Article contents
The role of foreign trade in the Rozvi empire: A reappraisal1
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 22 January 2009
Extract
Recent studies by the historians of pre-colonial Africa have tended to assume that external trade has always led to the formation or enlargement of states, and was crucial for the continued existence of these states. An example where an uncritical application of the above ‘trade-stimulus hypothesis’ has led to some distortion of reality has been in the study of the Rozvi empire in Southern Rhodesia in the eighteenth century. Previous students of the Rozvi empire have claimed that the latter was such a loosely connected tribal confederacy that its internal power bases—given as military and religious—were politically so slender that on their own they could not have sustained whatever power the Rozvi ruler wielded. Instead, it is said that the main source of the power exercised by the Rozvi Mambo came mainly from the latter's ability to redistribute the profits of external trade, especially that of the gold trade of which he is said to have had a strictly enforced monopoly.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1974
References
2 Among the many works published in this field may be cited Dike, K. O., Trade and Politics in the Niger Delta (Oxford, 1956);Google ScholarJones, G. I., The Trading States of the Oil Rivers (London, 1963);Google ScholarBirmingham, D., Trade and Conflict in Angola (Oxford, 1966);Google Scholar more recently Gray, R. and Birmingham, D. (eds.), Pre-Colonial African Trade: Essays on Trade in Central and Eastern Africa before 1900 (London, 1970).Google Scholar
3 The Rozvi empire discussed here was founded by a man known in oral tradition as Dombo, but referred to simply as Changamire in contemporary Portuguese documents. For the argument that the name Rozvi and the Rozvi nation did not exist before Dombo's wars (1684–95) see Mudenge, S. I., ‘The Rozvi Empire and the Feira of Zumbo’ (unpublished Ph.D. thesis, London, 1972), 35–43.Google Scholar
4 Summers, R., Zimbabwe: a Rhodesian Mystery (Cape Town, 1963), 96.Google Scholar
5 Weinrich, A. K. H., ‘Karanga History and the Mwari Cult’, Cultures et développement, II, 2 (1969-1970), 394–6;Google ScholarSutherland-Harris, N., ‘Trade and the Rozwi Mambo’, in Gray and Birmingham, Pre-Colonial African Trade, 244, 246.Google Scholar
6 Sutherland-Harris, , ‘Trade and the Rozwi Mambo’, 245.Google Scholar
7 Ibid. 243; see also Isaacman, A., Mozambique: the Africanization of a European Institution: the Zambezi Prazos, 1750–1902 (Madison, Wisconsin, 1972), 82.Google Scholar
8 Bhila, H. H., ‘The Manyika and the Portuguese 1575–1863’ (unpublished Ph.D. thesis, London, 1971), 71.Google Scholar
9 Biblioteca da Ajuda Lisboa (B.A.L.), 51-VII-34, fl.51, “Proposta que fizerão os moradores dos Rios de Cuama ao Senhor V. Reys”, Senna, 27 June 1698, Manuel Rebello.
10 Arquivo Histórico Ultramarino, avulsos de Mocambique, Caixa (A.H.V.AV. de Moç. Cx.) 13 Tette, 20 July 1768, Inácio de Mello Alvim to Governor-General (G.G.).
11 See Garbett, G. Kingsley, ‘Religious aspects of political succession among the valley Korekore (N. Shona)’, in Stokes, E. and Brown, R. (eds.), The Zambesian Past (Manchester, 1966), 152–6.Google Scholar Garbett shows just how confusing the situation could become. See also Holleman, J. F., ‘Some “Shona” Tribes of Southern Rhodesia’ in Colson, E. and Gluckman, M. (eds.), Seven Tribes of British Central Africa (Manchester, 1951), 380–2.Google Scholar
12 E.g. between 1759 and 1766 no less than six Mutapas ruled. Each was in turn deposed. From 1766 to 1806 there were sporadic wars between the ruling Mutapas and pretenders to their throne. It could also be argued that it was the seventeenth-century succession wars within the Mutapa empire which, to a large extent, enabled the Portuguese prazo holders to gain such a strangle-hold over the valley lands during that period.
13 A.H.U. AV. de Moç. Cx. 13, Tette, 20 July 1768, lnácio de Mello Alvim to G.G.
14 E.g. Nenguwo, S., ‘Oral work among the Rozvi: a few notes’, in Conference of the History of the Central African Peoples (Rhodes–Livingstone Institute for Social Research, Lusaka, 1963), 6.Google Scholar
15 Mudenge, , ‘Rozvi Empire’, 106–8.Google Scholar
16 The Rozvi capital, according to tradition, was variously at Khami, Dhlo-dhlo and Manyanga.
17 Posselt, F. W. T., Fact and Fiction (Bulawayo, 1934), 157;Google ScholarMarodzi, , ‘The Barozwi’, Native Affairs Department Annual (NADA) (1924), 90.Google Scholar
18 Sutherland-Harris, , ‘Trade and the Rozwi Mambo’, 245;Google ScholarSummers, R., Zimbabwe: A Rhodesian Mystery (Cape Town, 1965), 96;Google ScholarBhila, , ‘Manyika’, 71.Google Scholar
19 These were the soldiers of the Mutapas.
20 A.H.U. AV. de Moç. Cx. 22, Tette, 11 June 1785, Antônio Manoel de Mello e Castro to Martinho de Mello e Castro, Secretary of State for Overseas.
21 de Andrade, J. J. N., ‘Descripção de Estado em que ficavão os negocios da Capitania de Mossambique nos fins de Novembro do anno de 1789’, in Arquivo das colónias (Lisbon, 1917), I, 95Google Scholar Translation by Abraham, D. P., ‘The Monomotapa dynasty’, NADA (1959), 75.Google Scholar
22 I have personally been unable to trace where this part of the quotation comes from.
23 de Andrade, J J. N., ‘Descripçao’, 95.Google Scholar
24 A.H.U. AV. de Moç. Cx. 22, Tette, 11 June 1785, Antônio Manoel de Mello e Castro to Martinho de Mello e Castro.
25 de Castro, F. de M., Descripção dos Rios de Senna anno de 1750 (Nova Goa, Imprensa nacional, 1861), 32, pars. 66.Google Scholar
26 Ibid.
27 Posselt, , Fact and Fiction, 147.Google Scholar
28 de, F.de Castro, M., Descripção, 32–3, paras. 66–7;Google ScholarFortune, G., ‘A Rozvi Text with translation and notes’, NADA (1956), 83–4;Google ScholarColley, D. M., ‘The Fate of the last Bashankwe chief’, NADA (1927), 65–6.Google Scholar
29 A.H.U. AV. de Moç. Cx. 17, Anon., ‘Descripção Corografica do Reino de Manica seus Custumes e Leis’; de Andrade, J. J. N., ‘Descripção’, 95; A.H.U.AV. de Moç. Cx. 22, Tette, II June 1785, A. M. de Mello e Castro to M. de Mello e Castro.Google Scholar
30 A.H.U. AV. de Moç. Cx. 22, Tette, II June 1785, A. M. de Mello e Castro to M. de Mello e Castro.
31 A.H.U. AV. de Moç. Maço 21, I June 1831, Anon., ‘Acressentamento’ (annexe) to the ‘Memoria sobre a doação do Territorio Bandire’.
32 Wangemann, T., Geschichte der Berliner Missionsgesellschaft, Bd. IV: Die Berliner Mission im Bassutolande (Berlin, 1877), 70.Google Scholar
33 See Gray, R., ‘Portuguese Musketeers on the Zambezi’; J. Afr. Hist., XII, 4 (1971), 531–3;CrossRefGoogle ScholarAtmore, A., Chirenje, J. M. and Mudenge, S. I., ‘Firearms in South Central Africa’, J. Afr. Hist. XII, 4 (1971), 551–2.Google Scholar
34 Xavier, I. C., ‘Notícias dos Domínios Portugueses na Costa de áfrica Oriental’, in de Andrade, A. A. (ed.), Relações de Moçambique Setecentista (Agência Geral do Ultramar, Lisbon, 1955), 145.Google Scholar
35 de Andrade, A. A., Relações, 145; also A.H.U. AV. de Moç. Cx. 22, Tette, II June 1785, A. M. de Mello e Castro to M. de Mello e Castro.Google Scholar
36 ‘Corografica’, as cited in n. 29; also A.H.U. AV. de Moç. Cx. 22, Tette, II June 1785, A. M. de Mello e Castro to M. de Mello e Castro.
37 Mudenge, , ‘Rozvi Empire’, 74–90, 116.Google Scholar
38 Conceição, A. da, ‘Tratado dos Rios de Cuama (1696)’n Rivara, J. H. Cunha (ed.), O Chronista de Tissuary (Goa, 1867), 105, para. 106.Google Scholar
39 Fortune, , ‘Rozvi Text’, 78.Google Scholar
40 Posselt, , Fact and Fiction, 156.Google Scholar
41 A.H.U. AV. de Moç. Cx. 22, Tette, II June 1785, A. M. de Mello e Castro to M. de Mello e Castro.
42 Mudenge, , ‘Rozvi Empire’, 122–3.Google Scholar
43 Fortune, , ‘Rozvi Text’, 81, 83, 84;Google ScholarColley, , ‘Last Bashankwe Chief’, NADA (1927), 66;Google ScholarConceição, , ‘Tratado dos Rios de Cuama’, 106, para. 110;Google ScholarMuhianga, S., ‘In the Early Days’, NADA (1926), 109.Google Scholar
44 B. A. L., 51-VII-34, fl. Goa, 12 December 1698, Antônio Luis da Camara Coutinho to king.
45 Conceição, , ‘Tratado dos Rios de Cuama’, 106, paras. 109–10.Google Scholar
46 Ibid. 105, para. 103.
47 B.A.L. 51-VII-34, fl. 50, Senna, 27 June 1698, ‘Proposta que fizerão os Moradores dos Rios de Cuama ao Senhor V. Rey’, Manoel Rebello; A.H.U. AV. de Moç. Cx. 2, Senna, 24 July 1685, Caetano de Mello de Castro to king.
48 A pasta was a weight of about 16½ ounces.
49 de, F.de Castro, M., Descripçao dos. Rios de Senna, 32–3, paras. 66–7.Google Scholar
50 A.H.U. AV. de Moç. Cx. 14, Moçambique, 15 Aug. 1773, Balthazar Manoel Pereira do Lago.
51 Mudenge, , ‘Rozvi Empire’, 275–8.Google Scholar
52 ‘Corografica’, as cited in note 29; also Bhila, , ‘Manyika’, 60.Google Scholar
53 Bhila, , ‘Manyika’, 71.Google Scholar
54 Summers, Zimbabwe: a Rhodesian Mystery, 96.Google Scholar
55 A.H.U. AV. de Moç. Cx. 14, Moçambique, , 15 08 1773, B.M.P. do Lago.Google Scholar
56 de Figueiredo, L. A., ‘Notícia do Contmente de Moçambique e abreviada relação do seu comércio’, in de Carvalho Dias, L. F. (ed.), Fontes para a História, Geografia e Comércio de Moçambique (Séc. XVIII), Anais, vol. IX, Tomo I (Junta de Investigaçöes do Ultramar, Lisbon, 1954).Google Scholar
57 In the present guerrilla insurgence in north-eastern Rhodesia, for example, the Mhondoro (spirit mediums) seem to be playing an important role on both sides in the battle to win the support of the rural Africans.
58 Ranger, T. O., Revolt in Southern Rhodesia 1896–7 (London, 1968).Google Scholar
59 Brown, R., ‘External Relations of the Ndebele Kingdom’, in Thompson, L. (ed.), African Societies in Southern Africa (London, 1969), 268.Google Scholar
60 E.g.Marodzi, , ‘The Barozwi’, NADA (1924), 90;Google ScholarFortune, , ‘Rozvi Text’, 81–2.Google Scholar
61 Fortune, , ‘Rozvi Text’, 81–2.Google Scholar
62 Ibid.
63 E.g. Posselt, , Fact and Fiction, 158;Google ScholarSebina, A. M., ‘The Makalaka’, African Studies, VI, 2 (1947), 85–91.Google Scholar
64 Lloyd, E. M., ‘Mbava’. NADA (1925), 62.Google Scholar
65 E.g. Fortune, , ‘Rozvi Text’, 82;Google ScholarPosselt, , Fact and Fiction, 155–6;Google ScholarWeinrich, , ‘Karanga History’, 395–6.Google Scholar
66 Abraham, D. P., ‘The Principality of Maungwe: Its History and Traditions’, NADA (1951), 63.Google Scholar
67 Posselt, , Fact and Fiction, 140;Google ScholarLloyd, , ‘Mbava’, 62–3;Google ScholarBotelho, S. X., Memoria Estatistica sobre os Dominios Portuguezes no Africa Oriental (Lisbon, 1833), 168.Google Scholar
68 Hist. Mss. Misc. /RU4/I/I, Rukara account, National Archives, Salisbury.
69 ‘Corografica’, as cited in note 29.
70 Ibid.
71 Posselt, , Fact and Fiction, 145;Google ScholarRobinson, K. ‘A History of the Bikita District’, NADA (1957), 77.Google Scholar
72 Posselt, , Fact and Fiction, 156;Google Scholarx Robinson, , ‘History of Bikita’, 80; Nenguwo, ‘The Rozvi: a few notes’, 6; Hist. Mss. Misc. /RU4/I/I, Rukara account; ‘Corografica’ as cited in note 29;Google ScholarWeinrich, , ‘Karanga History’, 396.Google Scholar
73 Beach, D. N., ‘The Rising in south-west Mashonaland 1896–7’ (unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of London, 1971), 61–2.Google Scholar
74 Ranger, , Revolt, 289.Google Scholar
75 Edwards, W., ‘The Wanoe: a short historical sketch’, NADA (1926), 28;Google ScholarAbraham, , ‘Chaminuka’, 43.Google Scholar
76 Weinrich, , ‘Karanga History’, 396.Google Scholar
77 Mudenge, , ‘Rozvi Empire’, 153–9.Google Scholar
78 One such decree forbade all non-Africans, Portuguese and Goanese, to enter Butwa for the purposes of trade. Trade between the Rozvi and the Portuguese had to be carried on through African intermediaries known as vashambadzi. The only place where non Africans were allowed to stay for trade in the Rozvi empire was at the Feira of Manyika, where the Chikangas, the Rozvi vassal rulers of Manyika, kept a vigilant eye on their activities. So strict were the rulers of Manyika with the Portuguese that on at least one occasion the Rozvi had to intervene to restrain the ruling Chikanga's harsh treatment of the Portuguese at the Manyika Feira. But the reason why the Rozvi rulers forbade the Portuguese to wander freely in their empire was not so much economic as political. As one writer has so aptly remarked, the lesson of the seventeenth century in Zambezia was that long spoons were needed to sup with the Portuguese. The Rozvi Mambos understood the lesson only too well. As if to underline the fact that the ban on non-Africans was motivated by political considerations and not by a desire to enforce a trade monopoly, any Rozvi subject was free to trade at the Feira of Manyika whenever he chose to. Although trade between the Portuguese at Zumbo and the Rozvi empire was carried on largely through the vashambadzi, there is no evidence to suggest that the Rozvi rulers forbade their own subjects to visit Zumbo for trade. The distance as well as the need to traverse foreign lands and the inhospitable country of the Zambezi valley, rather than any decree of the Rozvi rulers, probably discouraged visits by Rozvi subjects to Zumbo. And, in any case, the regular visits by the vashambadzi made the journey to Zumbo unnecessary.
79 de, F.de Castro, M., Descripção dos Bios de Senna, 33, para. 69.Google Scholar
80 Mudenge, , ‘Rozvi Empire’, 206, 229, 385–9.Google Scholar
81 Xavier, ‘Noticias’, in de Andrade, A. A., Relações, 171–2.Google Scholar
82 ‘Inventario do Fundo do Século XVIII’ in Moçambique Doumentario Trimestral, no. 84, 1955, doc. 165, pp. 90–7 Zumbo, 13 Mar. 1769, Manuel da Costa.Google Scholar
83 The document reads ‘regulos e bareiros ou chefes’.
84 Sutherland-Harris, , ‘Trade and the Rozwi Mambo’, 258.Google Scholar
85 Same as Vashambadzi.
86 Term meaning trade goods or loads.
87 Word used by the Portuguese in the Zambezi valley for cloth or goods.
88 A.H.U. AV. de Moç. Cx. 42, Mucariva, 29 Jan. 1803, Manoel Francisco do Rozario.
89 A.H.U. AV. de Moç. Cx. 23, Mossambique, 3 Dec. 1786, Manoel de Mello e Castro to M. de M. e Castro; A.H.U. AV. de Moç. Cx. 37, 9 Oct. 1800. Pedro Antônio Jose da Cunha to D. Rodrigo de Sousa Coutinho; A.H.U. AV. de Moç Cx. 21, Zumbo, 20 June 1784, C. de Sousa to Governor of the Rivers; See also Annais do Conselho Ultramarino, parte não official, Serie II, 186–7, ‘Mappa das minas conhecidas no Districto de Senna’, Senna, 30 July 1857, Izidoro Correia Pereira.
90 See note 72 above.
91 See notes 49–51.
92 A.H.U. AV. de Moç. Cx. 14, Moçambique, 15 Aug. 1773, B.M.P. do Lago.
93 For the detailed examples of the goods the Rozvi used to receive see Mudenge, , ‘The Rozvi Empire’, 385–9.Google Scholar
94 Sutherland-Harris, , ‘Trade and the Rozwi Mambo’, 264.Google Scholar
95 Randall-Maclver, D., Mediaeval Rhodesia (London, 1906, reprinted 1971), 45, 49, 58;Google ScholarRobinson, K. R., Khami Ruins (Cambridge, 1959), 144–58;Google ScholarGarlake, P. S., Great Zimbabwe (London, 1973), 111–31.Google Scholar
96 Bocarro, A., ‘Decada’, in Theal, G. M. (ed.), Records of South Eastern Africa (R.S.E.A.) (Cape Town; reprinted 1964), III, 355.Google Scholar
97 Diogo de Alcaçova to King, Cochin, 20 Nov. 1506, in Theal, , R.S.E.A. I, 64.Google Scholar
98 Fr. Monclaro, ‘Viagem q'flzerão os p. 66 da Companhia de Jesus corn Francç Barretto na conquista de Monomotapa no anno de 1569’, in Theal, , R.S.E.A., III, 237 and 227.Google Scholar
99 Axelson, E. (ed.), ‘Viagem que fez o Padre Ant.° Gomes, da Companhia de Jesus so Imperio de de [sic] Manomotapa; e assistência que fez nas ditas terras d6. Alg'us annos’ [addressed to Padre João Marachi, S.J., Vercâ-Salcete, 2 January 1648], Studia, iii (1959), 197.Google Scholar
100 Santos, J. Dos ‘Ethiopia Oriental’, in Theal, R.S.E.A., VII, 274.Google Scholar
101 ‘Fundo do Séc. XVIII’, in Moçambique, no. 84 (1955), 90–7, doc. 165, Zumbo, 13 Mar. 1769, Manuel da Costa.Google Scholar
102 Liesegang, G. J., ‘Beiträge zur Geschichte des Reiches der Gaza Nguni im südlichen Moçainbique, 1820–1895’ (Ph.D. thesis, Köln, 1967), 36.Google Scholar
103 ‘Acressentamento’, as cited in note 31.
104 ‘Corografica’, as cited in note 29, Conceiçao, , ‘Tratados dos Rios de Cuama’, 105, para. 103.Google Scholar
105 In this respect cattle may have played not a dissimilar role for Dombo I as they were to do for Moshoeshoe I, who according to P. B. Sanders, gained his supremacy over the other Sotho chiefs mainly because he possessed more cattle than they, and used the cattle through the Mafisa system (the Sotho equivalent of the Shona kuronzera) to increase his influence. See Sanders, P. B., ‘Sekonyela and Moshweshwe; failure and success in the aftermath of the Difaqane’, in J. Afr. Hist. x, 3 (1969), 439–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 24
- Cited by