Get your free website from Spanglefish
This is a free Spanglefish 2 website.

06 Mar Clay (4)

6th March, 1939.



1900 to 1907  
The period 1900 to 1907 is almost barren of evidence of any kind. Chikalakanyovo had died probably towards the end of the century, and the Malozi claim that Kasalamusamba was appointed to succeed him at Lealui, but later moved to the Lufize owing to trouble between him and Nyachipopa, who also had claims to the chieftainship. The present Shinde in his statement made before Mr. Jones in 1923 supports this Barotse contention when he says "Kasalamusamba was chosen by the Barotse to succeed Kapinga" (Kapinga was Chikalakanyovo when he died.) Nyachipopa took charge of the Lunda living south of the Makondo and Kasalamusamba took charge of those living north of that river. in 1907 Nyamwana was appointed to take the place vacated by Kasalamusamba.

In 1904 an agreement was reached whereby hut tax was instituted and the old custom of tribute paid to the Paramount Chief was to be discontinued. A letter has been put in evidence by the Malozi dated 17th August 1904, from Coryndon to Lewanika in confirm¬ation of the agreement come to. 10/- per male native was the agreed rate for the first year and the collection was to be over the Batoka country as far as the Kafue first, then other districts as soon as they were got ready for collection.

It appears therefore, failing any other conclusive evidence, that tribute was to cease as soon as districts were got ready for tax collection, so that although tribute presumably ceased in the Batoka and Mashukulumbwe countries in 1904, it probably did not cease elsewhere till the year in which tax was  first collect in each district.

Venning, 1901. Building of Boma.
In 1907 Mr. Venning was sent up to open a Government station at Balovale. From this date onwards there is a varying amount of documentary evidence. Mr. Venning's letter to the Commissioner is exceedingly interesting. He states that the Barotse nominally ruled the Balovale district for many years before European occupation, but that no real control was exercised for three reasons - 1st that the
tribes acted as intermediaries in the arms & powder trade, 2nd that the Malozi were afraid individually of the Lovale & Lunda because of their witchcraft, 3rd because the Malozi were slack. At a much later date when Nawinda was sent up, I shall point out that the cogency of these three reasons had disappeared. Venning also states that un¬doubtedly the Lunda & Lovale of the district were subject people of the Malozi and that their representatives, supposed to be tax gatherers, were stationed with all the more important chiefs. They were also responsible for seeing that ivory & lion & leopard skins were taken to Lealui & Nalolo, as they were regarded as the property of the Paramount Chief. You, Sir, have called attention on numerous occasions to Venning's remark that these representatives were a useless lazy, drunken lot, who thought only of their own concerns. If this remark of Venning's is taken to be true and as being part of his observation, I must submit that his remarks that the Lovale & Lunda were subject people and that he remembers instances of ivory being taken to Lealui, must equally be considered true. (Further, if you should hold that Venning is unreliable when he says that the Lunda & Lovale were subject people and took tribute to Lealui, this very fact must cast suspicion on any other statement of his).

Venning also says that though tribute was not regularly paid, presents were made on periodical visits to Lealui and that tribute was paid in other ways. He instances the unpaid help given by Shinde's people and other Lunda in hauling down canoes cut by the Mambowe.

Venning says that though an important chief, was not a paramount, and that various Lunda chiefs did not recognise him. One infers that he refers among others to the Shima of the time

He says that he found some newly settled Luchaze and that Samujimo (who arrived as we know from the D.N.B. in 1910-11) told him that he was there with the permission of Lewanika. He also says that when more Luchaze came in Lewanika's permission was obtained and that as far as he remembers Shinde was not even consulted.

Venning says that tribute paying was customary, he thinks, before he arrived, and gives a host convincing story of Lunda
objecting to collecting ornaments, as they called shillings, for this tax, and saying they did not object if they could pay as they had done to Lewanika. Venning also gives an instance of a Lunda slave at Lealui and says there were many given as a form of tribute. He also says that though in practice Lewanika exercised very little jurisdiction over the Lovale, all matters of importance, such as success¬ions, were referred to him for settlement.

In the Lovale statement it is said that the Lovale never went down to help with the canal diving near Lealui The explanation seems to be simple - they were too far away, and instead, as yenning tells us, they sent food & made communal gardens. Lastly Venning says that he is fairly well sure that Shinde was not consulted when he was sent to start the Boma. If Shinde had really been independent, surely he would have done something to assert it when the first white man came to build in the area near him. Venning also remembers that Lewanika sent up hunting parties and that no per¬mission was asked, though Shinde would be told to tell his people to help.

Palmer followed Venning, and he also took a part in the formation of the district. In a letter of 1931 commenting on Mr. Hudson's paper on the Balovale district, Palmer states that the Resident Malozi near the Balunda & Balovale chiefs not only acted as advisers, but, representing Lewanika, who undoubtedly was the recog¬nised overlord of all these people, constituted courts of appeal for from the courts of the Lovale & Lunda chiefs. They exercised very great influence, and it was by their assistance that the first censusing of these tribes was so quietly and successfully carried out. In fact, he says, "I am afraid that it cannot be denied that even the District Officers in these early days were regarded by the local natives as 'Lewanika's whitemen.' This last statement is most interesting, for it was thus Lewanika's whitemen who settled and pacified the country.
Palmer reports that he was told by Arnot that the latter had himself seen tribute sent down annually by Nyakatoro and others.
Palmer goes on to say that "as far as the present Balovale & Balunda peoples are concerned, they paid direct tribute to Lewanika for some time after the advent of our Administration, and 1 myself had occasion to round up and return to him a number of his collectors of tribute who were ranging the country and carrying out their duties in a manner which certainly would not have been approved by the Paramount Chief himself.- These specific instances & examples quoted by Venning & Palmer add enormously to the value of their evidence, and I cannot see that there can be any possible doubt that tribute was in fact paid in the early years of the century. It is particularly interesting to note that it was under Mr. Palmer as P.C. that the Nawinda Kuta was sent up to Balovale over 20 years later.

District Notebook, Mongu
There are a few notes of interest concerning the early days of the Boma at Balovale, written by Mr. McKinnon in the Mongu District Note Book. He says that Venning & Palmer had "great trouble with the people in the district, who were wild & untamed savages", but that by 1914 the district was fairly in hand. He says that the principal natives of the district were Balovale under Ndungu to the west of the river and that they "think nothing of raiding one another and selling anyone into slavery." He says that the Barotse indunas had no great influence and that if they failed to collect their tribute they sent impis there to collect it as they were afraid to go except in large numbers.    The Lunda are described as also a wild people but 
now much more civilised.

The earliest figures that I can find showing the population of Balovale district are given in this District Note Book and show a total population in 1912 of 15,200. Mr. Suckling has said that many Lunda had moved out just before he came into the country. in 1912 the area between the Lukulu and the Kabompo was part of the Balovale district and probably carried a fairly heavy population. We also know that in 1910-11 Samujimo and a number of Luchaze had arrive In 1917 the figures were 28,000, and even if we take these later figures, the total population has increased by well over 100 in the
last 20 years. The small number present in 1912 would not be as litigous or vocal as the great numbers in 1932, and here is another reason why the Nawinda Kuta should be required in the latter year and not in Lewanika's time.

Balovale District Note Book.
I now turn to the Balovale D.N.B. On p.100 the Lunda tribe is discussed, and we find that "Kasalamusamba came on a visit to Lewanika at Lealui and stated he wished to return to the Makondo river and take up his old position there." There is good reason to suppose that these early notes were Venning's, and when discussing the Mankoya on p.110 it says that 1907 tax had not been collected but that 1908 tax was being collected. Why should Kasala¬musamba come to Lewanika and state he wished to return to the Makondo I submit it was because he knew that the land was Lewanika's. 

If there is any other explanation, I submit it is less likely than this one. At any rate Kasalamusamba could then have been refused per¬mission to return. He was an immigrant even if there were many of his people living near where. he wished to return. By crossing the border to Angola he had become a Portuguese subject, and as an alien he could have been kept out. He came back with Lewanika's approval. and Lewanika would not have given that approval if he had thought an independent chief was coming to claim part of his country.

On p.104 is the note that Kakenge was not recognised as head of the Lovale tribe by the chiefs in the territory at the present day (date must have been 1908). he was not recognised because the Lovale chiefs in the territory had submitted to Lewanika and move on to his land. Having quarrelled with Kakenge after the 1892 war, they had moved nearer Lewanika and further from Kakenge. Without Lewanika's protection. Could Chinyama have refused to visit Kakenge as is affirmed in the Lovale preliminary statement, p.4? Could there be "complete estrangement" between a Lovale sub-chief and the paramount of the tribe without retaliation unless Chinyama was supported by another great Chief? And would that other great chief - Lewanika - agree to this support without tangible advantage to himself? I submit
he would not.

On p.105 it is stated that "Nguvu's real home is the top of the Lungwebungu, i.e. close to the Angola border, also that "Litondo does not seem ever to have been under Kucheka".

On p.106 is a very important note. Apparently the Lealui Kuta suggested that all the Mambowe should move south of the Kabompo but later agreed that Sinkemba and others should have leave to live north of the Kabompo "to look after the fishing rights." This shows that claims to fishing rights north of the Kabompo existed before Nawinda went up to the Balovale district.

P.108, about the Liuwa it is stated that they "imagine they are the ruling tribe over the Balovale.” (Sharratt-Horne). The claim today by the Lovale that the Liuwa ran away to their protection is not strengthened.

P.109: There are also a number (of Mambunda) with the Barotse induna Bulamitata on the Linue. This 1908(?) note does not agree with Mr. Suckling's 1939 recollection of what he saw some time in 1919 (p.73), that "Bulamitata & Siengele were living in small isolated villages". I submit also that Mr. Suckling is misinformed when he says that he understands that Bulamitata & Siengele were entered in the books under Kakeke. Early population figures from the D.N.B. show that in this area the people were entered under Kakeke & Bulamitata. In this connection I may mention that Nguvu is first shown in this manner in the 1926 population figures with a very small population under him compared with Situmbeku, and that in the 1930 list of chiefs published by the Government Situmbeku is shown as a full chief.

On p.109 is a reference to Sinyama Sikufele, who "was told (in 1910) to remove from Lukwakwa in the Kasempa district (what we should call province today) and settle in the Barotse. At first he built on Manyinga R. (in this sub-district) but in 1912 he and his people were removed to the Mombezi (also in this district) by order of H.H.The Adm."  "Sinyama has a good many people under him. He is a 
cousin of Lewanika's. He is powerful and has a good deal of influence. Sinyama was killed by lightening on 16th Feb. 1916 on the day he was leaving for Lealui to mourn for Lewanika.
Again on p.320 it is stated that Sikufele was not allowed to build on the Luli or Manyinga or further east than the Zambezi.

These remarks that Sikufele was powerful and had a good deal of influence, coupled with the fact that on. his entering the district he was entered in the list of chiefs in the D.N.B.(p.20) do not agree with Mr. Suckling's observations on p.6 B that Sikufele "did not take up the position of a chief at all".

Appointment of Shinde.
Kasalamusamba was killed in P.W.A. [Portuguese West Africa, i.e. Angola] in 1912 and his nephew Kazanda was appointed to take his place. Nyachipopa, the disappointed claimant, returned to Angola and died there in 1915. Nyamwana went to succeed him there but disliked Portuguese adminis¬tration and returned almost immediately and was appointed to the Shim chieftainship. The Malozi claim that this took place at Lealui. Nyamwana brought with him the Lukano, but according to Shinde's own evidence the Lukano dispute did not begin till 1921 in the time of Bruce Miller.

Trouble over Messengers.
Mr. Suckling has referred to the troubles over Messengers, and there is apparently no direct evidence on this point in any papers or D.N.B's. It is submitted that the action taken by Messengers was only taken as retaliation following constant assaults  upon them by natives whom they had received instructions to arrest. In proof of this I would refer to the pages on bad characters in the Balovale D.N.B., pages 145-6, where several cases of attacks on Messengers are noted as occurring in 1918-19, and also to Mr. Marshall's query in his indaba held 27,1'/18 at Balovale (711e 9) to the chiefs and Indunas: "why the Messengers were assaulted when arresting people. There was no reply to this." Further (in the same file) in the quarterly report written by Owen for the last quarter of 1920, he says, "It may also be noted that at present it is not possible to send Messengers out singly otherwise they are ill-treated and assaulted....Usually 4 or 5 Messengers have to be sent together."
Death of Lewanika and Sikufele.
Lewanika died early in 1916, and as we have seen Sikufele died very shortly afterwards. Yeta succeeded Lewanika and sent up Namiluko to succeed to the position of Sikufele. Induna Sipawa has given evidence that he was sent up with Namiluko to the Mombezi to induct Namiluko as Sikufele. There a no doubt that this appointment came from Lealui, nor that the Manyinga area was an integral part of the Barotse kingdom. If it is claimed that the previous Sikufele lived in the present Mwinilunga or Kasempa it can only be asserted that the Manyinga and Mombezi and the country in between were part of this area, and under their sphere of influent It is understood that the Lunda claims that the country from the border south was ruled from the Lufize, and the Barotse claim that the Mombezi and Manyinga belong to the Lukwakwa must at least be admitted to be as reasonable a claim. There are now, it is true, a number of Lunda villages in that area, but almost every one is a comparatively recent arrival and the very few other ones, it is claimed, came there as hunters to the Lukwakwa chiefs.

This is a convenient point to note the troubles of Government and Lealui Kuta with Sikufele of which an excellent account is given on p.114 of the Balovale D.N.B.. It is not necessary to summarise that summary here but only to point out one or two matters of interest. The account begins by saying that the attitude of Sikufele had become truculent to Government & Paramount Chief, and it should be noted that throughout Government acted in concert with the Kuta at Lealui. Sikufele was called to Lealui, deposed, end told to live nearby. He was allowed to return for his property but then refused to return, took to flight and eventually crossed the Angola border, where he lived as a small sub-chief till his death in 1929; and throughout his life he continued to be a thorn in the flesh of Government A Paramount Chief. It is not true to say, therefore, that he was driven out or that the Kuta ordered his expulsion, for they did nothing of the sort. He fled of his own accord after refusing to submit to arrest by Government Messengers.

The account also says that he had wished to live in
the Mwinilunga district where doubtless his followers would have followed him, but actually when he fled only about 12 men went with him.  Lewanika appointed Sinyama Imasiku to take his place, and he and his successors have been appointed from Lealui. Today not only Sinyama Imasiku but also Bulamitata, Siengele and Sikufele, whatever their attitudes in the past may have been, and however discontented they may have been at one time or another, all are one in admitting Yeta as their Paramount Chief and stating that they prefer to be under him to living either under the Lunda or accepting an independent status.

(continued)                            7th March, 1939.

1917 to 1921
There are not many other matters to note between 1917 and 1921.

In 1918 the eastern boundary of the district which had previously been geographical was extended to the Manyinga river, so that a triangular piece of country which included the Luli and Kanchalia and the west bank of the Manyinga came under the control of Sikufele. In 1919 the first list of chiefs 'and indunas' subsidies is given. Situmbeku and a number of the mandumeleti figure in the list, and in addition most of the Lunda & Lovale chiefs, but Nguvu is an outstanding omission.

1921. The Ndungu succession dispute.
The Malozi have put in evidence 6 papers relating to the Ndungu succession of 1921, which are interesting as giving an example of how successions were made. Mandalu, who was made Ndungu, only lived for 6 months afterwards, but it is interesting to note that he said he could not go to Lealui till he had collected a tribute of skins, and that he gave this as an excuse for delay in going down. on his death the second claimant - the present Ndungu, who had then only recently arrived from P.W.A. - was appointed. A letter from the R. M. to Yeta of 18/12/22 may be quoted here (File 18D).
“If Ndungu is informed by you as well as by the N.C. that he is to have these immigrants placed under his authority and that this authority will be backed by us, I think he will be able to manage them." This suggests that either many immigrants to Ndungu's area were not his people or else that he had little control over his people - or possibly both.

1922. 12 days free labour.
Also put in evidence by the Malozi are certain papers of 1922 showing that 12 days free labour was being exacted from the Lunda in that year from Shima, Kutcha and Mpili. That was just before the arrival of Mr. Bruce Miller, and it was he who had trouble about the labour from Shinde's people. There can be no doubt that up to that time the Lunda had given their labour in canoe cutting and hauling of the canoes to the river. In this connection I wish to refer to the Minutes of Inquiry held l5th Oct. 1923 in Lealui, at which Shinde, Shima and Ndungu were present. As the Minutes were made by the Malozi, the Lunda would naturally deny their contents, but nevertheless they make interesting reading. It was an old man of Shinde's who is recorded as saying that Bruce Miller should be sent away from Barotseland, and it was Ndungu's head Induna who is recorded as saying that "the country in which we both live does not belong to any of us but to the Barotse people."

Other quotations from letters of this period are Yeta to A.M., Balovale, 7/4/23: "This canoe cutting is always Shinde's district work", and Bruce Miller to Yeta, 12/6/23: "I have instructed Shinde that he must send no natives to cut canoes who have not a 1922 tax receipt.' (File 18 B).

Most important also are the statements made before Mr. Jones by Shinde and Shima in July, 1923. And lastly there are two letters from Green to the R.M. Mongu, of 14/1/24 & 31/1/24, in which the Lunda people refuse to claim against the Paramount Chief for days worked in excess of 12. In view of this wealth of evidence, do not see how there can be any reasonable doubt that 12 days labour was :teen by the Lunda at times for boat cutting. The Malozi would
be the first to agree that boats were also brought down for sale from time to time.

The Lukano dispute 
Shinde Kazanda succeeded to the title in 1912. In 1915 Nyachipopa died in Angola and Nyamwana got possession of the Lukano. He brought it with him when he returned to the Shima chieftainship in 1916. At that time he claimed to be independent of hind and lived 16 Ales away from his (Green's letter of 25/2/25). Shinde now says that he did not know that Shima had the Lukano and that he thought Kamonga still had it. 

According to Shinde's story (p.14) Mr. Miller (D.C. 1922-23) asked him where it was and suggested he should send for it. Miller had been D.C. in the Mwinilunga District and knew Lunda customs, and he knew that according to normal Lunda custom the chief had to have the Lukano to receive the proper respect of his people. It appears that Shinde had not bothered about his Lukano between 1912 and 1922 or 1923. It is suggested that Shinde's chieftainship depended on the fact that he was recognised by Lewanika and that once that recognition was given he would be respected by his people whether he had the Lukano or not, because the Lukano was only the emblem of chieftainship given by Mwatiamvwa, and as Shinde never visited Mwatiamvwa and was in those days recognising Lewanika as his paramount, possession of the Lukano had become unimportant. In the Mwinilunga district when an usurper had obtained possession of Kanongesha's Lukano, his people lost confidence to such an extent that he had to go to Mwatiamvwa and beg another before he could get the recognition of his people. Kanongesha was still Mwatiamvwa's "son": Shinde had transferred his allegiance to Lewanika. Surely that is the only reasonable explanation of the facts. Also, it may be noted that Nyamwana, who had the Lukano, did not wear it or advertise the feet, which he would surely have done if the Lukano had had any great significance at that time. The dispute was brought up by Shinde to the S.N.A. [Secretary for Native Affairs] at an Indaba held at Balovale in 1924, but it was not till 1925 that the Lukano was finally given to Shinde. In the meanwhile the two parties had gone to Lealui where the Paramount
Chief Yeta had held that Shinde was the man to have the Lukano as he was recognised as the senior Lunda chief by Yeta. Shinde said in cross-examination before the Commission that Shima never wore the Lukano, but at the Indaba of 1924 Shima told the S.N.A. that he was in lawful possession of the Lukano, and I submit that a lawful possessor must have thought himself entitled to wear it. At that same Indaba it may be noted that Shinde told the S.N.A. that he had been appointed by the Paramount Chief Lewanika, Mr. Mckinnon and Mr. Palmer.

1924. Ndungu's claim to the land at Kalombo.
At an Indaba held at Balovale by Mr. Lyons in Jan.1924 Ndungu laid claim to the Kalombo area on the east bank. Mr. Lyons said that the matter would be referred to the Paramount chief. This claim is important because later the Lovale claim that the promise of this land was the bribe which they accepted in return for sending supporters of Nawinda to Lealui in the Shinde. dispute of 1934. It is curious that this claim has not been referred to the Commission which is no inquiring into the land question.

At the end of 1925 and beginning of 1926 there are more papers in File 18 B referring to the issuing of 10 Reasonable Orders published by the Paramount Chief and his Kuta as general orders for the Barotse District. These orders were to be enforced by N. C's under Proc.8 of 1916. Prom the Barotse standpoint here is direct evidence that Barotse orders were published in Balovale, but there is no direct evidence, I must admit, that the Lunda and Lovale knew that they were Barotse Orders which were being enforced.

1926 to 1932 
Again there is little of note in these are. In 1927 I would particularly call attention to the visit of old Noyoo to Balovale and to the minutes of the Indaba held before Mr. Horne at which all the chiefs were present (Hazell papers). It is interesting to note in passing that in cross-examination Shinde denied hearing Noyoo say any words about the new adultery laws. The papers referred
to conclusively prove Shinde wrong and show that Noyoo not only went up to explain the adultery laws but also that he heard cases for several days. The whole record is of great interest, showing as it does that the Lovale & Lunda took their complaints to Lealui and to Noyoo when he visited the district.

Another interesting point in the same papers is the suggestion of Horne's that at some future date it might be possible to send a central Kuta to Balovale, and Green's comment to the Paramount Chief of 8/4/27: "What a pity it is that you have no khotla in Balovale excepting Sinyama Imasiku who is so far away." This is the earliest mention found of the possibility of a kuta going to Balovale, and it is interesting to remember that it was made by two Government officials. In the same letter Green says that Noyoo is the Induna of all the Malovale tribe.

Another interesting letter is that of 10th July 1929 in which Mr. Hudson proposed to the Paramount Chief that some Lovale should settle near the Kabompo-Dongwe confluence. There is no mention that any Lunda chief was consulted.

•••••• [ Continued ]•••••••



Click for Map
sitemap | cookie policy | privacy policy | accessibility statement