's statement on p.273 that Nyamoana's people had but recently come to the present locality and had erected only 20 huts.  On p.245 Livingstone describes a raid under a Makololo called Lerimo to the north and up the Leiba, and says that this "party had taken some of this Masiku's subjects prisoners and destroyed several villages of the Balunda, to whom we were going”.  This tantalising quotation might mean that Masiku had power over the southern area north of the Kabompo and Lungwevungu, because the raid was directed against Masiku; and unless the Balunda villages were under him, there was no reason why they were attacked.

Livingstone speaks of Manenko & Nyamoana as female chiefs of the Lunda, but it has been shown in the cross-examination of Shinde (p.14) that daughters and relations of Shinde's would be given villages to look after and referred to as chiefs, when really they were simply village headmen.  It seems likely that Nyamoana and Manenko were in this category and that in fact there were no real Chiefs of the Lunda between the Lufize and the Kabompo.  It is only fair to add that the presence of small villages under females of the Royal Family does not suggest that there was any danger of trouble from the south.

Of Livingstone's first visit to Shinde there are only two points to notice - first that Shinde said (p.296) that "he had

[Page 06, File 049]

always been a friend to Sebituane and now that his son Sekeletu was in his place, Shinte was not merely a friend but a father to him", and secondly "that I had now left Sekeletu far behind and must henceforth look to Shinte alone for aid.”  On the return journey, however, we get some interesting information on p.483 and 485-6.  First "Shinde entered into a long detail of his troubles with Masiko, who had prevented him from cultivating that friendship with the Makololo which had inculcated, and had even plundered the messengers he had sent with Kolimbota to the Barotse valley.  In view of Shinde's profession that he was a father to Sekeletu, it is interesting to hear that he now talked of being prevented from cultivating friendship with the Makololo.  Shinde was evidently good at making himself appear important. Then on p.485 we come to the important passage concerning the trouble, with Imasiku and Imbua.  I would like to quote the most important passage.

"When Masiko fled from the Makololo country, in consequence of a dislike of being in a state of subjection to Sebituane, he came into the territory of Shinte, who received him kindly, and sent orders to all the villages in his vicinity to supply him with food.  Limboa fled in a westerly direction with a number of people and also became a chief."

This statement that Imbua also became a chief surely suggests that Imasiku became a chief.  Shinde was on the Lufize, and no evidence has been offered to show that Imasiku ever actually met him, and in fact owing to distance it seems most improbable that he ever did.  The Malozi claim that in fact Imasiku went north of the Kabompo with his people and the Mambunda chiefs and occupied a country (once theirs) which was almost entirely unpopulated except for a few Lukolwe and Mankoya villages.  It is quite possible that Shinde with his unwarlike people would placate the chief who had come on to his border with presents of meal, but I must suggest as forcibly as possible that the suggestion behind the words "received him kindly", if taken to mean that Shinde protected Imasiku, is a false one.  If Shinde was speaking the truth when he said he was a friend of Sebituane's and Sekeletu's, what business had he to succour rebels from their authority?  And if he wished to cultivate such a friendship, any succouring of Imasiku would be likely to prove a fatal bar to such a possibility.  Later on

[Page 07, File 050]

the same page Livingstone says that "The mother of Limboa being of a high family, he (Limboa) felt aggrieved, because the situation chosen by Masiko was better than his.”  I have to submit that in fact this shows exactly what happened.  Imasiku forced to fly from the Makololo fled into the almost uninhabited border country and chose a situation where he obtained material benefits and was unlikely to be attacked.


Again on the same page Livingstone says that Limbos "resolved to come into the same district.  As this was looked upon as an assertion of superiority, which Masiko would resist, it was virtually a declaration of war." if Masiko was living in Shinde's country, any invasion of that country by Limboa, one would have imagined, would have been resisted by Shinde and not by the "succoured" Imasiku.  Further, "Shinde felt inclined to aid Limboa", a curious outlook from a man who was supposed to be succouring Imasiku on his own land.
There is another interesting passage on p.489 in which Livingstone quotes the Barotse whom Limboa had left behind on the Nyenko and proceeding to elect Namanko in Limboa's place, saying, "It is quite too much for Limboa to rule over two places.”  As Limboa went with the intention of fighting Imasiku and taking his place, this does strongly suggest that in fact by this time at any rate Imasiku had consolidated himself into a chieftainship in the Lukwakwa area.
On p.489 Livingstone refers to the path up the Zambesi (or Leeba) as having been given to him by the Balunda ‘the owners of the country'.  This ownership must have been apparent to Livingstone at this time when, as I have before remarked, the Barotse were at the weakest; but at the same time there seems to have been no attempt by the Lunda to close the path to the Malozi of Imasiku and  Imbua.


There are few other quotations from Livingstone of importance, but I wish to point out three.  On p.489 he refers to an Ambunda man whose father was living with Imasiku.  This squares with the evidence of Mwenesiengele, Siengele and others that their predecessors went north with Imasiku.


On p.490 Livingstone refers to meeting "a number of hunters belonging to the tribe called Mambowe, who live under Masiko.’  A short distance below confluence of Leeba and Liambye - near their

[Page 08, File 051]

present centre.

Finally, on p.487 Livingstone on his return journey "came north of the Makondo rivulet upon the tsetse in such numbers that many bites were inflicted upon my poor ox.”  I shall refer to this quotation later as giving a probable reason why there were no cattle posts in that part of the country and also why the Lunda were so little interfered with by the Malozi, whose raids on other tribes were almost always to obtain cattle (see Coillard, p.298 et seq., quoted by Smith a Dale, p.42).  Livingstone also refers to tsetse fly on p.221.

Finally I would refer to one thing which is mentioned on Livingstone's map, a facsimile of which is before the Commission.  The Malozi witnesses, particularly the Mambowe witnesses, have claimed that at one time they inhabited the country up to Chavuma on the east bank.  In the map Livingstone marks the Mambowe well north of the Kabompo junction, and this fact is strong support of the Mambowe's claims which were made before it was known that the map existed.

The early settlers in Lovale Country. 

I wish to refer next to the claims of Situmbeku and the Liuwa to the country north of the Lungwevungu.  Situmbeku in his own statement claims that his ancestors were the inhabitants of the country north of that river when the ancestor of Chinyama Litapi first arrived in the country, and that they found Situmbeku with certain villages living on the Litapi.  In this connection the origin of the name Litapi, which is the river on which Chinyama lives, and from which he takes his title, is of some interest.  In Silozi the name as it stands means -fish", and I would submit that it is almost certain that this is the origin of the name of this river, and that this is further evidence that the original inhabitants of the land were Silozi speaking.  Now the claim of the Lovale is quite different.  They assert that the ancestor of Situmbeku with certain other headmen was driven out by the Makololo and fled to Chinyama's ancestor for protection, and that later they were called back to the Barotse valley but found they preferred the country north of the Lungwevungu and returned to Chinyama's protection.  Later it is asserted that they gradually obtained a greater importance and set

[Page 09, File 052]

up themselves as territorial chiefs.  As neither story can be supported by anything save partisan evidence, the circumstances surrounding the two versions must be considered.  There is no evidence that the Makololo ever reached as far north as the Lungwevungu, and there is no evidence that they ever went into the Liuwa plain or that the Liuwa people ever fled from them.  The Liuwa people are far more numerous than the 5 or 6 headmen and their followers that the Lovale say fled to there.  If any Liuwa fled it seems likely that they would have fled together and followed their chief across the Lungwevungu.  Actually there seems to be no good reason for supposing that they fled at all.  However, whether they fled or not, Situmbeku and his people deserve consideration because they have been on their present sites for several generations even according to Lovale testimony, and in fact they have as good a claim to the country in which they live as any Lovale and Lunda can produce, even if the evidence of the adverse Lovale only is believed.  Situmbeku himself has been recognised as a chief or induna by the Paramount Chief and by the Government for a long time, and the Balovale D.N.B. shows he received a subsidy in 1919 in the first recorded list of subsidies for that district.

With regard to the derivation of the name Liuwa, the word in Silozi means a trackless plain, and the Malozi claim that it is used for the large area of plain stretching from the Kalabo district across Lungwevungu up to the Litapi.  The word itself may be looked up in Mr.Jalla's dictionary, and I can see no reason why it should not refer to these plains nor why the name Liuwa should not halve been given to that section of the Aalui living on these plains.

Blood-friendship. 

Another fantastic claim made for the Lovale also calls for attention at this point.  This is the claim that  Imbua on his way from Nyengo to the area where Imasiku was living, fled to the Lovale chief Chikelete and there asked for blood-friendship with him, and that the ceremony was duly performed.  All the evidence from extraneous sources tells against this fantastic claim, and, except for the evidence given by certain Lovale, I can find nothing whatever in its support.  Livingstone does not mention this ceremony but he does touch on various matters which throw light on the matter.

[Page 10, File 053]

According to the Lovale story given to the Commission by Chinyama Litapi (p.2 of lst part of his evidence), Imbua explained to Chikelete that he had first of all fled to Kandambo, chief of the Mambunda, but Kandambo had been unwilling for him to stay.  He was afraid of the Makololo.  He said, "I have come to you, Chikelete, wondering how you would receive me.”  Then later apparently the blood-friendship ceremony was performed, and immediately it was over "Imbua asked for people to take him to the Lukwakwa as he did not know the way.  Sakavungu's briefer relation of the incident agrees, except that he says that "after some days Imbua said, 'I am anxious to follow those of our people who fled into the Lukwakwa."

I now refer to Livingstone.  First, on p.485 he says that  Imbua "fled in a westerly direction with a number of people and also became a chief.  His country was sometimes called Nyenko.  We know from Mr.Jalla's history also that Imbua spent a long time on the Nyengo for it says, p.30, that "after many years had passed, Imbua became envious of Imasiku saying his younger brother had more than his fair share.  This expression "fair share" does suggest that what is referred to is the remnants of the Barotse kingdom.  Further proof that a chieftainship was definitely established at Nyengo is given in Mr.Jalla's book (p.35) in which it is stated that Lubosi Lewanika was born there in 1842 and lived there till 1856.
Again on p.489 of Livingstone as I have quoted before “The Barotse, whom Limboa had left behind at Nyenko, in proceeding to elect Namanko, said, 'No, it is quite too much for Limboa to rule over two places.”  These quotations, I submit, entirely dispose of any suggestion that Limboa fled to the Mambunda and when they would not receive ilia went to Chikelete.  Again on p.485 Livingstone says that Limboa went to the Lukwakwa "confident of success" against Imasiku.  This does not suggest that he was a powerless refugee, even though he did ask Shinde for aid against Imasiku.  If he had really made blood-friendship with Chikelete I cannot believe that he would have had to ask Shinde for aid against Imasiku but would rather have demanded aid from Chikelete.  It must also be remembered that when Livingstone passed down the river on his return journey he says (p.489)

[Page 11, File 054]

that Imbua had lately crossed the Leeba on his way towards Masiko.  Surely the making of this blood friendship would have spread round very fast and have come to Livingstone's ears.  If it had, it was certainly worth recording.  Whether the Malozi made blood-friendship at a later date will be referred to later, but I submit that Imbua certainly did not do so with Chikelete.

Sipopa.

After Livingstone's time we have to rely on the evidence of witnesses (most of whom were not alive) and on Mr.Jalla's book of Malozi history, until we come to the memory of old men and to the time of Mr. Coillard and Mr.Jalla himself.  According to Mr.Jalla's history, Imbua returned to the Nyengo after a short stay at the Lukwakwa.  Imasiku was killed and Sipopa took his place.  Mr.Jalla says that the Mambunda killed Imasiku, but that is I think a mistake as all Mambunda witnesses agree with Hill Gibbons (p.1)9, Vole .1) that Imasiku was murdered by Sipopa.  In the following year, 1864, Sipopa, Ngambela, Njekwa, went down via Mwito, which is in the Mankoya district and conquered the Makololo with ease.  Sipopa was sent for and became chief the same year.  In 1870  Imbua, who had returned to the Lukwakwa, tried to assert himself and to lead a rebellion against Sipopa.  He and Maibubu were surrounded at Kangoti and killed in the fighting (Jalla, 32).  Namiluko's son, Sikufele, with two sons of Imbua, fled to the Lukwakwa.  About 1871 an army was sent to the Lukwakwa which destroyed Sikefele's capital but was then defeated and returned.  Sipopa was now established in his chieftainship.  The Commission is asked by Lovale witnesses to believe that he thereupon sent for Kaumba, the Lovale ancestor of Chinyama Litapi, and asked to renew the blood-friendship made by Imbua with Kaumba's father (Chinyama Litapi's evidence, p.4, and Sakavungu's evidence).  Actually the Lovale accounts usually refer to Imbua, who never became chief in the valley at all.  I wish to suggest to the Commission that this story, which is denied by the Lozi, is obviously inherently unlikely. 

Firstly, it is unlikely that Sipopa, who was a big and powerful chief, would care to make such a blood-friendship after he was settled in his chieftainship.  Secondly, the fact that he called Kaumba down and that

[Page 12, File 055]

Kaumba came suggests that they were not equals. Thirdly, and I suggest that this clinches the matter, Sipopa was responsible for his nephew Imbua's death, and for this reason, if a blood-friendship meant anything at all, Kaumba could not have agreed to come and make a blood-friendship with the man who had killed his father's blood-friend, and neither would Sipopa be likely to call Kaumba to make the friendship in these circumstances.  It is unnecessary to touch on the death of Sipopa, the short reign of Mwanawina and the succession of Lubosi Lewanika.  Then in 1884 Lewanika was driven into exile and Tatila Akufuna, son of Imbua, was called from the Lukwakwa to become chief.  Lewanika fled to the Mashe, where he made blood-friendship with one Samutete.  The present Paramount Chief has said that this was compulsory, and that those in exile are bound to do what they are asked to do.  This is the only occasion on which Mr.Jalla's history records that a Paramount Chief of the Malozi has made blood-friendship.  If one occasion was mentioned, why were not all the others with the Lovale? 

Lewanika then raised an army which drove out Akufuna, who fled north and wished to go to the Lukwakwa where Sikufele still lived (p.44).  We are told, however (p.43) that one Luchanana (that is, old Noyoo) suggested the Lovale country as a better proposition as there would be a chance of their seizing the chieftainship there and improving their position thereby.  Unfortunately we do not know what country is thus referred to and can only be certain that the chieftainship of the Lovale at that date was so weak that there was a chance for Akufuna to seize it.  Noyoo, as tribute collector for the Lovale, would have been in the best position to know.

Lewanika returned to Lealui and was just in time to defeat Sikufele, who had come down from the Lukwakwa.

At last in 1886 Francois Coillard arrived in Barotse¬land, and again it is possible to return to a record written by an observer at the time.

In 1883 approximately it is claimed that the chief of the Lunda, Kanoka, was reinstated with the aid of Malozi sent by Lealui.  In the Lunda history in Balovale file 29, this Kanoka, the next Shinde after the one seen by Livingstone, was the first one to

[Page 13, File 056]

have had a capital in the land under dispute.  In the later translation it appears that Livingstone's Shinde was the first.

In 1889 Lewanika sent another army to the Lukwakwa.

Then in 1892 we come to the war fought by the Malozi against the Lovale.


1892 War.

Chikalakanyovo, Chief of the Lunda, was defeated by the Lovale and his people were constantly raided and harried by them.  Even his mother was captured and taken off as a slave.  Things reached such a pitch and his people were so scattered that eventually he came down to Lealui to ask for Lewanika's help.  The Malozi claim that Chikalakanyovo came almost alone to Silembe and that Silembe brought him to Lealui.  The Lunda claim that he came in great state and with many people to Lealui, and that he passed through many Lunda villages all the way through the present east side of the Balovale District, though Shinde in cross-examination has said that the people were living in the bush.  It appears that they are claiming too much.  If Chikalakanyovo had this large retinue and had so many people still living in the present Balovale district, he need only have raised a war party from his own people to have defeated the Lovale.  In any case, it is difficult to see why he did not send for help to Kanongesha, who was himself then fighting against the Lovale, and to whom the present Shinde wrote when he was troubled by Nawinda.  It is difficult, that is, unless we accept the Malozi solution that the Lunda were already tributary to the Malozi and living on their land and that the Lovale had in the past been conquered by the Malozi and. were tributary to them also.  Colour is lent to this view by a note in Coillard's book (p.495) that "this had not been a marauding raid, like that against the Mashukulumbwe, but a legitimate expedition to put down rebellion.”  If the blood-friendship between the Lovale and Malozi was so well-known it seems unlikely that the Lunda would have appealed to the Malozi to fight against the tribe of their blood-friends.  The war party of Malozi joined the Lunda under Chikalakanyovo, pushed on through the present Balovale district without fighting, and eventually defeated the Lovale under Chiazangombe in thick forest country and killed Chiazangombe himself.  The war itself appears to have been particularly

[Page 14, File 057]

directed against Musongo-wa-Ndungu according to Mr.Jalla's history (p.50).  In this connection I wish to refer to Sakavungu's statement to the Commission.  He says (p.8), that the fighting began at Ndungu's village, that the women and children of Ndungu were captured and that Ndungu ran away to Chiazangombe.  The latter, according to this story collected his people, but as the Barotse did not arrive they broke up. Ndungu seems to have had no idea of following the Malozi and trying to recapture his wives and children.  After the defeat and death of Chiazangombe the Barotse, who had captured several chieftainesses and the children of chiefs, according to Sakavungu after another fight at Mubengela, where many Barotse were killed, returned to Barotseland and on the way back contracted smallpox.  There are several points here with which Shinde does not agree.  Coillard reckons (p.472) that 350 Lovale were killed and 600 women and children captured.  Of the captured, many died of smallpox during the journey down and later after arrival.  Coillard and Sakavungu agree that women and children were captured.  Neither mentions the capture of men, and for the excellent reason that men never were captured in native wars - they were always killed on the spot if possible.  This throws the gravest doubts on the veracity of Sakavungu's statement that Lewanika was grieved because Chiazangombe was killed and that he said (p.9) that “You should have caught him alive and brought him to me.”  It is significant that Sakavungu in his statement made at Balovale attempts no explanation of why Ndungu went down to Lealui after the war with Chinyama and Kucheka, except that he went to ask for his relative’s back.  It has also been suggested by Chinyama Litapi (p.5) that Lewanika would not have given them back unless he realised he had made a mistake and broken the blood-friendship.  The Malozi explanation is I submit, much more likely, that the relatives of chiefs were given back on condition the chiefs submitted to Lewanika and became his vassals.

Before this war it seems that Kucheka and Chinyama lived near the present borders of the district.  Exactly which side of the present very artificial border it is almost impossible to decide.  After the war Indunas were sent up by Lewanika to watch and

[Page 15, File 058]

to see to the collection of tribute.

If the Lovale case is to be believed, Ndungu was given back his wives and children and the members of his and Chiazangombe's families by Lewanika, on the grounds that he was related to Kucheka and Chinyama and that the latter were Lewanika's blood-friend He then returned home and received an Induna from Lewanika, whose job was to watch Kakenge and run messages to and from Lewanika and Ndungu If this is true, why should Lewanika fear Kakenge, who was also a close relation of Chinyama, Kucheka and Ndungu, and why, on the other hand, should Ndungu accept a man from Lewanika to spy on Kakenge, who was his paramount chief? How also can it be explained that Lewanika sent Njekwa with the idea that Kakenge should receive him if the idea was that Kakenge was the man who needed watching?  What good could Njekwa have done at Kakenge's?  It Kakenge had intended to make war on Lewanika, he would of course have taken steps first to obliterate Njekwa and to prevent any news of his intentions reaching Lewanika.

The Malozi version is, I submit, much more likely.  Chinyama and Kucheka had moved into the borders of Lewanika's country and put themselves under his protection at an earlier date and during some of the numerous internecine wars among the Lovale.

He was also grateful to them for medicine received, and he therefore told his war party not to molest them, though in any case the war party would not go anywhere near Chinyama's.  After the war, Ndungu, who had been defeated and lost his wives and children, persuaded Chinyama and Kucheka to take him to Lealui to make his submission to Lewanika.  Having made his submission, Ndungu was allowed to take his wives and children and the relatives of Chiazangombe, and later was settled well inside the present Balovale district.  He and Chinyama and Kucheka each had a man to live with them and be responsible for their tribute, and in addition these men would be responsible for reporting to Lewanika if any further troubles arose between the Lovale and Lunda.

Lewanika claimed the country up to Kakenge's as his country (see his letter protesting against the Portuguese putting a fort at Kakenge's).  The east bank the Malozi also claims to be their

[Page 16, File 059]

land.  If there were quarrels between the Lunda and Lovale inhabitants of Lewanika’s land, it would be natural for him to station Indunas to report to him the outbreaks of any raiding.

-----[ Continued ]----




Click for Map WikanikoWork from Home