1. Leach, Edmund, Genesis as Myth, and Other Essays (London, 1969), pp. 28–29.Google Scholar

2. The only scholar who has broken away from the dominant historical or chronological concerns is Wrigley, C.C., “Kimera,” UJ, 23 (1959), pp. 38–43.Google Scholar As discussed elsewhere in this paper, though, Wrigley analyzed as myth only traditions surrounding Kimera. His later paper, “The Story of Rukidi,” Africa, 43 (1973), pp. 219–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar, is a similar, though more sophisticated, study. Elsewhere Wrigley returns to the traditions of Buganda but shifts his focus both to a wider set of traditions and to an analysis dominated by concerns of chronology. See his “The Kinglists of Buganda,” History in Africa, 1 (1974), pp. 129–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

3. Kiwanuka, M.S.M. (ed.), The Kings of Buganda (Nairobi, 1971).Google Scholar This is an edited translation of Apolo Kagwa's Basekabaka be Buganda, published in three editions between 1901 and 1927.

4. Ibid., p. 2.

5. In choosing this second version of the Kintu traditions as the beginnings of Buganda's “history,” Kiwanuka followed the orthodox line of Ganda historiography. Twaddle, Michael, “On Ganda Historiography,” History in Africa, 1 (1974), pp. 85–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar, argues that this orthodoxy was established in 1920 in a series of articles in Munno by J.T.K. Gomotoka, the Ssabalangira (Head of the Princes) of Buganda. Under the guidance of Twaddle these articles have been translated and cyclostyled by the Department of History, Makerere University, and included in a collection of periodical articles entitled “Sons of Kintu.” See articles 21-24, 26-27.

6. Kiwanuka, , Kings of Buganda, pp. 3–4.Google Scholar

7. E.g., ibid., pp. 6, 8-9, 11, 13-14; Kiwanuka, , A History of Buganda from the Foundation of the Kingdom to 1900 (London, 1972), pp. 6, 31-43, 53–59.Google Scholar For other analyses see Gray, J.M., “The Early History of Buganda,” UJ, 2 (1935), pp. 259–71Google Scholar; Southwold, M., Bureaucracy and Chiefship in Buganda (Kampala, 1961)Google Scholar; Cohen, D.W., “The Historical Context of Kintu,” paper presented at the Makerere History Department Seminar, Sept. 1971Google Scholar; idem, The Historical Tradition of Busoga: Kintu and Mukama (Oxford, 1972); Wrigley, “Kinglists of Buganda.”

8. See the references to the works of these two men in the relevant notes. It should be apparent from the text that this paper is an attempt to apply some of the methods of Lévi-Strauss and Leach to material that has heretofore been investigated primarily for purposes of historical reconstruction.

9. Leach, , Genesis as Myth, pp. 27–31Google Scholar, citing Ricoeur, P., “Structure et herméneutique,” Esprit, Nov. 1963.Google Scholar The only exception to this rule can be found in the beginning pages of Lévi-Strauss' first exposition of the structural analysis of myth, where he briefly explores the Oedipus myth. See “The Structural Study of Myth” in his Structural Anthropology (New York, 1963), pp. 206–31.Google Scholar

10. Leach, , Genesis as Myth, pp. 25–83.Google Scholar

11. Ibid., p. 115.

12. Ibid., p. 114.

13. Lévi-Strauss, C., The Savage Mind (Chicago, 1966), pp. 233–44Google Scholar; idem, The Raw and the Cooked (New York, 1969), pp. 12-13.

14. The complexity of this process of selection is not negated by the role of a final chronicler or chroniclers such as Kagwa. This assumes, of course, that such chroniclers do not overstep the role their name implies by inventing the stories they relate.

15. Leach, , Genesis as Myth, pp. 42–43.Google Scholar

16. Southwold, , Bureaucracy and Chiefship, p. 2.Google Scholar

17. Lévi-Strauss, , Savage Mind, p. 22.Google Scholar

18. Ibid., p. 258.

19. Southwold, Bureaucracy and Chiefship. I would maintain this distinction between the kings before and those after Nakibinge despite Wrigley's arguments in “Kinglists of Buganda” for a strong presence of mythical elements in the traditions of the middle group of rulers. I would not dispute the presence of such elements but (and this seems crucial) they do not seem to possess the same dominant structural characteristics discernible in the traditions of the pre-Nakibinge rulers. In the traditions of the later kings myth seems to appear as odd bits and pieces scattered throughout the traditions and dominated by other, mainly historical and chronological, concerns.

20. The idea was first expressed, I believe, by Wrigley, , “Kimera,” pp. 40–41.Google ScholarOliver, R., “The Royal Tombs of Buganda,” UJ, 23 (1959), pp. 124–33Google Scholar, added additional supporting evidence but did not attempt a comprehensive reevaluation. By far the most extensive and recent arguments are Kiwanuka, , “The Traditional History of the Buganda Kingdom, with Special Reference to the Historical Writings of Sir Apolo Kagwa,” Ph.D. dissertation, University of London, 1965, pp. 154ff.Google Scholar, and idem, History of Buganda, pp. 60-68.

21. Cohen, using traditions from both inside and outside Buganda, has reconstructed the historical context of these ‘early’ Kintu traditions in a convincing manner. See the references in note 7 above.

22. Leach, , Genesis as Myth, pp. 75–81.Google Scholar

23. Kiwanuka, Kings of Buganda.

24. See Cohen's works (cited in note 7) for convincing arguments concerning the historical implications of Kintu having been remembered as coming from the west.

25. Kiwanuka, , Kings of Buganda, p. 5.Google Scholar All further references to this work will be noted parenthetically in the text.

26. Twaddle, “Ganda Historiography,” offers an alternative or additional argument based on his reconstruction of the early twentieth-century political and intellectual climate in Buganda, for the overwhelming acceptance of Kintu's legitimacy and the notion of his coming to Buganda from outside.

27. Lévi-Strauss, , “Structural Study of Myth,” p. 215.Google Scholar

28. Ibid., pp. 206–31.

29. Lévi-Strauss, , Raw and the Cooked, pp. 38–39.Google Scholar

30. Leach, , Genesis as Myth, p. 12.Google Scholar

31. Kagwa, Apolo, Ekitabo kye Bika bya Buganda (Kampala, 1908).Google Scholar Page references are to a typescript translation by John Rowe.

32. Roscoe, John, The Baganda (London, 1911), pp. 145–46.Google Scholar

33. Is this why the story appears only in the more ‘private’ Fumbe clan traditions, and not in the dominant dynastic traditions? See below for a general discussion of clan traditions vis-à-vis the dominant royal traditions.

34. Kagwa, , Ekitabo, p. 25.Google Scholar

35. The best discussion in English of these traditions is Kabuga, C.E.S., “The Genealogy of Kabaka Kintu and the Early Bakabaka of Buganda,” UJ, 27 (1963), pp. 205–16.Google Scholar

36. Again, see Twaddle, “Ganda Historiography,” for the role of political and intellectual factors on the acceptance of the now orthodox Kintu story.

37. Gray, “Early History of Buganda”; Southwold, Bureaucracy and Chiefship; Kiwanuka, Kings of Buganda; idem, History of Buganda; Cohen, Busoga, are all examples of this.

38. Roscoe, , Baganda, p. 188.Google Scholar

39. See ibid., p. 381.

40. Kagwa, , Ekitabo, p. 6c.Google Scholar

41. For the archeological evidence see Shinnie, P., “Excavations at Bigo, 1957,” UJ, 24 (1960), pp. 16–28Google Scholar; Posnansky, M., “Kingship, Archaeology, and Historical Myth,” UJ, 30 (1966), pp. 1–12.Google Scholar For the clan traditions see Carole Buchanan, “The Bacwezi Cult: The Religious Revolution in Western Uganda”; idem, “The Foundations of the Kitara Complex: The Batembuzi Period”; idem, “The Kitara Complex: The Historical Tradition of Western Uganda to the 16th Century,” papers presented at Makerere History Department Seminar in 1969,1971, and 1973.

42. Kiwanuka, , Kings of Buganda, p10n1.Google Scholar

43. Kagwa, , Ekitabo, pp. 18–20.Google Scholar

44. For the Lugave clan see ibid., p. 85.

45. Cohen, , Busoga, p. 116.Google Scholar

46. See note 24 above.

47. Kagwa, , Ekitabo, p. 26.Google Scholar

48. Wrigley, , “Kimera,” pp. 38–43Google Scholar; Nsimbi, M.B., Amannya Amagando n'Ennono Zaago [The names of the Baganda and Their Meaning] (Kampala, 1956), pp. 38ff.Google Scholar

49. The Nsimbi book might offer many more variant traditions which would repay study. But the book, in Luganda, has a very poor index and is organized so that its reference use is very difficult. Nevertheless, it is a source that should be dealt with more fully than I have been able to do here.

50. For a critical interpretation of the itinerary as history see Kiwanuka, , Kings of Buganda, pp. 13–14Google Scholar, and idem, History of Buganda, pp. 38–42.Google Scholar

51. Roscoe, , Baganda, pp. 208–10, 445.Google Scholar

52. As noted in Wrigley, , “Kimera,” p. 38.Google Scholar

53. Oliver, “Royal Tombs of Buganda.”

54. Nyakatura, J.W., Anatomy of an African Kingdom: A History of Bunyoro-Kitara (New York, 1973).Google Scholar This is a translation of Abakama be Bunyoro-Kitara, published in 1947. See also K.W., , “The Kings of Bunyoro-Kitara,” UJ, 4 (1936), pp. 75–83.Google Scholar The independence of these Nyoro sources has recently been questioned by David Henige, who argues that they are to a significant extent derivative from Kagwa's Basekabaka. See his “Reflections on Early Interlacustrine Chronology: An Essay in Source Criticism,” JAH, 15 (1974), pp. 2746Google Scholar, and “K.W.'s Nyoro Kinglist: Oral Tradition or the Result of Applied Research?”, paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the African Studies Association, Philadelphia, 1972.Google Scholar

55. Kiwanuka, “Traditional History of Buganda Kingdom”; idem, The Empire of Bunyoro-Kitara: Myth or Reality (Kampala, 1968); idem, History of Buganda.

56. The work of Carole Buchanan with clan-based traditions of pre-Babiito Bunyoro-Kitara presents plausible arguments which suggest that the dynasty Kiwanuka referred to was Bacwezi or Bacwezi-related.

57. For Kiwanuka's arguments see his Kings of Buganda, pp. xlii-xliii, 13-14, and his History of Buganda, pp. 36-43, 53-61.

58. Wrigley, “Kimera.”

59. Lévi-Strauss, , Savage Mind, p. 22.Google Scholar

60. The most important of these offices include the katikkiro, the kimbugwe (a ritual, not territorial, office), and a number of the major ssaza (territorial) chiefs, especially the half dozen or so located in central Buganda. These chiefs have been identified by clan wherever possible for each king's reign in Cox, A.H., “The Growth and Expansion of Buganda,” UJ, 14 (1950), pp. 153–59.Google Scholar His work and basic schema have since been utilized by a number of researchers. The basic significance of these chiefs, when identified for the reigns of early kings, is to establish the point that most of the chiefships were hereditary within certain clans. This then becomes important in contrast to such chiefly offices under later kings, when the hereditary principle was increasingly challenged-especially from the time of Semakokiro in the late eighteenth century, when increased wealth from participation in long-distance trade and the incorporation of iron-rich Buddo became available to the Ganda kings. The identification of these particular office-holders for the early rulers (like the identification of capital and burial sites noted below) seems unimportant to the structural themes of the early traditions being considered here. Their inclusion is probably due to a combination of the more private concerns of individual clans and the concerns of those who maintained the traditions (including, almost surely, Kagwa) to maintain some consistency between the later traditions, where the identification of such office-holders had definite political and historical significance, and those surrounding the early kings.

61. The identification of particular capital sites in these traditions seems to deserve basically the same comments as in the preceding note.

62. Roscoe, , Baganda, pp. 114–15.Google Scholar

63. See note 60. In addition, these sites are important to the historical argument made by Oliver, “Royal Tombs of Buganda.”

64. The identity of Naggadya is supplied by Kiwanuka, , Kings of Buganda, p. 18n2.Google Scholar

65. Wasswa is a name given to twins, and I do not know why a twin name would have been used in this instance. I should also note that I have felt neither competent nor compelled to try to analyze the etymology and possible significance of individual names of the personae discussed. I doubt that the dominant analysis would be altered substantially, but there is no question that some additional and suggestive interpretations could emerge from a close look at individual names.

66. One of these cures is noted by Roscoe, , Baganda, pp. 210-11, 216Google Scholar, as the origin of one of the key ceremonies associated with the accession of a new king.

67. For a description of such relations in a very different context see Lévi-Strauss, , “Structural Study of Myth,” pp. 214–15.Google Scholar

68. Kiwanuka, , Kings of Buganda, p. lxii.Google Scholar

69. Roscoe, , Baganda, p. 187.Google Scholar

70. John Yoder, draft notes presented to the Northwestern University History Seminar on Buganda, Spring 1972.

71. Historians have questioned whether the claim that the deaths of Lumansi and Kayima—especially that of Kayima—were from natural causes was not a fiction to deny their being killed by Buganda's enemies, thus revealing Buganda's weakness during this period (see, e.g., Kiwanuka, , Kings of Buganda, p. 25Google Scholar). This is certainly a question worth asking, but another question also suggests itself. Later traditions and written accounts of the late nineteenth century both indicate that raiding neighbors were a common occurrence in the life of (at least) nineteenth-century Buganda, and that such raiding was looked on in a very favorable light. Why, then, were the only two such raids retained in the traditions of the early kings remembered as complete failures? Moreover, they read as if those failures were almost justified because the purposes of the raid were unjust. The answer might (at least partly) have to do with the fact that these early traditions, because they are essentially myth and not history, express different concerns and different values than the historical traditions of the later period.

72. See the traditional accounts in Kiwanuka, , Kings of Buganda, pp. 30ff.Google Scholar See also Southwold, Bureaucracy and Chiefship, and Kiwanuka, History of Buganda. See below, pp. 58-59, for a more generalized discussion of alternative interpretations of traditions surrounding Nakibinge.

73. See above, note 20, for references to that historical analysis.

74. Roscoe, , Baganda, pp. 187–232Google Scholar, presented persuasive evidence that a woman ruler, even a temporary one, was historically unlikely.