Yes, the Shona Arrived in Zimbabgwe 300 Years Ago, Later than Europeans and the Ndebele!
This present
blog article is a response to certain disputations that have been raised over
my claims that the people called Shona today (properly those that Professor
David Beach and others have termed the Northern & Central Shona, meaning
the Zezuru and Manyika) arrived in the Zimbabgwean plateau just about 300 years
ago. Hot debates have been held on Facebook to the extent that when I presented
contrary evidence showing that much of the history of this tablelaland prior to
1700 is Bukalanga history, some individuals went to the extent of even suggesting
that by Bukalanga or Makalanga contemporary Portuguese writers were also refering
to the Shona. Some even start to dispute the fact there is any people group
called Shona and even Zezuru.
All this is
in light of evidence that I have presented in my recently published book, The Rebirth of Bukalanga: A Manifesto for
the Liberation of a Great People with a Proud History that indeed, the
Shona arrived in Zimbabgwe by the 1700s, and their history cannot be project to
the Great Zimbabgwe period, which started off at Mapungubgwe about 1000 AD. I
argue in that book that it is false that the Shona built Mapungubgwe, Great
Zimbabgwe, Khami, etc, and that they were the Monomotapa, Togwa and Lozwi
Kingdoms people. This I argue in light of what is taught in school and what is
recorded in contemporary Portuguese documents and the research findings of renowned
archaeologists who have worked on the question of the origins of the Zimbabgwe
Ruins.
I have also
argued that the Shona are actually no more indigenous to this country than the
Ndebele and the Europeans to Southern Africa, and indeed Zimbabgwe itself. The Europeans,
in this case the Portuguese, arrived in the Zimbabgwean Tableland by 1500, whereas
the Shona arrived 200 years later in in the 1700s. The Dutch arrived in the region
just about the same time as the Shona were arriving, touching on the South-east
coast in 1721. The Ndebele in arrived Zimbabgwe just over 100 years later than
the Shona, but actually arrived in Southern Africa earlier than the Shona,
having settled the region about the 1400s onwards.
Now, having
made these claims above, let us now turn to the actual evidence that indeed,
the people now called Shona today arrived in Zimbabgwe about 300 years ago. It
is important to note my use of the phrase "people now called Shona",
for indeed, before this name was bestowed upon them, they did not have a
collective name, for they where never organized into large city or
nation-states as Bukalanga where in the Mapungubgwe, Monomotapa, Togwa and
Lozwi Kingdoms. It was observed in 1883 by Major Sir John Willoughby that:
Further north still [into Zimbabgwe, i.e., Mashonaland], the use of the
term ‘Makalaka’ [Sotho for Makalanga] is very rare, and the natives, when asked
their name, never get beyond that of their tribal chief, which, as one
approaches the Zambesi, ceases to be dynastic, each succeeding chief retaining
his own name, and consequently causing great discrepancy and confusion in the
names of the places on the various maps in existence…Almost each tribe has its
own peculiar dialect, and that of the neighborhood of [Great] Zimbabye is
hardly intelligible in Northern Mashonaland (Willoughby 1893, 34).
The Shona did not have any national
name apart from that of their tribal chief, and that is perhaps the reason why
they have had to be given an artificial name, Shona, centuries later. But with
that said, let us now turn to the question of when the Shona arrived in the
Zimbabgwean Tableland.
Concerning
the time of the arrival of the Portuguese on the east coast of Africa and the ethnolinguistic situation in the
region in the early 1500s, Dr. George Theal wrote in 1896:[1]
**********
About the
close of the fifteenth century, white man encountered a number of groups in southern
Africa, and there were three major groups of these people. There were the
Bushmen, the Hottentots and what became known as the Bantu. The Bantu occupied
a greater part of southern Africa south of the Zambesi for many generations,
and not having intercourse with each other, naturally developed differences.
The Bantu tribes could be classified into three groups, though it should be
remembered that there are many trifling differences between the various
branches of each of these.
In the
first group can be placed tribes along the eastern coast south of the Sabi
River, and those which in recent times have made their way from that part of
the country into the highlands of the interior. The best known of these are the
Amaxosa, the Abathembu, the Amampondo, the Amabaca, the Abambo, the Amazulu,
the Amaswazi, the Amatonga, the Magwamba, the Matshangana, and the Matebele.
This group can be termed the coast tribes, although some members of it are now
far from the sea.
The second
group can include the tribes that a century ago occupied the great interior
plane and came down to the ocean between the Zambesi and the Sabi rivers. It
will include the Batlapin, the Batlaro, the Barolong, the Bahurutsi, the
Bangwaketsi, the Bakwena, the Bamangwato, all the sections of the Makalanga,
and the whole of the Basuto, north and south. This group can be termed the
interior tribes.
The third
group will comprise all the Bantu living between the Kalahari and the Atlantic
Ocean, such as the Ovaherero, the Ovampo, and others. These have no mixture of
Asiatic blood. They are blacker in color, coarser in appearance … The
individuals who composed the first and second groups varied in color from deep
bronze to black. Some had features of the lowest negro type: thick projecting
lips, broad flat noses, and narrow foreheads; while others had prominent and in
rare instances even aquiline noses, well developed foreheads, and lips but
little thicker than those of Europeans.
Among the
eastern tribes these extremes could sometimes be noticed in the same family,
but the great majority of the people were of a type higher than a mean between
the two. They were of mixed blood, and the branches of the ancestral stock
differed considerably, as one was African and the other Asiatic (Theal 1896,
39-40).
**********
In a later
work Dr Theal wrote:
**********
In 1505,
when the Portuguese formed their first settlement on the southeastern coast,
the Makalanga tribe occupied the
territory now termed Rhodesia and the seaboard between the Zambesi and the Sabi
rivers. Before the commencement of the
eighteenth century that tribe was broken up by wars … and about that time a
considerable immigration began to set in from the north … These immigrants, who
were the ancestors of the people now called by Europeans Mashona, came down
from some locality west of Lake Tanganyika in little parties, not in one great
horde. The first to arrive was a clan under a chief named Sakavunza, who
settled at a place near the town of Salisbury.
The details
of this immigration were not placed on record by any of the Portuguese in the
country, who merely noticed that there was a constant swirl of barbarians,
plundering and destroying, and replacing one another; and when recent
investigators, like Mr. R. N. Hall, of Zimbabwe, and Mr. W. S. Taberer, the
government commissioner, endeavored to gather the particulars from the
descendants of the immigrants, it was found impossible to obtain more accurate
information from them concerning the events of distant times than the general
fact that their ancestors came down from the north about two centuries ago
(Theal 1907, 63. Italics mine).
*********
The record
of Sakavunza is also attested to by F. W. Posselt. Posselt served as Native
Administrator in Matabeleland from 1908, and was transferred to the then
Marandellas [in Mashonaland] in 1922, where he served for ten years before
being again transferred to Plumtree in 1933. He also stated
that several Shona tribes have traditions of their ancestors’ coming into
Zimbabgwe under one Sakavunza, further corroborating the Portuguese records of
Dr. Theal.
That the Portuguese record is indeed true
cannot be doubted, for it is supported by the oral traditions of the Shona
themselves, though this is the kind of tradition that today one will not find
referred to in Zimbabgwean school history books. One such tradition was
recorded by Professor Stanlake Samkange concerning the Zwimba people who are
considered the real MaZezuru, or Central Shona. Of the Zwimba people Professor
Samkange wrote:
**********
In the land
of Makonde, in the Chinhoyi district, near the Chitombo-rwizi Purchase Area,
towards the Karoyi River, are people known as The People of Zvimba who live in
their land called Chipata. These people are real MaZezuru. Their cognomen or
Mutupo is Ngonya pa Nyora. Their honorificus - Chidawo is Gushungo; or Owner of
the fruit forest, Pachiworera, Tsiwo, Terror of the Waters! … Now where did
these people come from? Listen! Hear! These people of Zvimba came from
Guruwuskwa. No one can tell you the exact location of this place called
Guruwuskwa. All our elders only point to the North saying: “This way, that is
where Guruwuskwa is, this way” (Samkange 1986, 1).
**********
Professor
Samkange states that when the then District Commissioner inquired as to the
history and origins of the Zezuru people in 1955, he was told by Mr. Chakabva,
who was the elder brother of Headman Dununu that
Neyiteve, the son of Chihobvu, the Progenitor, left the area where
Chihobvu lived in Guruwuskwa and came west in search of new land. At that time,
the Rozvi’s ruled this country. A Mu Rozvi named Tumbare [Tumbale], gave land
to Neyiteve when Neyiteve said: “My feet are swollen.” He became the first
Zvimba” (Samkange 1986, 5).
The
District Commissioner also wrote in 1965 of the Zwimba people that:
These people formed part of the general migration from the north. They
say they came from a place named Guru Uskwa (probably in Tanganyika). They were
led by one Nemaunga and his son or younger brother Neyiteve. The country they
occupied was originally occupied by Chief Svinura’s people (Chiwundura?) but
they were driven out by the VaRozvi (Samkange 1986, 5).
Now, there are
two points of interest here. If the ‘Chief Svinura’ is indeed Chiwundura as
Professor Samkange thinks, then the proposition raises very interesting
questions about the date of the settlement of the Shona in the Zimbabgwean Tableland.
Chiwundura is the Shona rendering for the Kalanga King Tjibundule, (called
Netshiendeulu by the Venda). Tjibundule is known to have been conquered by
Mambo Dombolakona-Tjing’wango Dlembewu Moyo in the late 1600s (Rennie, in
Schoffeleers 1978, 260).
We of
course know that half of Zimbabgwe was at that time under the leadership of
King Tjibundule, with the other half having under the leadership of the
Monomotapa. Whilst Tjibundule was a dynastic title dating back to the 1500s or
so, here the tradition collected by Professor Samkange clearly states that when
the Zezuru arrived it was around the time at which the reigning Tjibundule was
overthrown by the Lozwi, and the country under Lozwi rule, with Tumbale
allocating them land. That would have been in the late 1600s or early 1700s,
for that is the time the Lozwi Mambos took over power from the Tjibundules, and
the mention of Tumbale confirms this date, for he was the leading medicine-man
and army general at this time.
The other
point is that of the place named Guruwuswa. Where was the land of Guruwuskwa?
In Lozwi-Kalanga traditions we are told that it is a place where the people, in
their migrations, could not find firewood, and had to use grass for wood. They
then exclaimed, “guni buhwa”, meaning
we can also use grass in the place of firewood as fuel in TjiKalanga,
Guruwuskwa being the Shona rendering. We know that this is a place in southern
Zimbabgwe because we are told that it was near the Crocodile River, that is,
the Limpopo (Posselt 1935, 143-144). In Kalanga oral traditions collected by
Mr. Kumile Masola, the region is also identified as southern Zimbabgwe, for we
are told that the Lozwi or BaNyayi crossed the Tuli River before they conquered
the Togwa Kingdom of the Tjibundules.
But was the
land of ‘Guruwuskwa’ of the Zezuru the ‘guni
buhwa’ of the Kalanga? That seems very unlikely and confusing. For if the
Shona Guruwuskwa was in the north as
pointed out by Zezuru elders, how could it be in the south at the same time?
That is, south of Makonde where the traditions by Professor Samkange were
collected. Is it not possible that some Shona oral informant had heard about
the guni buhwa tradition from the
Lozwi-Kalanga, and assumed that it was the place of Shona origin? That seems
very likely since “it was found impossible to obtain more accurate information
from them concerning the events of distant times than the general fact that
their ancestors came down from the north about two centuries ago” when enquiry
was made into their particulars as pointed out by Dr Theal above.
Zimbabgwe’s
former Education and Culture Minister, Aenias Chigwedere, in one of his works (From Mutapa to Rhodes) identified Matabeleland
as the land of Guruwuswa of Shona oral tradition (Chigwedere 1980, 2). Of
course Mr. Chigwedere got this information from the highly unreliable works of
Mr. Donald P. Abraham who first came up with the idea that Guruwuskwa was a
province in the south-west of Zimbabgwe,[2]
yet according to the traditions collected by Professor Samkange, the Zwimba
elders pointed to the north as the location of their Guruwuskwa (Samkange 1986,
1).
How could
they have come from the north and south at the same time? Well, let us leave
this and such questions for now. All I wanted to show here is that there is a
general ambiguity as to the origins of the people called Shona today, though
the present ‘common-sense’ understanding is to the effect that they originate
in the Great Lakes Region of Central Africa.
In The Karanga Empire, Mr. Chigwedere
identifies Guruwuswa as a region “to the west of Lake Malawi” with “tall grass
and rather few trees”. He identifies this region as the place where the Mbire,
supposedly the ancestors of the Shona according to him, temporarily settled in
after they “started to trek out of Tanganyika towards the Zambezi River” in 900
A.D. (Chigwedere n.d.,32).
Interestingly,
Chigwedere comes up with this new position in 1982, two years after he had
identified Guruwuswa as Matabeleland in From
Mutapa to Rhodes in 1980, but he does not attempt to make any explanation
for his new position!
Commenting
on the term guruwuswa, Professor
Beach pointed out that “Guruwuswa was first noted as a land of [Shona] origin
in 1904, and further references appeared in the 1920s, 1940s and 1950s. The
publications of Donald Abraham in 1959-63 converted Guruwuswa into the province
or empire of Guruwuswa [modern Matabeleland], writ large on the political map
of the Zimbabwean plateau, and school books have now made this place of origin
very well known indeed” (Beach 1994, 259-269).
It is partly
on this basis that the Shona claim that Matebeleland was once their land that
was stolen by the Ndebele. But it is interesting to know that the Shona have
never at any point in history settled in Matabeleland, a region which has
always been Bukalanga since at least 100 AD (see the article The Earliest Settlements of Bukalanga Africa
South of the Zambezi and the Establishment of the Zimbabgwe Civilization here
in this blog). The histories of Abraham, later popularized by other writers,
and more specifically Chigwedere, have come to thoroughly influence the
Zimbabgwean school history syllabus, and indeed to impact on the political
economy of the country, distorted as they are!
After
conducting extensive research among the various Shona dynastic chieftaincies in
the 1980s and 1990s, Professor Beach wrote: “For all I knew, it might not have
been possible to get any sort of coherent pattern any earlier than about 1750…”
(Beach 1994, 8). Professor Beach’s research findings revealed that virtually
all Shona dynasties that have no Kalanga or Tonga[3]
connections could not provide any coherent oral tradition that dates back to
anything before 1700, and this is, interestingly, mainly the case amongst
dynasties in Mashonaland and Manicaland today. With reference to the Central
and Northern Shona (the Zezuru and Manyika) and the dating of their dynasties,
Professor Beach wrote:
**********
According
to the traditions, we have a series of migrations, nearly all moving from the
north-east to the south-west, which overcomes very nearly all of the aboriginal
inhabitants [Bukalanga] of the area in the period 1700-1850. This, one could
say, is practically the stereotype of Shona traditions. Yet there are some odd
features about the southern plateau history. Although it is most unusual for
Shona genealogies to go much further back than 1700, even without the help of
Portuguese documents it is possible to see that some dynasties in the center,
north and east, have genealogies starting at about 1700… (Beach 1994, 133).
**********
The obvious
question that arises from the above is: if the Shona have been in this land for
as long as they claim, why is it that none of their dynasties has a history
going back beyond 1700? Or are we to assume that all their informants forgot their pre-1700 history in the land that
is now Zimbabgwe? Is that just not testimony enough that there is actually no
such history in the first place? The challenge is for Shona scholars to tell us
what happened.
Professor
Beach has also raised a very interesting point in this regard. He informs us
that in his extensive researches amongst the Shona groups, except in a very few
instances, he did not find any oral traditions whatsoever that linked their
dynasties to the Zimbabgwe Ruins. No traditions existed amongst the Shona about
the origins of the Zimbabgwe Ruins, even though in some places Professor Beach
found that the communities were living close to the edifices. He noted that
“Apart from the case of the zimbabwe
on Gombe mountain in Buhera, there is no connection between the dynasties of
the shava belt and any zimbabwe-type buildings, and their
history cannot be projected back to the Great Zimbabwe period” (Beach 1994,
29).
The shava belt that Professor Beach is
referring to is made up of the following Shona groups:
**********
[i]n Bocha,
in the angle of the Odzi and Save, Marange; in Buhera, on the south bank of the
upper Save, the Nyashanu and Mutekedza dynasties, once part of the Mbiru
dynasty; south of Buhera, the Munyaradze dynasty; west of the watershed…the
Mushava, Nherera and Rwizi dynasties;…on the middle Mupfure, the Chivero
dynasty; far to the west of Chivero, in the angle of Munyati and Mupfure, the
Neuso dynasty; and west of the Munyati, on the Mafungabusi plateau, the
Chireya, Njerere, Nemangwe, Nenyunga and Negonde dynasties, … the NeHarava and
Seke dynasties of the upper Mhanyame, the Nyavira dynasty of the Gwizi flats
and the Hwata and Chiweshe … dynasties of the upper Mazowe (Beach 1994, 28).
**********
The same
trend reported above is similar for most of the Shona dynasties that Professor
Beach studied. For all we know, most of the Zimbabgwe Ruins were already
constructed by 1700, except for a few that were constructed in the 18th
century. This explains a lot about the date the Shona groups should have
arrived in the country, for it would be impossible for them to have been in the
land before 1000 A.D. as they claim, and yet have no traditions about such
major historical edifices as the Zimbabgwe Ruins. Interestingly, traditions
connecting Bukalanga in south and south-west of Zimbabgwe, where most of the
ruins are located, are in abundance [see Chapter Nine of The Rebirth of Bukalanga]. Towards the conclusion of his book
Professor Beach wrote:
**********
I began
this chapter [Chapter 7] on an optimistic note, and it is on the same
optimistic note that I wish to end it, and to bring this book to a close.
Leaving aside details to an appendix, I can sum up by claiming that Shona oral
traditions give us a reasonable basis for a history of the Zimbabwe plateau,
but one going only back to about 1700 and often not as far (Beach 1994, 273).
**********
One thing
is very clear from the evidence presented above - from Portuguese records,
Shona oral traditions and the research of Professor Beach - that the ancestors
of the people called Shona today arrived in the Zimbabgwean Tableland around
the 1700s, at least 1500 years later than the Kalanga peoples!
The Kalanga
peoples, or Bukalanga, are themselves made up of the following tribes: BaLilima,
Bakalanga, Vakaranga, BaTalawunda, BaNambya, BaLozwi, Ba-ka-Baloyi, BaPfumbi,
BaLemba, BaLembethu, Babirwa, BaTwambambo, BaShangwe, BaLeya, BaTembe,
BaJawunda, BaLobedu, BaTswapong, and Vhavenda, and the majority of Ndebele speakers
bearing the following surnames among others: Ndlovu, Khupe, Sibanda, Tshuma,
Mpala, Nyoni, Nyathi, Ndebele, Ngwenya, Shoko, Zhowu, Shumba, Moyo, Nkomo,
Nleya, Dumani, Mlalazi, and so forth.
It is up to th students and scholars of
Shona stock to tell us why they claim to have been in this land for as long as
is taught in school when the evidence is to the contrary. In Chapters Seven and
Eight of The Rebirth, I deal extensively
with the question of how we have ended up with the shonalized version of history that is currently taught in schools
and held by Shona political elites.
[1] Dr Theal was Professor of History at Queen’s University in Kingston, Canada, and Foreign
Member of the Academy of Arts and Sciences, Utrecht, Holland. He was also
Corresponding Member of the Royal Historical Society in London; Honorary Member
of the Literary Association; the Leiden Commission for preparing a History of
the Walloon Churches, and the Historical Society of Utrecht. In addition to the
preceding, he was formerly Keeper of the Archives of the Cape Colony and
Historiographer of the Government of the Cape Colony. He is the one who
translated and/or coordinated the translation of most Portuguese documents into
English.
[2] That the works of Abraham cannot be trusted has been extensively dealt with in Chapter Seven of my book. Also see Professor
David Beach's A Zimbabwean Past: Shona Dynastic Histories and Oral Traditions. Gweru: Mambo Press (1994).
[3] For example, the Ngezi
and Rimuka Dynasties are now regarded as Shona but were originally Tonga (Beach
1994: 53).
I would note that most of the makalaka being refferred to are Karanga and not kalanga as you would say. I would also say that oral traditions rarely last long. Its a miracle that they can be traced to the 18th century at all. I will also note that the portuguese reffered to the ruling dynasty of mutapa as Karanga. Archeological evidence shows continuity in shona pottery for the past 800 years.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, Kalanga dynasties are obscure. What differentiates shona and kalanga are minor dialectical differences. in fact as one moves north, the more the dialects tend to resemble Shangwe, then Korekore. And as one moves east, the more the dialects resemble karanga. It is obvious from the facts that the whole region between the Zambezi and Limpopo, from the indian ocean to the kalahari dessert was inhabited by people speaking languages belonging to a dialect continuum which has been termed Shona by linguists. A Zezuru person will learn Kalanga way faster than a Ndebele person. Maybe it will take him a month. A karanga speaker will do it faster than a Zezuru. And a Nambya person faster than a Karanga person. In such circumstances it is not possible to distinguish wether a word recorded in history is Kalanga or Shona.
If as you seem to suggest there is no relation between Zezuru and Kalanga, why is it that the languages are so similar. Why is Nambya more like Zezuru than Kalanga and yet Nambya are descendents of the Rozvi, with a stronger claim. Are they less Rozvi because they speak a more northern dialect. The Rozvi dialect is more similar to korekore and Shangwe than it is to Karanga.
You ignore totems and then you will never get the story, each groups history is written in the totem, the longer the totem the longer you presence in the land or your deeds. These tribes we talk of today are made up, the word Zezuru, is actually VeZuru, those in the north, not a tribe. The Karanga get named by the pioneer column from the Portuguese maps they used to travel and insist that those living around that area are from henceforth Karanga when the original Kalanga had being pushed to the west over customary practice. It is said that the Kalangas during the Mutupa period were workers and servants, and that they practised cannibalism. If someone is called for a hearing for some crime with the emperor or King it was a serious crime cause subordinates such as chiefs could have handled it. The Kalangas will circle the court singing nyama nyama nyama. New groups who came way after the fall of empire regarded cannibalism as barbaric and kicked them to the west towards Botswana a place which was considered inhospitable by those standards.
DeleteThree quick points to Mr Emmanuel: (1)You mysteriously remove the Karanga from the greater Shona-speaking people, as if VaKaranga do not belong to the greater Shona-speaking world. In fact many Karanga lineages, like those of the Shumba (Gurundoro) totem, actually hail much farther north, as their oral history tell us. So they being Karangas is only a recent phenomenon, and it's silly to create "Chinese walls" between VaKaranga and the rest of the Shona-speaking peoples when in fact -- dialect differences aside -- they are one and the same people.
ReplyDelete(2) Someone reading this blog would think that the movement of Bantu-speaking peoples had been reversed. One would think that the Bantus made their way from south to north when the reverse is true: the general movement of Bantu-speaking peoples that settled (what we now call) Congo, Malawi, Zambia, Zimbabwe and finally Mozambique and South Africa was a southern movement. Let's get our facts correct.
You seem to know something, but there was a northern migration, after the encounter in the Cape with settlers everyone started going north back to Guruusva. The most successful in doing so were the Kikuyu passing through the lands present day Zim travelling all the way to Kenya. They will also tell you that those when in a good mood. they are the guys who leave the message people with no knees coming.
DeleteYour need to put the Kalanga on top of everyone else makes the article and probably the book silly!! The "Shona" like the Ndebele are a recent invention of the colonial government. Noone ever refered to themselves as Shona before 1930 and indeed in the 1940s! The mane that all the now Shona groups used was Karanga. There was no Monomotapa state (Munhumutapa was a title not a territory!): The state was called Mukaranga. Not all Shona groups are from that core Karanga group as some are recent arrivals from the North (Sena, Maravi, etc) but the large majority are of Karanga identity. Some of them even came from VuKalanga as it was being invaded by the Ndebele and this is not only the Rozvi. The Rozvi are not a tribe but a clan amongst many- thier only difference is that ehy were royalty but there were many Shoko, Gumbo, Nzou, Mhofu etc who also left Matebeland for the current Mashonaland. The Kalanga are not a distinct group but a part of this large Karanga/Kalanga confederacy. Two states existed the so called Mutapa (Mukaranga) and the Torwa later Rozvi state (Vukalanga) and both had origins at Great Zimbabwe and Mapungubwe. None of these groups therefore can claim the heritage for themselves. The way history has been taught in Zimbabwe is of course causing this. It is assumed that when books say the 'Shona' built Great Zimbabwe this includes groups whose identities have changed (Kalanga, Nambya, Venda etc). These groups dont see themselves as Shona as the name Shona didnt exist when these groups still interacted. The so called Shona, the Kalanga, Venda, Nambya are all part of the civilisation that yu call Kalanga. The only problem is how this history has been written. That it has been attributed to Shona does not mean that when you revise history you have to take the Shona out. In fact the Shona know very well their connections with the Kalanga, Nambya and Venda.
ReplyDeleteThis is very true. This article is written as if one could differentiate and filter between those people now called vaShona and those called baKalanga when in reality, they are not so different after all. Some modern-day Shonas are descendants of those who would be called Kalangas who moved East due to the arrival of the Ndebele, and one could even argue that Kalangas are Shonas who were more exposed and influenced by Ndebele culture. In reality, we are a deep mix, some hailing from the original inhabitants of Zimbabwe some from more recent arrivals.
DeleteHa!ha! ha! Jelous of the enviablble Shona Victor's. Our names and traditions are consistent with oral history and our claims. Mapungubwe, ChiDzivabwe, Dzimbabgwe. We Shona know what these mean. Others need a dictionary because they are foreigners. Hands off.
DeleteBy....
Tete Minge
I had written such a long response and this stupid platform threw it out, what a pity. I will write to rewrite
ReplyDeleteLoad of rabish this. The zezuru were, karanga before the Nickname zezuru. The karanga were kalanga before losing the letter L from their alfabet. May have arrived different periods but same ancestry. The name mpungumabwe is proper shona. Even primary 3 will tell you that. We were advanced before the arrival of the white man. Vhenda are akin to the shona.
DeleteNow, addressing the opening of the Shona's came to Zimbabwe 300 years ago, 300 years ago there was no Zimbabwe, but 300 years ago after the severing of Mambo's head by Zvangendaba (yes Mambo was son of Changamire whose head was severed cause he had become to close to the Portuguese) The small fiefdom in Vuhera, Nyashanu a Chief who paid tribute to Changamire and his son, his elder sons leave the home and travel north east, into present day Mozambique, potentially were Zvangendaba had set up a garrison (now parts of southern Malawi), they comeback sweeping the land, tried to murder Makoni, failed, asked for sanctuary from Mbare, another Chief who paid tribute to the Rozvi (Changamire who was based at Matopos succeeded by Mambo is son is the first MuRozvi), hence the old saying that VaRozvi vanogadza Hushe. The five brothers eventually have a disagreement with Mbare, over the tribute which was still being extracted by the reminiscence of Mambos people now hankered in a Portuguese garrison on the north coast of mozambique. They kill him in a skirmish and genocide his family and people only leaving those born of their sister, Mukuvisi was blood for weeks, that is why kids are threatened with Mukuvisi, ndinokuendesa kwaMukuvisi. This is the 300 years ago you mention, it was not the Shona arriving it was the realignment of political forces. Several generations later the pioneer column arrives amid infighting in the kings family, after Seke, came his son Zengeza, he was brutal expanding the kingdom, reducing Makoni's area of influence by surrounding him south, east and north, pushing south, hence the old word about a fierce person, anozengeza, coming from him, then he was followed by Sonono (today mainly known as Kunaka a name the Rozvi women like to call him). eventually assassinated by the VaShavasha hoping their nephew first born will take over, not to be, he his barred for the acts of his uncles and second brother Chauruka briefly installed but assassinated, paMutiusinazita, reason why it is so called, when asked where did it happen, this tree had no name it was foreign. afte that chaos, Njiri took over, but problems persisted all these people never saw the pioneer column, Savanhu, took over. The one who saw the pioneer column were their grandchildren.
ReplyDeleteWilling to discuss the history before Changamire also distorted and romanticised.
I had written a more comprehensive rebuff on tribes I will summarise, The tribes in the land we now call Zim before pioneer column and here are just the main ones, Kalanga, Shava (Mhofu and Gumbo), Rozvi (Moyo), Shavasha (Soko), Budya (Shumba), Nyati (not sure what his tribe but includes Mutasa). I could have missed a few others but I am not a student of history but have it jammed in my head. Shona is a fanagalo of Portuguese language, Pedyo (peto near) Mainini (Manini- young woman) Chinanazi (Ananazi) list goes own, the other predominant words are Rozvi. I was saying that people seem to gloss over the fact that we were once briefly colonised by Portugeuse before Changimire using his mighty wealth got everyone united to push them back towards the east, that thwarting there strategy of coast to coast trying to merge Angola and Mozambique. Changamire is then the first MuRozvi. I was also saying the pioneer column came in hand Portuguese maps. They get to present day Masvingo and they say the people around there are Karanga after removing "L"in the language, but these fellows are all soughts of totems, there is no way a Mhofu can be a Kalanga or a Soko, or Madyira pazhe, who originated from from present day Murehwa.
ReplyDeleteI was also saying that for every 1 white person who crossed the Limpopo, in tow was 10 blacks, mercenaries and slaves. they participated over eagerly in fighting the groups in that land and rewards were plenty, land fiefdoms. The mercenaries (Xhosa in the west, Sothos in Masema in Masvingo) got what they were promised, land and title. The slaves, got the right to murder locals and create their own recognized fiefdoms, Gusvungo clan is one such group. The totem represents the loads they carried on their heads coming with the pioneer column, Gusvu, and chamutengunde vhiri rengoro, walking besides the wheel of a cart.
Just one correction. Chamutengunde vhiri rengoro is a contemporary chidawo (praise song0 probably from the 50s. Vhiri is obviously English. Otherwise, I have been following your arguments very closely. Very thought provoking.
DeleteClever now I write bytes, now some will argue no, what of Zezuru etc, VeZuru is what it is called, name given to those who moved to the north, VaVeZuru, by the others who moved south or remained south. It was never a tribe. Zuru represents north, or top derived from churu and then Zuru, like Zulu. Shava people have more alliagance to their Mhofu people regardless of clan than to a location Zuru even though in the so called Zezuru group the comprise a huge majority, also have a huge number in the south among the people now called Karanga.
ReplyDeleteIt is these other groups vanaChamutengunde who prefer that we remain with these new tribes so that they can be incorporated into them and disappear into a larger group. Marange in a Shava person as represented by being on of the six brothers Seke, Cheweshe, Marange, Gwenzi, Hwata, Musimuvi how then does he become Munyika whilst the other ZeZuru and those in the south from the other wives of Nyashanu become Karanga and Ndebele.
Chigwedere is mistaken, once asked him a simple historical fact he should know and tried to make it up right in front of me. when i corrected him he was so embarrassed, and corrected his whole nonsense in his books and all he had to say is oh yes yes.
ReplyDeleteSamkange, and others either wrote to entrench a false history or to save their masters, we know where Guruusva is, it is the great lakes were grass grows tall, taller than a human. Guru Usva (long grass), you either originated from the east or the west of the lakes, you either travelled north west or north east or south. it is simple you don't need complicated or Portuguese or Professor to know this. I thought every Zim this knowledge was rudimentary. Samkange lies, the Gusvungo people came with the pioneer column, them and similar groups become the first groups to receive education now they us it to mislead future academics. Originally yes they would like most black people regardless you are in Nigeria or what you came from the long grass. But coming to presnt day Zimbabwe we know definitely that they came with the pioneer column carrying Gusvu on their heads for the masters and called Chamutengunde vhiri rengoro by the indigenous groups.
ReplyDeleteThat chidawo (praise song) ends continues like "..anotora girizi oisa pachingwa"; obviously both 'Vhiri' and 'Girizi" are English words meaning this was a most recent era. Initially the Gushungos people arrived from the north and settled in Zvimba because their king had swollen legs, so they never moved. The Chimutungunde (Chamutengure) era was post 1930s when their chief was awarded with a cart by the British Settlers for aligning with them. I agree they were the first to receive education.
DeleteI am interested in the History of the people who settled around Gweru...Chiwundur to be specific, how they got that Chieftainship who settled there first...can anyone with info enlighten me. I am tracing my history.Thank you in advance.
ReplyDeleteMr Author your research is very enlightening. However, try to be impartial and let the reader decide.
ReplyDeleteIt's our great ancestors the Sons of luvhenda NOW Venda then under their cheif Shiriyadenga. They still build same structures today. These groups arrived 500 A.D. They are the same clan as the Mwenemutapa. Very proud of our architects. You are rattled!Aslo the Kalanga. Still the same dynasty as our late Robert Mugabe. Good in their Watts.
ReplyDeleteThis guy just want to be relevant. Yu are telling us that people who witnessed the events that happened 200++years ago are not telling us truth while you where born year 2000 know better truth than those people.
ReplyDelete