chiefship in ukaguru: the invention of ethnicity and tradition in kaguru colonial history

Board of Trustees, Boston University

Chiefship in Ukaguru: The Invention of Ethnicity and Tradition in Kaguru Colonial HistoryAuthor(s): T. O. BeidelmanSource: The International Journal of African Historical Studies, Vol. 11, No. 2 (1978), pp. 227-246Published by: Boston University African Studies CenterStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/217438 .

Accessed: 09/05/2014 07:28

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Boston University African Studies Center and Board of Trustees, Boston University are collaborating withJSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The International Journal of African Historical Studies.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.230 on Fri, 9 May 2014 07:28:02 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=buafc

http://www.jstor.org/stable/217438?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


CHIEFSHIP IN UKAGURU: THE INVENTION OF ETHNICITY AND TRADITION IN KAGURU COLONIAL HISTORY

T. 0. Beidelman

The Kaguru are a Bantu-speaking society that in 1975 numbered about 100,000 cultivators inhabiting a small area (3,600 sq. mi.) in eastern Tanzania.' In this essay I briefly examine the ways the concepts of ethnic unity, political integrity, and hierarchy developed among the Kaguru in response to the alien influences of the Arabs and the German and British imperialists. This involved the creation of a Kaguru paramount chiefship, a handmaiden to imperialist domination as well as a means to some power for certain opportunistic Kaguru. This also necessarily involved the gradual manufacture of a view of Kaguru history and tradition maintained by those in power which differed from earlier Kaguru tradition and with the descriptions published by those Europeans who first encountered and wrote about Ukaguru (Kaguruland). In the course of considering these issues, I also touch upon some of the ideas which Kaguru have held about leadership and authority, both traditionally and in the colonial period.

Much has been written about how European imperialists made use of traditional native institutions to govern peoples in their overseas possessions. The methods varied with time and with the European power employing them.2 In Africa, some have empha- sized the differences between the methods of the French and British,3 though in many ways the similarities outweigh the differences. In most situations, the everyday chores of political control were exercised by local Africans ultimately responsible to their

'See T. O. Beidelman, The Matrilineal Peoples ofEastern Tanzania (London: 1967). 2For a particularly detailed and insightful account of such methods in the Congo, see

Edouard Bustin, Luanda and Belgian Rule (Cambridge: 1975). 3Michael Crowder, "Indirect Rule-French and British Style," Africa, 34 (1964).

The International Journal of African Historical Studies, XI, 2 (1978) 227



228 T. 0. BEIDELMAN

European overlords. This was true-along with all the inevitable mythification, abuses and contradictions that arose-even in highly complex polities with a literate tradition, as shown by Dale Eickel- man's elegant exposition of colonial policies (and their justification by the French) in Morocco.4

These methods of imperialist rule in overseas possessions have generally been termed indirect rule. It was rationalized by Euro- peans on several grounds. It was thought that natives best under- stood other natives and therefore could best govern them; that indigenous political institutions, incorporated into a Western bureaucratic administration, would provide useful points of articulation between a supposedly benighted native population and the white imperialists who governed them. Finally, such a system, staffed by natives, would supposedly allow government at a lower cost in both funds and European manpower.

For local cadres to provide articulation between natives and Europeans, they had to fall between both groups and as such could not be morally or politically entirely responsible or responsive to either. These cadres could hardly be popular or trustworthy. Fur- thermore, imperialist rule led to such profound alterations in local social structures that it was naive or hypocritical to assert that what survived could be well administered by an organization modified from what had existed before the colonial period. In every case the bases of political authority and power had been usurped by Euro- peans and what was left to African leaders were often moral claims without extensive formal political clout. If power did exist for Africans, it was secured by those cadres who could withhold information from the Europeans so that they could abuse local administrative apparatus along lines neither anticipated nor condoned by Europeans. Indirect rule failed to consider African societies as functional entities in which various institutions were interdependent and which were therefore altered altogether by alien domination. Why then claim to preserve a traditional political institution while promoting radical changes in the sectors of economy, education, transportation, and religion?

Europeans sought to incorporate local institutions into a hierarchical, bureaucratic administrative structure; when no hierarchical or centralized political system could be discovered, one was created. During the Europeans' search to discover traditional systems,

4 Dale Eickelman, Moroccan Islam (Austin: 1976).



CHIEFSHIP IN UKAGURU

opportunistic Africans often provided them with what they wanted, much to the advantage of these ambitious natives. Sometimes, as in the case of Busoga (Uganda), an incipient state was further centralized and strengthened, even though it meant the creation of local animosities. In other cases, such as the Lugbara (also Uganda), local leaders were selected as agents and then named to be chiefs, even though these men were outside the realm of true traditional authority and therefore soon became unpopular. Of course many variations of this existed and in some areas (for example, the African kingdoms of Buganda, Barotse, Ashanti, Lesotho, Oyo, Zaria, Burundi, Ruanda) a considerable semblance of tradition was maintained. Yet even in these situations, outside influences reordered political and economic reality in ways profoundly different from what was often believed, or at least asserted to be the case by colonial planners, as is dramati- cally illustrated by examination of the data on Buganda.5

In many other areas no useful tradition existed through which indirect rule could be effected. In these situations, tradition was embroidered or invented to sustain a system consistent with the needs of the alien power. In such cases, and Ukaguru is one, the gap between actual tradition and social structure, on the one hand, and the system newly formulated for indirect rule, on the other, was so great that the resulting native authority could maintain itself only by high-handed measures and abuse inconsistent with both traditional values and with the new values urged by Europeans. The difficulty and unpopularity of local native governments in colonial Africa was due greatly to the artificial and unrealistic nature of the administra- tions set up ostensibly as modified versions of traditional forms. Ukaguru is unquestionably an extreme case, but many of its features may be discerned in other areas of Africa and elsewhere in the Third World.

The Precolonial Period

We have only a rough idea of what Kaguru society was like politically before the arrival of the Arabs and Europeans from the coast. There is every reason, however, to believe that the Kaguru had no centralized political groups, but rather were a congeries of groups, each formed around the members of a matrilineal clan to

5A recent collection of essays provides rich evidence that such kingdoms fared little better and perhaps at greater cost in long-term suffering than lesser polities: Rene Lemarchand, ed., African Kingships in Perspective (London: 1977).

229



230 T. 0. BEIDELMAN

which others had attached themselves through marriage or some form of clientage. Kaguru oral tradition suggests that there were well over a hundred such petty polities in what is now Ukaguru, there being about one hundred Kaguru exogamous clans, some dominant in more than one territory. These clan areas were from two to twenty miles square. Each clan was supposed to have been the first to settle in the area it "owned" and this settlement conferred certain mystical powers on that clan in controlling rituals of purification, fertility, and rainmaking. Every clan had a legend of its origin, each similar in that all refer to a great trek of peoples from out of the west, north, or south (usually a circuitous route encompassing all three directions) during which various groups broke off to settle in their present homelands and to become the clans of today. Such legends serve to explain both the many different Kaguru clans and also account for the language and customs common to these different groups. Some versions of this legend include the other matrilineal peoples neigh- boring the Kaguru, thereby explaining their similarities to Kaguru in language, many customs, and some clan names.6 Thus while ex- pressing clan and ethnic differences, these legends also suggest a common society, justifying intermarriage, alliance, and cooperation between clans and at times even between similar, broader matrilineal ethnic groups, now termed tribes. Yet in none of these legends (other than versions now told by the chiefly clan) is there any emphasis on hierarchy between clans, although, of course, different informants would tend to present any genealogical information in the final part of their versions in a form likely to favor the claims of seniority for their particular segment within their clan.

While there were certainly always important ties between different areas of Ukaguru7 based on intermarriages and alliances for defense and trading, there was no well-defined area called Ukaguru, although most would agree that the Itumba Mountains of central Ukaguru were always quintessentially Kaguru. Indeed, the name Wakagulu (the older form) seems to derive from the root -gulu (steep, hilly, tall). The earliest writings by European travelers and missionaries to this region are unclear whether such a unified ethnic

6T. 0. Beidelman, The Matrilineal Peoples; T. O. Beidelman,"A Case of Kaguru Oral History: A Kaguru Traditional Text," Baessler-Archiv, 16 (1968), 357-371; T. O. Beidel- man, "Myth, Legend and Oral History: A Kaguru Traditional Text," Anthropos, 65 (1970); 74-97; T. O. Beidelman, "Kaguru Descent Groups,"Anthropos, 66(1971), 373-396; Daudi Muhando, untitled manuscript, Kilosa District Office, Kilosa.

7See F. Stuhlmann, "Ueber die Uluguruberge in Deutsch-Ostafrika," Mitteilungen aus den deutschen Schutzgebieten, 8 (1895), 209-226.




group existed. The missionary J. T. Last refers to the inhabitants as part of the Sagala (Sagara) nation8 and the Megi (Kaguru) as a tribe within that group,9 composed of various families (clans). Later, Last refers to the Kaguru as one of seven subtribes of the Sagala, including the Itumba, Kondoa, and Mvumi (localities) as well.10 Kaguru often still refer to themselves as Wamegi, even though this appears originally to have been a term of abuse applied by hostile Baraguyu and Maasai. Other Kaguru also still refer to themselves as people of the Itumba (the hill people) or abusively refer to eastern Kaguru as Wesika (lowlanders)."1 The point here is that before intensive Arab or European influence Kaguru had no particular reason to think of themselves either as one sharply defined ethnic group embracing a wide area or as a group excluding their ethnically similar neighbors. A few quotations from early travelers sum matters up:

People say that the former numerous villages above the mountains were rich in herds which thrived splendidly due to the abundant water and wide grazing lands, but now they are nearly all gone. The District of Momboya [sic] is the one exception to this. There the Sultan of Zanzibar maintains a small garrison which intimidates the robber- bands. The misfortunes of this tribe [Stimme] is that they are so very split up. Each village is on its own. There is no authority which com- prises collective force in order to compel the capitulation of defiance, and thus subordinate one village to another [my translation].12

... Tubugwe, Mlali, Lubehu [Rubeho], Kitanga [Chitange], Mam- boia [Mamboya] and Magubike [Magubika]-Kaguru. These places are sultanships rather than towns, across each of which it takes a day or more to pass. In each sultanship there are a great number oftembes [dwellings], both on the sides of the mountains and in the valleys.'3

The Mangaheri themselves are a quiet, peaceful people, their general character being timid and fearful. Occasionally a man with more spirit than other arises, and creates a stir amongst the tribe; such a man generally in a very short time becomes the chief of the district.

8Sagara are the matrilineal people bordering the Kaguru to the south. 9J. T. Last, Polyglotta Africana Orientalis (London: 1885), 9. 'OIbid. "T. O. Beidelman, "Intertribal Insult and Opprobrium in an East African Chiefdom

(Ukaguru),"Anthropological Quarterly, 38(1964), 33-52. "2p. A. Schynse, Mit Stanley durch Ost-Afrika (K61n: 1890). "J. T. Last, letter, Church Missionary Intelligencer, 3 (1878), 645.

231



232 T. O. BEIDELMAN

As a rule, each district is a little kingdom of itself, and has to stand by its own strength, for neighbouring districts seldom help each other.14

Even before the 1880s, one particular locale in north central Ukaguru was beginning to assert dominance over the others. By 1883, Last could write:

... Mamboia Valley or plain ... is divided into a number of districts with distinct names; each has a separate chief who is more or less subject to the chief of Mamboia.15

Yet the missionary A. N. Wood observes that in northeastern Ukaguru he encountered two chiefs superior to the one at Mamboya.16

For Kaguru there was no clearly defined office of chief. Instead, there was only the notion of leadership (undewa) whereby a person holding respect (chipeho) due to his seniority (ukulu) or fierceness was able to acquire an extensive following. Some Kaguru compare a leader to a ram dominating his herd (undewa) of sheep, leadership and manliness being considered closely related. An older man might have had the time and opportunity, through many mature offspring, to build up a following of sons, daughters, sons-in-law, and nephews. Age too sometimes brought experience and skill in settling disputes so that leadership was also associated with eloquence and hence with securing a stool (yekigwa mwigoda), that is, sitting in judgment. In such cases a leader had still to summon the local populace when giving judgment (kumala simbuli), his authority in large part being a reflection of how well he gave voice to the prevailing views of the people. Leadership was thus most often founded upon a combination of seniority, sentiment, and personal character. In a few cases a man was followed because he was a brave warrior (chitang'ati) who had strength (ludole) and ability (udaha), or because he was thought to possess supernatural medicines (uganga) such as those for divina- tion, warfare, and rainmaking. These leaders received a portion of the first harvest of all inhabitants of their areas,17 although such resources were subsequently expended in the great demands hos- pitality placed upon these men. When iron ore was found, this was

"4Ibid., "A Visit to the Wa-itumba Iron-Workers and the Mangaheri, near Mamboia, in East Africa," Proceedings of the Royal Geographical Society, 5 (1883), 583.

5Ibid., 592. 16A. N. Wood, "Itinerating in Ussagara," Church Missionary Intelligencer, 14 (1889),

28. '7H. Cole, "Notes on the Wagogo of German East Africa, Journal of Anthropological

Institute, 32(1902), 319.




taken over by a leader whose followers would then work it to provide weapons and tools for trade and profit, often fostering ties with warlike Baraguyu, Maasai, and others who themselves did not work metal.18 In any case, domination is often thought by Kaguru to involve ambiguous supernatural powers and dubious social alliances. Clearly each local dominant matrilineage would have its leaders, in large part determined by seniority, while aggressive and forceful persons were sometimes able, if only for a short time, to impress themselves on a somewhat wider area extending beyond that owned by one clan. Management of ritual within a clan was determined by seniority, but other forms of control were achieved and not passed on to descendants, except insofar as holdings in livestock and children might be inherited and therefore provide some advantages to suc- ceeding generations.

History of the Chiefship in Ukaguru Missionaries of the Church Missionary Society (C.M.S.) were the first regular European residents of Ukaguru and therefore the first to provide written accounts based on more than fleeting impressions of the area. These early accounts all describe a Kaguru chief or sultan at Mamboya, a settlement along the caravan route through central Ukaguru. This chief was said to have important ties with the Kaguru headman at Gairo, another caravan stop'about twenty miles north- west of Mamboya, and to owe his power initially to ties with the warlike Baraguyu and Maasai with whom he allied himself in raiding for livestock and caravan goods. Later, in return for benefits provided to the Arab and Nyamwesi traders and caravans, he received even more significant recognition and support: he provided ivory, food supplies, local labor, and shelter in return for firearms and ammunition, cloth, and beads.19 Apparently other Kaguru leaders such as the chief at Gairo and the chief at Chogoali in northeastern Ukaguru also increased their powers through alliances with Bara- guyu.20 Some even set up beerclubs for passing caravans.

In October 1880 Sultan Bargash of Zanzibar set up a stockaded

18J. T. Last, "A Visit to the Wa-itumba Iron-Workers," 587. 19T. O. Beidelman, "A History of Ukaguru, Kilosa District: 1857-1916," Tanganyika

Notes & Records, 58 (1962), 14-18; D. J. Rees, "A History of the C.M.S. in German East Africa," manuscript, 1902, C.M.S. Archives, London.

2Olbid.

233



234 T. 0. BEIDELMAN

garrison of two hundred men at Mamboya under an English adven- turer, Lloyd Mathews. The number of troops varied over time, but the garrison remained for over six years, even after the Germans had sought to replace the Arabs as the dominant power in the area, the Germans having considerable difficulty maintaining order even at Mamboya.21

The influx of guns, ammunition, and cotton goods led some ambitious men residing along the caravan route to expand their influence through a combination of intimidation and reward in these goods. These incipient chiefs gained their dominance through alliance with aliens-traditional enemies such as the Baraguyu and Maasai, coastal Africans, Nyamwesi traders, Kamba hunters, and Arabs and Europeans-and as such appeared to many traditionally- minded Kaguru as betrayers of their fellows. Ironically, those advocating ethnic unity, albeit for their own ambitions, implemented this through aliens even though in later years Kaguru unity became a byword for opposition to outsiders. In some ways a united and stable Ukaguru was easier to exploit, traverse, and administer than a frag- mented area.

The Chiefly Clan's View

The Kaguru leader at Mamboya eventually became the paramount chief of most of Ukaguru, first under the Germans and then later under the British. That Mamboya is situated at the geographical center of Ukaguru was also a factor in its being favored by colonial administrators. This chieftaincy was said to be the prerogative of the Jumbe clan and an appropriate clan legend, legitimating such an office, soon developed.22

The Jumbe claim that their name derives from their function as jumbe (Swahili, headman or leader).23 They admit, however, that the older name for their clan is Tangwe (from -tanga, to go back and

21T. O. Beidelman, "A History of Ukaguru," 21-22, 27. 22I did not list either the Jumbe or Jumba Masa clans in the clan list which I provide in my

article, "Kaguru Descent Groups" (Anthropos, 66 [1971], 373-396), although they are discussed in the body of that essay. Members of the Jumbe clan are called Wejumbe (singular, Mwejumbe); a man whose father is of that clan is called Mwejumbe, a woman Manwejumbe. The Jumbe Masa clan is considered separate from the Jumbe, claiming they derive from Jumbe people who camped in an abandoned Baraguyu or Maasai camp (hence, Masa); members are Wejumbe wamasa (singular, Mwejumbe masa); sons of men of this clan are Mwedimage (he with a Maasai knife), daughters, Mabene (the word for the leather bag carried by Maasai women). Some claim a Jumbe ihanga (anteater) clan exists, but this is unclear.

23See T. O. Beidelman, "Kaguru Descent Groups," 379.




forth; -tangwa, to be sent back and forth). They go on to maintain that this reflects their traditional prowess as mediators, whereas their opponents remark that this is a term for a mere messenger and is thus a form of denigration.

In some versions of the Jumbe origin legend, they claim to have been the first clan to arrive in Ukaguru, not merely the first in their respective clan area. In some accounts those clans most competitive with the Jumbe are specifically named by Jumbe as arriving later and receiving permission to settle in the area (yawabwihisa, he welcomed them)-the Gomba, Njeja, Kami, Songo, Gowe, and Nyao clans. The founder of the Jumbe clan is given the name of Chibakwa ("Anointer, circumcisor, clever one") and is said to have traveled with his female kin and their children to Ukaguru. Chibakwa is described as a great warrior, famed for his prowess with the spear and for being tall and heavyset. Chibakwa's trek describes a circuitous route running clockwise from west to north, east, south, and west again, encompassing all of Ukaguru and therefore bolstering claims to dominance over the entire area. The Jumbe claim relations to several other Kaguru clans, although they imply that these broke away from them and that these are therefore junior to them.24

By having Chibakwa finally settle in Mamboya, that area is proclaimed as the senior area of the many lands claimed by the Jumbe. In some versions, threat of possible competition by the Gairo branch of the clan seems to be recognized since that area's name is explained by the dubious etymology of igawilo (a place to divide meat). This refers to an incident where Chibakwa divided meat with kin, implying that for people to accept such a division was to acknowledge Chibakwa's seniority (and thus Mamboya's pri- macy) in determining such distribution presumably at a sacrifice to the ancestral dead.

When the founder, Chibakwa, died, his sister's son, Semwali, inherited the leadership, but he soon died and was suceeded by another sister's son, Chipela. Chipela's younger brother, Masingisa, ruled the junior branch at Gairo. At this time Kaguru suffered from frequent raids by Baraguyu and Maasai. To meet this threat, Masingisa ("He who shakes things, who dominates"), secured medicine to aid him in warfare. He is said to have placed this medicine in beer. He also fed it to a goat and then gave the beer and goat meat to Maasai (or Baraguyu), who thus became his friends. Masingisa is also said to have used other medicine to perform acts which led Kaguru to believe in his superiority. Another legend describes Masingisa's kinswomen and

24Ibid., 386.

235



236 T. O. BEIDELMAN

those of the Baraguyu exchanging children for ceremonial nursing. Still another describes the two groups sharing their blood on the liver of a cow, a form of making blood covenant (umbuya). Yet another version tells of Jumbe holding up tufts of plucked grass in a Maasai gesture of peace. These various anecdotes emphasize Masingisa's leadership and ability to protect Kaguru from their dangerous neighbors.

When Chipela at Mamboya died, he was succeeded by his younger brother, Chibanda, while Masingisa remained at Gairo. When that youth died, the leadership fell to a woman named Mudalamengi. The Jumbe say that although she was the rightful ruler, by default, many Kaguru, especially the Gomba, ridiculed her because she was only a woman. The Jumbe legends all make a point of describing the Mamboya leadership as originally passing through the matriclan in a traditional manner. At this point, however, Masingisa is described as sending his own younger brother, Sen- yagwa Chimola (Senyagwa, "He who is eloquent"; Chimola, "He who is forceful"), to rule at Mamboya.25 This version implies that the real seniority among the Jumbe derives from Gairo. Yet in practice there was never any question that the leadership at Mam- boya was the key to Kaguru leadership on the tribal level. Last and Wood claim that the chief at Mamboya even controlled the leadership at Gairo.26 Senyagwa collaborated with the Arabs as much as his brother is said to have collaborated with the Baraguyu and Maasai, and in deference to the Arabs, took the Muslim name of Saidi (see Figure 1, No. 1).

In collecting accounts of Kaguru history, I found that versions tended to differ in ways which would bolster the claims or positions or those relating each particular version, although all Jumbe were agreed on the general facts presented above. Some also tried to defend their dealings with the Arabs, stating that the early chiefs who collaborated had tried to free any Kaguru captured by Arab slavers and in general tried to serve as protective buffers toward these powerful and dangerous strangers, African and Arab.

Their Enemies' View

Other Kaguru, especially the Gomba clan, who claim many areas held by the Jumbe, relate a less flattering account of Jumbe history.

25Kaguru tend to give leaders names that emphasize their forcefulness, shrewdness, and skill; see T. 0. Beidelman, "Kaguru Names and Naming," Journal ofAnthropological Re- search, 30 (1974), 288.

26J. T. Last, letter, Church Missionary Intelligencer, 5 (1880), 742.




Some Gomba claim that the real founder of Kaguru rule in the Mamboya area was a Gomba named Mukili wa Simba ("Clever lion"), who helped his sons (men of other clans including the Jumbe) rather than his sisters' sons, as a proper Kaguru should. Thus, to their opponents, chiefly dominance was associated with the failure by some Kaguru to live up to their traditional obligations regarding succession. The Gomba also claim that many of those clans now in the Mamboya area had bought land from them using livestock and women as payment. The Gomba go so far as to claim that Senyagwa (Saidi) was not sent from Gairo in order to rule Mamboya. Rather, they claim that he was a recidivist and that under a ruse his kin at Gairo had sent him to the Gomba, the Jumbe's joking-partners (watani), to be slain, as was the custom with such troublemakers.27 The Gomba go on to maintain that they spared Senyagwa and let him marry one of their women, but that he repaid their kindness treacherously by turning on them and making alliances with outsiders such as the Arabs and Germans. Another text claims that the Jumbe and Gomba were once one clan and that the Jumbe represent a junior branch that broke away.28 Such hostile accounts describe the Jumbe's alliances with Maasai, Baraguyu, and other outsiders not as manifestations of their shrewdness, diplomacy, and sense of leadership in defending their own people, but as signs of the Jumbe's betrayal of tribal solidarity for their own greed and ambition.

German and British Colonialism

Whatever the merits of these different interpretations of the rise of the Jumbe clan, it is clear that the chiefs position was greatly enhanced by colonial rule. The Jumbe themselves claim that when the German Carl Peters first toured the area29 seeking signatures to his supposed treaties with the natives, the chief at Mamboya served as a buffer against the German, who is described as ruthless and dangerous-Kaguru compare Peters to a man-eating leopard. Jumbe describe Saidi as taking the initiative in dealing with this disagreeable person. They maintain that Saidi summoned eleven chiefs from outlying regions of Ukaguru. He more or less mollified Peters through his eloquence, so the legend goes. To underscore how

27A. N. Wood, "Journal of Reverend A. N. Wood," Church Missionary Intelligencer, 15 (1890), 184.

28T. O. Beidelman, "Kaguru Descent Groups," 395. 29Ibid., "A History of Ukaguru," 23.

237



238 T. 0. BEIDELMAN

dangerous Peters was, Jumbe relate how one leader, the chief of Chitange (an area west of Mamboya) tried to stand up to Peters and was killed a few days later by Peters's men. The Jumbe observe that after the meeting with Peters, these leaders collected twenty cows and thirty goats which they handed over to Saidi to give to Peters. As a result, Saidi was later given the cap (kofia) of chiefship. To Jumbe, their account implies not only that Saidi stood as an adroit protector against the harsh and unreasonable outsiders, but also that Kaguru had accepted his leadership by answering his summons to assemble and by allowing him to be their joint spokesman, the standard Kaguru expressions of acceptance of leadership. Kaguru say that the Germans appointed local men as leaders because they were fierce.30 Jumbe also claim that Saidi welcomed warlike outsiders such as the Kamba because they helped defend Kaguru against other raiders such as the Hehe and Maasai. No mention is made that these warriors also served as musclemen to enforce Saidi's orders against his own people. (Thus, fierce takes on a bitterly ironic cast in some accounts, particularly by those shut out from power.) Last also observes that Saidi was a friend of the leader of the Nyamwesi involved in the caravan trade in the area, a group that had formed a small and disruptive enclave at Mamboya.31 Thus, while chiefs and their kin represent themselves as defenders and buffers between their people and dangerous outsiders, as unifiers of a people too disor- ganized to defend themselves, the opponents of these chiefs describe them as self-serving opportunists, out to use alien force and influence to keep a resentful local populace in line.

During this period the C.M.S. missionaries in Ukaguru sought to convert Kaguru leaders, especially the chief at Mamboya and his likely heirs. They were not particularly successful in this, although the chief did take part in the foundation-laying ceremony for the first church at Mamboya. The Jumbe saw this not as an expression of Saidi's religious views (he remained a pagan) but as demonstration of his role as sponsor and protector of his strangers (wageni wakwe). In turn, the British missionaries were expected to support the Kaguru in any special pleading they sought with the Germans. While the C.M.S. then tended to concentrate their local efforts on the Mamboya and Berega areas of central Ukaguru, the German administration directed affairs from Mpwapwa and later Kilosa,

30Ibid., "Myth, Legend and Oral History," 84-86. 31J. T. Last, letter, 5, 742.




stations outside Ukaguru proper.32 During German rule, the chief held less power than two alien African officials (akidas)33 employed by the Germans to collect taxes and judge infractions of the law, one at Mamboya and the other in the lowlands at Mvumi. These akidas were often alien Africans, usually coastal Muslims, and the C.M.S. in particular pressed for their replacement by local Christian con- verts. In their alarm over possible Muslim influence, the C.M.S. tended to support the chiefship, even though they never managed actually to convert a chief into the church.34

Chief Saidi died in 1897 and was succeeded by his son, Saileni, the following year (see Figure 1, No. 2). Saileni served as the chief of the Kaguru during the heyday of German rule, but in actual practice seems mainly to have been held responsible for enforcing conformity and cooperation with other officials rather than for actual administration, the task of the akidas. Many Kaguru even claimed that the chief was really only a middleman or power broker between local Kaguru and the Germans. He did direct German attention toward certain individuals rather than others. In any case, he is said to have been a chronic drunkard unable to rule well. Even the Jumbe clan did not consider the chief their moral leader but rather recognized other men as seniors in charge of sacrifice and settlement of cases amongst Jumbe kin. They seem to have succeeded to office as senior men of senior segments of matrilineages. Their authority was strictly per- suasive and religious and never brought to the attention of the government.

The first two Kaguru paramount chiefs, Saidi and Saileni, were illiterate and thus unable to take part in ordinary administrative procedures under the Germans. Saileni died at the close of the First World War. When the British took over Tanganyika, they at first continued the local organization employed by the Germans, including the use of akidas. In 1921 they appointed Saileni's son, Saidi Methusalah (Figure 1, No. 3), as akida at Mamboya, recon- firming him as a paramount chief when, shortly later, they instituted a formal Native Authority and disbanded the akida system. This third chief, Saidi Methusalah, was literate, and some suggest that this was a factor in the British readily agreeing to his appointment. His successor, his younger brother Yustino, was also literate. These

32T. 0. Beidelman, "A History of Ukaguru," 32. 33From the Arabic, 'aqTd factor, military officer. 34The missionaries' fears seem to have been unfounded; less than one percent have been

converted to Islam in Ukaguru.

239



240 T. 0. BEIDELMAN

two, unlike their predecessors, were thus actually able to fill some of their formal administrative functions.

It is important to note that with colonial rule, Ukaguru was divided into two administrative unites, the eastern two-thirds being supervised from Morogoro and Kilosa, and the western third from Dodoma and Mpwapwa. While boundaries have changed through the years and the names of these units also changed, this particular division has persisted from German times into the period of African independent government. In this paper I have considered only the eastern two-thirds of Ukaguru. One unintended effect of this administrative division was to encourage certain cultural differences between eastern and western Kaguru. Those to the west have now for over eighty years been part of an administrative unit dominated by the Gogo, a patrilineal people over three times more numerous than all the Kaguru, east and west. Not surprisingly western Kaguru affect many Gogo-like customs and appear considerably different from those to the east, who remain in a province dominated by other matrilineal peoples similar to them. While some differences between eastern and western Kaguru probably always existed, there is a good case to be made for these differences having grown with colonial rule.

It is remarkable both to Kaguru and to an outsider that, except for the first and last, Kaguru chiefs were not selected according to traditional Kaguru principles, and yet all of the currently available legends and historical accounts associated with these figures (at least those of the Jumbe clan) reiterate the importance of matrilineal succession.

When Saidi Methusalah died in 1930, Yustino's succession to the office was disputed by some Kaguru who pointed out that Yustino was not a member of the Jumbe clan. This, of course, had been true of all but one of his predecessors as well, but after the onset of British rule, Governor Sir Donald Cameron encouraged British administrative officers to discover the traditional forms of native political organization so that these might be utilized in establishing indirect rule through local native authorities. (The trend toward indirect rule was initiated by Governor Sir Horace Byatt in 1923, but it was never put into practice until Cameron presented a new Native Authority Ordinance in 1926.) Kaguru report that various British administrators toured the area, asking Kaguru to report and record their traditions.35 So encouraged, some ambitious Kaguru pressed for

35T. 0. Beidelman, "Myth, Legend and Oral History," 88.




political appointments by virtue of their membership in certain "owner" clans. The elders of the Jumbe clan are said to have formed several delegations to visit local administrators to urge the appointment of one of their own number to the chiefship. They were therefore disappointed when yet another non-Jumbe, Yustino (Figure 1, No. 4), was selected. The British doubtless found Yustino a compelling choice: he already had served as a chief by proxy during the last year of his elder brother's rule since Saileni had been chronically ill.

Chief Yustino is said to have conflicted with British District Commissioner Coke at Kilosa. Some claim that Yustino was ac- cused of taking bribes and hearing cases outside the jurisdiction of his court. Others claim that he gave excessive freedom to Baraguyu, even when this infringed on Kaguru rights. Others say he failed to cooperate with a local British farmer who sought certain water rights, while still others say that he opposed British policies in drafting local labor for some government projects. All of these explanations may have some grain of truth;36 they are all true sociologically in that they reflect different views of Kaguru in defending or criticizing a local leader's legitimacy. The immediate cause of Yustino's removal is said to have been his order to his messengers to beat one of his critics, who later died. As a result, for a time Yustino was imprisoned. Unfortunately, I could not secure this information from local government records at Kilosa.

When Yustino was dismissed in 1944, the elders of the Jumbe clan again voiced their claims that chiefly succession should pass matrilineally. Yustino had apparently hoped that his son would succeed him and since that youth was literate, it seems likely that the British would have favored such a choice. Yet the pressure of the clan elders prevailed, some Kaguru stating that this demonstrated the restoration of the importance of and respect for the elders (awakulu) of the clan. Yet what the British saw as a democratic innovation was seen by many Kaguru as an atavistic retrenchment of an elderly clique of lineage heads. The change demonstrated the new importance which Cameron's administration set on granting a

36Such explanations all seem plausible since these or similar abuses were common in various Native Authority courts when I did fieldwork in Ukaguru. See T. O. Beidelman, "Umwano und Ukaguru Students' Association: zwei stammespartikularische Bewegungen in einem Hauptlingstum in Tanganyika," Anthropos, 58 (1961), 818-845; T. O. Beidelman, "Intertribal Tensions in Some Local Government Courts in Colonial Tanganyika, Part 1," Journal of African Law, 10 (1966), 118-130; T. O. Beidelman, "Intertribal Tensions in Some Local Government Courts in Colonial Tanganyika, Part 2," Journal of African Law, 11 (1967), 27-47.

241



242 T.O. BEIDELMAN

greater voice to locals in their government. Yet while Cameron saw this procedure as utilizing tradition to produce more vigorous and popular local government, in actual practice, at least in Ukaguru, it was surely a retrograde step popular only in a limited circle. Kaguru had never had a traditional paramount chief and now one was being elected by a minority of elders within only one local clan. Even in the past, succession to the Mamboya chiefship had never been clearly determined so that some months of deliberation and dispute were required among various local Kaguru leaders before a new leader was accepted, although it is obvious that in each case the ruling family rather than the matrilineal clan was able to win in its attempt to maintain power. At least, in the past, Kaguru could appreciate such succession for what it openly was, forceful domination. Now they were asked to acquiesce in a legend of chiefship backed by a version of Kaguru oral history and tradition which few accepted. With Yustino's deposition, coupled with the new respectability of and interest in tradition, the Jumbe elders had their first clear chance to make the new office over into traditional terms. Unfortunately for them, these clan elders, being old and conservative, had little appreciation of the practical requirements for such an office. They violently rejected the choice of Yustino's son, even though he was literate and had some apprenticeship at the post. They also rejected another literate youth, the son of former Chief Saileni. In both cases it was argued that since they were not members of the Jumbe clan, they were disqualified. Instead, the elders nominated an illiterate and bush elder who was rejected by the British administration. As a last minute choice (apparently made out of fear that their continued procrastination might lead the British to appoint anyone they themselves wanted), these elders selected Malanda ("Eloquent one"), an elderly, illiterate member of the Jumbe clan (Figure 1, No. 5). Malanda proved himself easy to manipulate by local Kaguru elders (probably the reason for his selection) but also unable to stand up to the British administration on account of his own unassertive per- sonality, his illiteracy, and the fact that he soon became a chronic drunkard. Malanda's arbitrary judgments in court cases, his reputed corruption in taking bribes, and his failure to oppose even the most unpopular rulings of the British (even when some other local subchiefs and headmen did so successfully) made him unpopular with a wide number of Kaguru. As chief, he had the temerity to marry the young widow of one of his sister's sons, a union which Kaguru view as prohibited and tantamount to witchcraft. The British administration appeared to view these defects as advantageous since a




weak and unpopular chief only strengthened their own control, being a mere rubber stamp for most rulings. Indeed, I was told by one administrator that he was glad Malanda was illiterate and a drunkard, for a literate and soberer African official might prove far more inquiring and disruptive.

District Commissioner Coke, writing in the Kilosa District Book in 1942, reflects the prevailing view of local administrators over Ukaguru that the entire idea of such a chiefship was a mistake foisted on them by an unrealistic central administration which did not even properly understand the local traditions and conditions they pur- portedly sought to utilize:

... it was merely due to historical accident and political convenience that this family has been established by the British government in a position of chiefship that never previously existed in Kaguru tradition.37

Malanda was extremely unpopular during the last years of Tanganyika's colonial period. The chiefship was abolished by the new African independent government in 1962, less than a year after independence. The duties customarily held by the chief were taken over by a set of party officials and a local magistrate, all outsiders, thus in a sense returning to the kind of system of administration of alien Africans epitomized by the akidas, since none of these was, at least initially, Kaguru.

Figure No. 1: Genealogy of the Five Paramount Chiefs of Ukaguru

Senyagwa (Saidi) Chimola (1), died 1897

Saileni (2), died at close of W. W. 1 woman

Saidi Methusalah (3), died 1930 woman Yustino (4), deposed 1944 woman

Malanda (4), deposed 1962

37Kilosa District Book, District Headquarters, Kilosa.

243



244 T.O. BEIDELMAN

Conclusion

The history of the chiefship in Ukaguru reflects the negative side of indirect rule. While not all such measures were as counter-productive as those in Ukaguru, it is arguable in retrospect that nowhere was indirect rule a policy that facilitated Africans' necessary transition into modem life, even though many of those who had promoted such policies had argued this. Modernization is often described as a process that inevitably erodes African tribal traditions. While this seems to be so, it can also be argued that colonialists (or imperialists) found supposed tribal traditions particularly useful in the short run. To illustrate this, I quote extensively from a speech by Sir Donald Cameron, made shortly after he became governor of Tan- ganyika, in which he advocates the adoption of indirect rule. Significantly, this was an address to the local white community apparently reassuring them that these new measures were not as radical as some might assume:

... if we preserve the tribal authority, gradually purging native law and custom of all that offends against justice and morality, building up a system for the administration of affairs of the tribe by its hereditary rulers, with their advisers according to native custom, we immedi- ately give the natives a share in the government of the country, and that, moreover, on lines which they themselves understand and can appreciate.

The position given to the Chiefs in this way will be jealously guarded by them and their people, especially against the assaults which may in the course of time be made against it by Europeanized natives seeking to obtain political control of the country and to govern it entirely on European lines. We are not only giving the natives a share in the administration of the country but we are at the same time building up a bulwark against political agitators. At the same time a discipline and authority by the Chief which the people will understand will be preserved and we shall avert the social chaos which would ensue if every native could do exactly as he pleased so long as he did not come into conflict with the law.

The Chiefs are much better equipped to punish their tribesmen than we are under a system of British laws and we have given them their own Courts for that purpose. To break down the only form of discipline and authority that the natives know and then to cry out that they are rapidly becoming more and more ill-disciplined is merely to admit failure, and to admit it without realising the causes that underlies [sic] that failure.




There is no doubt at all in my mind that the economic progress of the country must be set back if a condition of affairs arises in which the influence that we bring to bear through the natural rulers of the people disappears and the native can do as he pleases.38

The Kaguru case illustrates the worst dangers inherent in such views. First, Cameron and others, including his mentor Lord Lugard, held certain stereotypes of African traditional political systems which simply did not apply to a large number of peoples they sought to govern. Many societies had no centralized political system; to use anthropological jargon, many were "acephalous segmentary societies." If these appeared to have leaders, they were often self- seeking men misrepresenting themselves to Europeans or else up- starts basing their power on alien, untraditional factors such as support from outsiders who had furnished them with weapons and trade goods. The Kaguru chiefs fit both of these characterizations. Expressions of ethnicity and tradition became modes by which these men and their supporters voiced their claims; as a result a compli- cated and often contradictory system of mythification arose in legends, oral tradition, and genealogies deposited with local colonial administrators. An odd kind of applied anthropology came to the services of those Africans seeking power.

Ironically, in the case of the Kaguru, the fact that the British wanted the support of tradition gave an odd twist to the terms of succession. A chiefship never incorporated into matrilineal ideology was finally given matrilineal trappings. Later, to facilitate administration, four subchiefs were created as well, each associated with the clan lucky enough to "own" land in the area where a court was erected. This led to the selection of a chief (and later subchiefs) by the most conservative and least educated Kaguru, the elders of a clan. The same disastrous choice was even repeated regarding headmen. At the time I did fieldwork, not only was the paramount chief illiterate but so were three out of four subchiefs. Most of these chiefs were thus unable to control their clerks and assistants, much less fully grasp the import of various memoranda and dispatches.

In Ukaguru (and doubtless elsewhere) the chiefs' courts became the modern functional equivalents of the alien arms and ammuni- tions by which unpopular leaders had previously sometimes ruled. Kaguru chiefs used their courts as weapons by which dissenters were punished and as goods by which supporters could be rewarded, often

38His Majesty's Stationery Office, Report... on Tanganyika to the League of Na- tions... for 1926 (London, 1927), 7-9.

245



246 T.O. BEIDELMAN

in a manner that would have scandalized local British administrators, had they been informed.39 Such abuse undermined both the popularity of chiefs and the native authority in general. Kaguru tended to associate such high-handed chiefs with an alien colonial regime; they were often seen as impositions upon unhappy, local people, especially since subchiefs, just as the paramount chief, were selected by elders from one clan even though they ruled large areas inhabited by members of dozens of different clans.

As Cameron observes, chiefs were to be used to oppose the younger, educated Africans. During my stay in Ukaguru before African independence, British administrators encouraged local chiefs to oppose the activities of the African nationalist party (TANU). As a consequence, some agitators were publicly abused and threatened. When young, educated Kaguru tried to form their own group for demanding political reforms, they expressed many tribalistic sentiments such as "Kaguru for the Kaguru"-meaning, away with local government employees who were not Kaguru and who were therefore keeping some educated locals unemployed. They invariably viewed the illiterate native authority leaders with an ambiguous combination of contempt and envy. Often these young Karuru sharply attacked the local paramount chief and his supporters whom the youth considered unfit to protect Kaguru against other Africans and the British. Before independence young Kaguru repeatedly expressed their ambitions in tribalistic terms but never in support of the native authority.40

In the Kaguru case, chiefship, subchiefship and the other aspects of the native authority did not rest for the most part on proper tradition. Even a strong idea of Kaguru ethnic unity was in large part a colonial product. Many local administrators (for example, Coke) knew this, but most publicly mouthed the myths and policies encouraged by the central administration. The result was an African local government profoundly unpopular with both the European administrators and with many Kaguru. It relied not on the consensus of most Kaguru but on a monopoly of the means of coercion and reward (courts, taxation, labor conscription) enjoyed by a few leaders and their clan followers who had been lucky enough to belong to groups which had secured support when the traditional system was first defined, that is, created, by the Europeans.

39See T. O. Beidelman, "Umwano und Ukaguru Students' Association," 818-845; T. O. Beidelman, "Intertribal Tensions, Part 1," 118-130; T. O. Beidelman, "Intertribal Tensions, Part 2," 27-45.

40T. O. Beidelman, "Umwano und Ukaguru Students' Association," 818-845.



chiefship in ukaguru: the invention of ethnicity and tradition in kaguru colonial history

Documents