The African e-Journals Project has digitized full text of articles of eleven social science and humanities journals.   This item is from the digital archive maintained by Michigan State University Library. Find more at: http://digital.lib.msu.edu/projects/africanjournals/

Available through a partnership with

Scroll down to read the article.

Origins of the TswanaL. Ngcongco

The Tswana chiefdoms form part of the largergroup of Sotho peoples, while the Sotho group itself isone of the three great sub-divisions of the Bantu-

1speaking peoples situated north of the Nguni. Inaddition to the Batswana or 'Western Sotho', the Sothogroup includes the Basotho of Lesotho and the Orange FreeState, to whom the term 'Sotho' has come to be more speci-fically and almost eXClusively applied. This group some-times also is referred to as the 'Southern Sotho'. Athird group comprises the Bapedi who have been generallyreferred to as the 'Northern Sotho,.2

These different Sotho groups that togethermay be more conveniently described as 'Sotho-Tswana' atthe very earliest stage of their history, shared a numberof linguistic and cultural characteristics that distin-guished them from other Bantu-speakers of southern Africa.These are features such as totemism, a pre-emptive rightof men to marry their maternal cousins, and an architec-tural style characterised by a round hut with a conicalthatch roof supported by wooden pillars on the outside.3Other minor distinguiShing features included their dressof skin cloaks or dikobo and breech-cloths,4 a variety ofBuispoort-type pottery closely related to Schofield'sNC2 variety,5 and a predilection for dense and close

6settlements, as well as a tradition of large-scalebuilding in stone.?

21

While the Sotho-Tswana developed these dis-tinguishing characteristics, they did, of course, alsoshare a number of characteristics with other southernBantu-speaking peoples. These included physical featureswhich generally speaking, make it hard to distinguishSotho or Tswana from Xhosa, Zulu or Swazi; although manyTswana, especially those living south of the Molopo tendto be of a lighter complexion than others, as well asbeing slightly lankier with prominent cheek-bones - fea-tures which clearly point to considerable inter-marriageand other forms of interaction with such groups as theKhoi, Koranna and Griqua.8 The languages of the Sotho-Tswana and other Bantu-speakers have a number of commonfeatures - they are agglutinative in construction, nearlyall the words ending in vowels or with a nasal consonant,nouns do not indicate masculine or feminine gender, andthese nouns are highly alliterative in character owing toan elaborate system of noun classes functioning in muchthe same way that gender does in European languages.Also, there are similarities in idiom which are not easyto express in a precise manner.9

Among the cultural affinities shared by thesouthern Bantu-speakers are their lineage descent systems.All these groups are patrilineal - a factor which is oftremendous importance to the pattern of succession andtherefore to both dynastic and filial generations. Theyall practised polygamy, observed the levirate or sororateforms of marriage, gave bridal cattle on marrying theirwives, and in varying degrees, observed the age-set orga-nisation. There are also indications that at one timeall these groups practised circumcision.lO

The traditions of the Sotho-Tswana peoplepoint to a northward origin, and indicate that theirsouthward movement was part of the great migrations of theBantu-speaking iron-age peoples. Early Sotho people havebeen associated with the B.l culture that is thought tohave flourished between the Zambezi and the Limpopo, andwere also thought to have developed the gold trade with

Sofala. According to L.Fouch~ this is also attested byevidence from pottery remains, and the Sotho period ter-minated when the early Shena invasion entered theZambezi-Limpopo area about A.D. 1200.11 Although thedirection from which the Sotho and other Bantu-speakerscame is readily accepted by all writers, there must beconsiderable reservation about locating the place oforigin of these groups in either Egypt or Ethiopia.12

Other indications favouring the theory ofnorthward origins of the ancestors of the Sotho-Tswanapeoples are linguistic features, pottery styles and theirarchitecture. Malcolm Guthrie has pointed out that thereare indications that such languages as Sotho, Venda andNguni have developed from Zezuru, which is a Shonalanguage. If this view was tenable, it would imply aconsiderable period of close settlement, or at any event,a very intimate association over a long time among thespeakers of those languages.l3 However, a close readingof the writings of Christopher Ehret gives the impressionthat save for Venda, he questions the gist of the Guthriethesis with respect to the development of languages likeSotho and Nguni which formed elements of a proto-Southeast Bantu network.l4 His general conclusion isthat the sub-Zambezi languages, which were part of the'Pembela complex' could be divided into two groups -namely Shona and Southeast Bantu, and that what these twogroups share in language they also share with other Bantulanguages north of the Zambezi. Consequently 'any commonperiod in their linguistic histories would have to beattributed to historical events outside southeasternAfrica.15

D. P. Abraham who conducted extensive oralresearch among societies of Rhodesia added to the evidenceconfirming the north~d origins~ Sotho-Tswana peoples byreferring to a period of close interaction between suchearly Sotho groups as the Bafokeng and the Barolong andRhodesian peoples. This is thought to have taken placein the Guruuswa district of Rhodesia.l6 Again JohnSchofield has drawn attention to typological analogues

of the ceramic wares of the Iron Age B.l culture with thatof the Sotho-Tswana. It is striking, however, thatSummers' discussion of the Rhodesian Iron Age B.l culturecarefully refrains from any specific correlation ofSotho-Tswana and Rhodesian societies on the basis ofpottery styles, while Inskeep warns against the dangersof attempting to identify ethnic groupings on the basisof pottery assemblages, especially when the samples ofpottery examined have been so few. This is, of cours, atypical example of the frustration that the student ofhistory encounters so frequently in his quest for thehistorical conspectus amidst the plethora of esoteric andpredominantly typological writings of archeologists. Thearcheologist is quite prepared to describe materialculture but reluctant to ascribe it to the ancestors ofany particular ethnic or linguistic group.

A problem flowing directly from that of theorigins of the Sotho-Tswana concerns the chronology oftheir arrival in southern Africa. For a long time writtentraditions have repeated the theory that the Sotho-Tswanaor at least the Tswana, arrived in South Africa in asuccession of migration waves, and speculations about thetime of their arrival have been inextricably bound upwith this 'wave theory' of immigration. Usually thetheory asserts that the Sotho-Tswana separated from otherBantu-speaking peoples in the vicinity of the Great Lakesof East Africa, and that they proceeded downwards alongthe western part of present-day Rhodesia in three seriesof migrations.l?

The first wave is accordingly thought to havecomprised such groups as the Dighoja, the Bathammaga,Batsatsing and other early groups simply known asBakgalagadi, who settled in parts of the Transvaal High-veld, the eastern portion of Botswana and of the northernCape Colony, where they intermingled freely with thepre-existing Khoi and San communities. The second waveis said to have brought the ancestors of the Bafokeng,Barolong and Batlhaping societies who settled along the

upper reaches of the Molopo spreading south and west fromthe neighbourhood. The third and largest migration isalleged to have comprised the other major Sotho-Tswanagroups whose descendants have survived as the present-daysocieties of Botswana, Lesotho, the Transvaal, OrangeFree State and the northern Cape in South Africa. Accord-ing to this 'wave theory' each group of immigrants intoSouth Africa subdued or conquered groups that precededit in the area of settlement.

Implied in this 'wave theory' is the notionthat by the time the Sotho-Tswana crossed the Limpopothey were already ethnically well-defined and fullydifferentiated into the modern chiefdoms we know today;and that many Sotho-Tswana chiefdoms can be traced backto a far distant past ante-dating their migration intoSouth Africa. Another misleading impression conveyed isthat of large-scale migrations that originated hundredsor even thousands of miles from the vicinity of theequatorial lakes keeping together as ethnically homoge-neous groups that invaded the sub-Limpopo area conqueringpre-existing, smaller and probably non-iron using peoples.This is, of course, hardly tenable. Several scholarshave questioned, and through their researches, discreditedthis popular myth of mass migrations, and have demons-trated that where these have occured at all, they havebeen a rare phenomenon.18 With reference to the Sotho-Tswana as well, it would be far more realistic to thinkof their earliest migrations in terms of small-scalescattered movements of several segmentary lineage groupsoccuring slowly and gradually in many directions over awide area.

While during the later stages of the tencenturies preceding 1500 A.D., there may have been a fewancient but well-recognisable Sotho-Tswana groups such asthe Bafokeng and, perhaps, the Barolong, it seems fairlyplausible to think of the appearance of most of the Sotho-Tswana peoples we know today as the result of a slow butsteady process of mingling of several segmentary groups

sharing a number of cultural features. Some groupsprobably increased their numerical size through beingjoined by other small migrant groups. Many of the groupsvere probably mixed and Sotho-Tswana culture wouldaccordingly be a blend of many cultural traits thatdeveloped over a long time in some cradle-land. Theincrease in the size of the Sotho-Tswana population like-vise ought to be regarded as having taken place in situthrough the absorption of other groups in the sub-Limpoporegion. Monica Wilson has argued convincingly thatpatrilineal and polygynous lineages with traditions ofexchanging cattle during marriage tend quickly to increaseboth their numerical strengths as groups and their wealthin stock at the expense of those without cattle.19

In this connection it is interesting thatboth the Sotho-Tsvana and the Nguni emphasized patri-lineage in their marriages. This, together with theSotho-Tswana practice of preferential marriages - apractice encapsulated in the proverb, Ngwana rrangwane,nnyale. dikgomo di boele sakeng: 'Child of my father'syounger brother, marry me, so that the (bogadi) cattlemay return to our kraal,20 - would have the effect ofkeeping wealth in the same lineages, thereby perpetuatingtheir preferred positions.

The suggestion made here is that proto-Sotho-Tswana lineages moved very slowly into the sub-Limpoporegion - a process that took several centuries and duringvhich they slowly difussed a 'Sotho-Tswana' culture overgroups they found in that region. It also seems fair toconclude that whatever the linguistic and cultural foun-dation they brought with them, the developments that havegiyen rise to the distinctive language and culture of theSotho-Tswana probably occured in the cradle area or'homeland' lying immediately south of the Limpopo area.2l

Such a hypothesis - of scattered proto-Sotho-Tswana lineages dispersed over a wide area between theLimpopo and the Vaal rivers and the eastern limits of theKgalagadi desert - would also help to account for the factthat many Batswana believe firmly in the creation myth of

26

the 'cave of Lowe' at Matsieng not far from Motshodi.22There must have been Sotho-Tswana or a proto-Sotho-Tswanapopulation that dwelt in the vicinity long enough for thelegend to gain currency and be widely diffused that theyand other humans originated there. When it is alsoremembered that the earliest Iron-Age dates for theTransvaal go back to the fifth century A.D., the presenceof iron-using, cattle-keeping and mining peoples in thatregion becomes highly significant. This will be so evenif we do not assume, in a facile manner, that the firstiron-workers in South Africa were Bantu-speakers.23

Turning more specifically to the question ofchronology we may begin by considering the archeologicaltestimony, insofar as it is intelligible to the non-archeologically trained student of history. The areabetween the Limpopo and the Vaal was penetrated by iron-using peoples from about the middle of the fifth centuryA.D. By the eighth century, some of these people weremining copper at Phalaborwa and by the eleventh, smeltingmetal at Melville Koppies.

Two Iron-Age cultures have been identified bythe Transvaal's leading Iron-Age archeologist, Revil Mason.These cultures have been named Uitkomst and Buispoort fromthe type sites representing those cultures. Uitkomstsites have been found to be concentrated in the centralpart of the southern Transvaal, around the source of theOdi (Crocodile) river near Tshwane or modern Pretoria.Radio-carbon dating has yielded two dates, A.D. 1060 forMelville Koppies and A.D. 1650 for the Uitkomst caveoccurrence. The Uitkomst culture was an extension of theRhodesian Leopard's Kopje culture which dates from theeighth to the fifteenth centuries. Buispoort culturesites which have a much higher density, occur mainly inthe vicinity of the Rustenburg and Zeerust districts,that is, in the area to which the traditions of the Sotho-Tswana point as their centre of dispersion. The firstdate for the Buispoort culture was about A.D. 13'0 butrecent work by the archeologists in Johannesburg hasresulted in a fifth century A.D. date for the 'Buispoort'site o.fBroederstroom 24/73.24

27

In a recent re-evaluation of recorded tradi-tions of the Sotho-Tswana, Martin Legassick has suggesteda geographical identification of the Buispoort culturecomplex with the Kwena-Hurutshe cluster of lineages, andthe Uitkomst complex with the Kgatla or what will here betermed Kgatla-Pedi cluster.25 Mason is confident thatthe site Broederstroom 24/73 represents the earliestrelatively complete settlement known to date in SouthernAfrica. The date of A.D. c.460 for that site brings theradio carbon dates for the cradle-land of the Tswana intoline with that of Castle Peak in Swaziland, for which afourth to fifth century date was recently announced.26

Mason has further reported a date for theearliest Iron-Age penetration of South Africa. This wasfrom a site at Silver Leaves in the districts of Tzaneen,in the northern Transvaal, where charcoal samples yielded

27dates such as A.D. 270, A.D. 330 and A.D. 1100. Thesedates have the significance of bringing the chronology ofthe Transvaal into line with that of Rhodesian and Zambiansocieties. The possible links with societies north of theLimpopo are not indicated by chronology alone, but alsoceramW typological analogues, which suggest influences orassociations with first millenium Iron-Age communities inMalawi, Zambia and possibly Kenya.28 Finally, Iron-Ageresearch in the predominantly Tswana populated region ofMagaliesberg-Witwatersrand appears to have made greatstrides since 1971 and to have yielded such an abundanceof data and radio-carbon dates, that the sequences are nowbeing schematically presented in three stages. The EarlyIron-Age dates from A.D. 460 to A.D. 1000, the middle Iron-Age from A.D. 100 to A.D. 1500/1600 and the Late Iron-Age dating from about A.D. 1550 to A.D. 1820.29

As far as the traditions of the Sotho-Tswanaare concerned, we find we have to deal with severalclusters of chiefdoms. The most important are theFokeng-Dighoya, Rolong-Tlhaping, Kwena-Hurutshe andKgatla-Pedi clusters. These may be briefly consideredsequentially. The antiquity of the Bafokeng cluster is

widely attested. Their traditions are, however, confusedand incoherent, and render it extremely difficult toreconstruct their royal genealogy and thereby find asound basis for working out their chronology. Consequen-tly, the student of Bafokeng history is bound to leanheavily on the works of such writers as Stow, Theal andEllenberger whose pioneering and sometimes laudablesyntheses of the traditions of the Sotho-Tswana tend tobe vitiated by their proneness to a priori assumptions.30

Ellenberger states that the Bafokeng crossedthe Zambezi during the eleventh or twelfth century. Foran indeterminate period they dwelt together with theBahurutshe and the Barolong, for says Ellenberger, thereis a tradition that tells of the separation of theBafokeng and the Barolong at the same time and place asthe separation of Bafokeng and Bahurutshe.31 When theyleft their neighbours - the Barolong and the Bahurutshe -at a place that Ellenberger described as 'Bechuanaland',the Bafokeng migrated eastwards to the vicinity of theMagaliesberg range, named after Mogale. This is statedto have occurred before the start of the sixteenthcentury. The sanguinary conflict that is supposed to havegiven rise to this migration is alleged to have been oversome young bulls that the 'Bahurutshe' wished to castratecontrary to the wishes of the Bafokeng.32

In the Magaliesberg area, the Bafokeng aresaid to have split into two sections. One of theseremained in the Magaliesberg area, and in the nineteenthcentury suffered much from Mandebele raids. The o~ersection further subdivided into a number of clans whichmigrated southwards across the Vaal, thereby becoming thefirst Sotho-Tswana to cross that river.33 Some of thesesettled near the hill Ntsuanatsatsi between modern FreeState towns of Frankfort and Vrede, well before the year1530.34

At Ntsuanatsatsi the Bafokeng intermingled andintermarried with various San and half-caste groups foundin the vicinity. Tradition states that it was such amarriage by the Bafokeng chief, Napo, at Ntsuanatsatsi

which led to a serious civil strife. When the chief diedthe sons of his San wife were denied recognition as legi-timate heirs, a situation that resulted in the disgruntledSan-Fokeng sons of the late chief Napo hiving off. Theymigrated with their followers across the Drakensbergmountains and down along the Natal coast. Their migra-tion route is marked by the type of pottery classified byJohn Schofield as Natal Coast pottery,35 HC.2, whichbears a strong resemblance to early Bafokeng pottery foundin the Orange Free State and Lesotho.36 These Bafokeng-ba-'Hutla, literally 'the Bafokeng of the hare', whosetotem was the hare, lived for a short period among theHpondo people along the Transkei coast before moving downfurther south and settling for some time, among theThembu society as the Ama-Yundle clan.3? It is thoughtthat Hpondo and Thembu pottery styles bearing very closeaffinities to Fokeng pottery were a result of thisinteraction.

This migration of the Bafokeng-ba-'Mutla fromNtsuanatsatsi has been dated to about A.D. 1600 byEllenberger, but Schofield dated their settlement inNatal towards the middle of the sixteenth century.Walton is of the opinion that Schofield's chronology forthis group is nearer the mark because the Ama-Yundletraditions confirm that they lived in the Transkei forabout eight to nine generations.38 Fagan, however, castsdoubt on the dependability of conclusions based on suchslender or tenuous evidence, as well as on the groundsthat the NC pottery had not been dated.39

Then there are the corbelled stone hut settle-ments found widely distributed over the Sotho-Tswana area.As had once been the case with the Zimbabwe ruins, therehas been much discussion about whether these were indeedbuilt by ancestors of the people who lived in that area _in this case the Sotho-Tswana. Walton demonstrated fromthe pattern of the cave dwellings at Ntlokholo in Lesothothat the stone villages were the work of the Bafokeng, orpeople influenced by the way of living of the Bafokeng.40Since the radio-carbon date for these settlements is

about 1445-1495, it tends somewhat to supportEllenberger's estimate that the Bafokeng settlement atNtsuanatsatsi and other high-veld sites predates A.D. 1500,but does not support his estimate of the Bafokeng-ba-'Mutla sojourn in Natal, for which A.D. 1600 appears toolate a date.

A pre-1500 date for Bafokeng occupation ofNtsuanatsatsi is in harmony with the tradition that theywere found there by the Lesotho line or branch of Kwenaclans. As will be seen later, the latter clans aresupposed to have migrated from the Kwena dispersioncentre in the Limpopo-Odi-Madikwe watershed about themiddle of the fifteenth century.

When we turn to the Barolong-Batlhapingcluster, we find that the chiefdoms belonging to thiscluster comprise the various Barolong chiefdoms found bythe sons of Tau - namely the Barolong-Ratlou, Barolong-TShidi, Barolong-Seleka, Barolong-Rapulana and Barolong-Mariba - as well as the Batlhaping-Phuduhutswana andBatlhaping-Maidi sections and the Bakaa chiefdom. Withthe exception of the Bakaa, and small sections of theBarolong-Seleka and Barolong-Rapulana in the southwesternTransvaal, all the states belonging to this cluster aresituated in the northern Cape, south of the Molopo River.

Like the Bafokeng, the Barolong were amongthe earliest Sotho-Tswana kingdoms to establish themselvesin South Africa, they appear to have been, without doubt,earlier than those chiefdoms claiming descent from Masilo(C.1415-c.1445).4l Ellenberger and Macgregor dated theirfirst ruler Morolong, from whom the people took their

42name, to about 1270. It has been suggested that thename Morolong is derived from an old Sotho verb rola,'to forge', suggesting one who was versed in or a practi-tioner in the craft of a blacksmith. The association withiron or metal implied in this explanation, is carriedfurther in the name of the son of Morolong as second rulerof the Barolong called, Noto or 'hammer' as well as inthe totem of these people which was tshipe or iron.43 To

31

arrive at the date 1270, Ellenberger and Macgregor werecalculating on the basis of thirty-year generations.Using thirty years we arrive at a date like c.1325-c.1355for Morolong. Thought by Abraham to have been among theSotho-Tswana clans that had been interacting with theShona clans in the Guruuewa district of Rhodesia betweenthe twelfth and fifteenth centuries,44 the Barolong werealready spread widely between the headwaters of theMolopo and the Modder Rivers by the time they were ruledby their eighth king MADIBOYA, c.1535-c.1565.

The rule of the ninth Barolong king Tshesebe(c.1565-c.1595) witnessed the emigration of a group ofclans under the sub-king (kgosana), Phuduhutswana, andtheir southward trek to establish themselves atDikgatlong45 near the confluence of the Vaal (Noka-e-Tshehla or Lekwa) and the Harts (Kolong) rivers. Tradi-tions are silent on the cause of the exodus. But theseemigrant Barolong retained their links with the capital.Famine compelled this group, now living among the KoranaKhoi and Griqua, to break with tradition and eat fish.Since then they were known as Batlhaping.46

During the reign of the fourteenth Rolongking Tau the Batlhaping refused to continue paying sehuba(tribute) to the Rolong monarch. They were therebydeclaring themselves independent of the Rolong state.Tau died, early in the eighteenth century fighting a waragainst a joint Rolong-Korana army.47 Within the samegeneration another group of Barolong seceded under aleader called Maidi. They joined the Batlhaping and werecalled Batlhaping-ba-Maidi.48

Another off-shoot from the Rolong kingdom wasthat of the people later called Bakaa. Their secessionwas led by Tseme, a grandson of Maleka under whom frictionwith the main group started. After migrating to severalplaces in what is now southern Botswana the Bakaa even-tually settled near Shoshong hills, where they overthrewthe Khurutshe state they found there.49 The Kaa statewas ultimately destroyed by the Ngwato. Fragments of the

32

Kaa joined the Kwena state or fled towards theKalanga peoples in the north, where they were calledChwizina or Sebina.

This brings us to the Kwena-Hurutshe cluster.The traditions of the Bahurutshe and all Bakwena chief-doms indicate that at some time in the past they were allunder the same ruling line of kings. The chiefdoms thatclaim descent from a common ancestor, Masilo, are theBahuruthse chiefdoms in the western Transvaal with theTlharo and Khurutshe off-shoots, the Bakwena chiefdoms ofthe Transvaal - the Bakwena-Mogopa, Bakwena-Modimosanawith its four sections: Ramanela, Mmatau, Matlhaku andHaake; Bakwena-Moletswane, Bakwena-Moletse, the Baphalaneand Bakwena cluster of Botswana which comprise theBakwena of Molepolole, the Bamangwato, the Bangwakets~and the Batawana. The Bakwena clans of Lesotho alsobelong to this same group of chiefdoms.50

The places that occur as the earliestremembered settlement sites are Rathatheng, said to havebeen near the confluence of the Odi and Hadikwe Riversjand Habjanamatswana, also known as Swart Koppies, near themodern town of Brits. Both the Transvaal and Botswanacluster share with the Bahurutshe the same kings untila break-up (c.1475-c.l~05) that resulted in the existenceof separate Bahurutshe and Bakwena chiefdoms. There areconflicting traditions accounting for this historic split,the consequences of which were the wide dispersal ofSotho-Tswana chiefdoms over the South African highveld upto the limits of the Kgalagadi desert on the west andalmost as far as the Orange River on the south; as well asthe diffusion of Sotho-Tswana language and culture.

According to one tradition, the cleavage thatresulted in Kwena-venerating peoples becoming Bahurutsheand Bakwena, had to do with the first fruits ceremony.51Another tradition attributed to Kwena-Hogopa informantsis that the first born child in Malope's senior house wasa daughter, Mohurutshe, while the first born child in thesecond house was a son, Kw~na. According to this yersion,

33

the dispute was about whether the chiefdom should be inthe hands of the eldest child in the senior house regard-less of whether it was female, or whether the leadershipshould be kept male by electing the senior son of thesecond house.

Whichever version is preferred, it was clearthere was a leadership crisis that followed upon thedeath of Malope. From this it will be seen that while thefollowers of Mohurutshe were, in consequence, forced toleave Mabjanamatshwana and move south as a separate group,with a separate totem, and while their seniority in rankas well as in ritual matters was generally recognised,it is incorrect to speak of the Bahurutshe as the parentgroup of others. They were as much a splinter as thegroup that followed Kwena and became known as Bakwena.The only difference is that they were the senior splinter.

A close look at developments in the Sotho-Tswana world suggests that events of great moment wereunfolding in the sub-Limpopo area - events which call fora causation of different character in addition to theusual stereotypes used to explain dynastic rivalry andfission. The break-up that was occurring in the Sotho-Twana societies was on such a scale as to render feasiblethe conjecture that the cleavage which produced separateHurutshe and Bakwena kingdoms, was only the beginning ofwhat grew to be a huge phenomenon. Breutz dates theHurutshe-Kwena split to about A.D. 1400_1480.52

When we glance at events occurring among theneighbouring Shona societies to the north, we are pro-vided with clues that might help to interpret develop-ments in the Sotho-Tswana world south and east of theLimpopo. Abraham records an infiltration by proto-SothO-Tswana clans from the north of the western limits of theGuruuswa district of modern Rhodesia. This infiltration,which he dates c.A.D.1250-1400, was according to him, dueto progressive dessication and increasing aridity of theKgalagadi desert.53

During the period c.1450-1480, a criticaldrought supervened in the Dande area and the Makorekore

(so named by the Tavara clans, 'to indicate they are asnumerous in their occupation of the land as the clouds oflocusts that periodically descend upon the Dande'>,54 whohad moved there two generations earlier, were obliged tomigrate northwards across the Zambezi into the kingdom ofMaravi.55 It is possible that the same drought that drovethe Makorekore into the Dande, also led to the break-upof the Hurutshe-Kwena. Further, the fact that the tradi-tion of the dispute between Mohurutshe and Kwena had to dowith agricultural, as well as with religious matters, maybe an oblique indicator of an economic crisis.

In other words, is the tradition about go lomangwaga, 'biting the year' to be taken at face value? Isit not likely that it masks a deeper and more pervasivefactor which was that of drought and its menacing effectson the entire Hurutshe-Kwena community?56 It is possiblethat centuries of population build-up in the area belowthe Limpopo, plus a gradual dessication of the Kgalagadiarea, a failure of rains from the direction of the IndianOcean during the middle decades of the fifteenth centuryresulted in an ecological pressure that called for a re-distribution of the Sotho-Tswana peoples over a widerarea. It is likely that the split of the Hurutshe andKwena was the first of that distribution.

Between five and seven generations after theseparation of the Bahurutshe and the Bakwena, whileHogopa was still ruling the latter, a terrible famineoccurred, 'tlala ee boitshegang', which scattered anddispersed the Kwena clans far and wide. Calculating bygenerations, gives a date in the bracket c.1625-l655.It will be noted that this date correlates well withdates cited for periodic droughts in the Indian Oceanlocality during the seventeenth century.57

As a result of this famine, many Kwena clans -the Modibedi, Mogorosi, Bahlakwana, Bamonaheng, Ba-Mokotedi Makhoakhoa - migrated south of the Lekwa or VaalRiver into the modern Free State. One or more of theseKwena clans went to settle at Ntsuanatsatsi near theBafokeng settlement. These Kwena clans that migrated

~

southwards beyond the Lekwa were the ones that were laterorganised into the ruling lineage of Lesotho. OtherKwena lineages such as the Bamo1etse. Ba-Phogo1e. Pha1aneand others, migrated eastwards where they set themselvesup as separate chiefdoms. Mogopa and the remaining Kwenagroups. which still included the Modimcsana cluster andthose that later formed the Botswana branch.58 migratedto Mabjanamatshwana along the Odi River to its confluencewith the Madikwe and there built a settlement namedRathatheng. After a period of very strenuous or difficultexistence. owing to scarcity of food and water,59 Mogopamigrated back to Mbjanamatshwana. in the modern Britsdistrict of the Transvaal.

Mogopa's return migration to Mbjanamatshwanawas not joined by his brother Kgabo II who. together withhis followers. remained at Rathatheng. Kgabo II's follo-wers included all the wards and divisions that were laterto separate as the Bamangwato and Bangwaketse. Whilerecorded tradition is silent on the specific reasons forKgabo II and his followers declining to follow Mogopa toMbjanamatshwana. it may be surmised that reservationsabout pressure of too dense settlement in one area in a60situation of droughts could hardly help matters.Personal ambition and lust for power on the part of Kgabocannot, of course. be ruled out.

Thus, partly as a result of the droughts andfamines that occurred during the generation c.1625-c.1655.there emerged two Kwena kingdoms in the western Transvaal.These were the Bakwena-Mogopa based on Mabjanamatshwana.also known as Swart Koppies. and the Bakwena-Kgabo atRathatheng. Segmentation caused by droughts and faminesalso resulted in the Bahurutshe state splitting into theMany.na and Gopane chiefdoms. the Bakaa and thePhuduhutswana-T1haping hiving off from the Baro10ng-Tshidi.and the Bakwena-Modimosana splitting up with the four ~chiefdoms known as Ramane1a. Maaka. Mmatau and Matlhaku.

It was probably at Rathatheng that Kgabo IIwas succeeded by his son Motshodi. although according tosome traditions. he (Kgabo II) led the migration of his

36

followers across the Madikwe into present-day Botswana.Another version attributes the leadership of that migra-tion to his son Motshodi. Whichever we finally settleon, it will be found that their generations occurrednearly a century earlier than the chronology suggested bySchapera and Sillery for these kings. The Kwena-Kgabowent to occupy Dithejwane hills in the present Kwenengdistrict. There they intermingled with groups such asBakgwatleng, Banakedi, Baphaleng and others now commonlyreferred to as Bakgalagadi. Towards the end of the longreign of Motshodi the huge Kwena-Kgabo kingdom broke up.Consequently two new independent states came into being -the Ngwato and Ngwaketse kingdoms. These developments62probably occurred late in the seventeenth century.Towards the end of the eighteenth century a section of theNgwato kingdom seceded under the leadership of a juniorson of Mathiba called Tawana. They founded a new stateon Lake Nghabe - the Tawana kinr,dom named after thefounder.

We may now turn to the Kgatla-Pedi cluster.The Kgatla complex comprise the Bakgatla at Motshodi, andin the Pilanesberg district, the Bakgatla-Mmakau,Bakgat1a-Mosetlha, Bakgatla-Hotsha in Hammanskraal andthe Bakgatla-Hmanaana in the Ngwaketse and Kwenengdistricts of Botswana. The Bapedi are also regarded aspart of the Kgatla cluster. The Kgatla cluster claimsdescent from the Bahurutshe.63 If they did, and thereseems to be no evidence to challenge this tradition, thenthey may have seceded from the 'United Phofu Confederacy'or Hurutshe-Kwena complex since the Bahurutshe state didnot come into separate existence until about 1475-1505,while the founder of the Bakgat1a, Halekeleke was,according to the Bakgat1a regnal list, of the generationC.1385-c.1415.64 Furthermore, Bamalete traditions reporta very severe famine in that same generation (c.1385-c.1415)which could also account for the Bakgatla secession fromthe 'United Phofu Confederacy'.

The problem here may be that the royal genea-logies are faulty in that collateral successions have been

37

represented as father-son successions, or the traditionsor origins are incorrect.65 On the other hand, theHurutshe-Kwena may have been telescoped or there are verylikely omissions and/or extensions in both lists. Thus,the Malekeleke tradition could only tie in chronologicallywith early Hurutshe royal genealogies if the suppositionof Breutz is accepted that a separate Bahurutshe kingdombecame a reality between c.1400 and c.1480.

But it is not unusual for a tradition to saythat a particular group hived off from a certain chiefdom,e.g., the Bahurutshe when they in fact mean that theybroke from the chiefdom of which the Bahurutshe were alsoa part. In this case, the evidence is even stronger whenone considers that traditions generally have seen theBahurutshe state as the senior and legitimate inheritorof the 'United Phofu Confederacy'. Further, the nearsimilarity of the totem of the Bahurutshe and the Bakgatlagroups (that is the baboon and the monkey), could alsolead to a superficial conclusion of identical or commonorigins. But until that is proved on other grounds, thebasis for such a conclusion would be tenuous and mis-leading. The tshwene, or baboon of the Bahurutshe wasnot their original totem, but one which they adopted muchlater after the split, not between Mohurutshe and Kwena,but between Mohurutshe's sons, Motebele and Motebejana,nearly a century after Malekeleke is alleged to have ledthe Bakgatla secession from the Bahurutshe.66

The Balete and the Batlokwa are comparativerecent arrivals to Botswana. While they have interesting,rich and complicated traditions of origins, these cannotfor problema of space be discussed in this essay. Thetraditions of the Bakalanga of Botswana also requireserious study before a clearer picture of their past canemerge. Finally, we need to embark on concerted collec-tion and analysis of the traditions of societies ofnorthwestern Botswana, the Chobe district and Kgalagadiareas.

By way of conclusion it may be observed thatthere appears little or no value in searching for Tswana

origins outside of southern Africa. Fanciful notionspointing to origins in the Sudan, Ethiopia or even Egyptmay now be completely discarded. Migrations of iron-working and iron-using peoples into southern Africaprobably occurred as early as the beginning of theChristian era. Among such communities were the ancestorsof people later called the Tswana. These were small-scalemigrations of families, clans and groups of clans migra-ting in a variety of directions. Some groups becamethe ~ for the emergence of larger states which we callkingdoms. Indications are that these large statesdeveloped during the second millenium of the Christianera and that the plethora of modern chiefdoms were due tofissions caused as much by droughts, famine, pestilencesearch for better conditions as by dynastic ambitions andrivalries.

39

F 0 0 T NOT E S

lWilson, H. 'The Sotho, Venda and Tsonga', in M. Wilsonand L. Thompson, eds., The Oxford History of South~, I, p. 131

2Legassick, 'The Sotho-Tswana Peoples b~fore 1800', inL. Thompson, ed., African Societies in Southern Africa,London 1969, p. 97; E. Westphal, 'The Linguistic Pre-history of Southern Africa', Africa, XXXIII, July 1963

3Legassick, 'Sotho-Tswana Peoples before 1800', p. 86;N. J. van Warme10, 'Grouping and Ethnic History', inI. Schapera, ed., The Bantu-SpeakinK Tribes of SouthAfrica, London 1937, p. 57. Christopher Ehret drawsattention to indirect archeological evidence of Bantuborrowing from Central Sudanic communities 'in theshift of Bantu-speaking communities from their olderrectangular house style - an ancient Bantu feature -reconstructible on comparative ethnographic groundsand still present in some early Iron-Age Bantu sitesin Zambia - to the round, conic1e-roofed houseprevalent in more recent periods among east-centraland southern African Bantu'. (C. Ehret, 'Patterns ofBantu and Central Sudanic Settlement in Central andSouthern Africa', Transafrican Journal of History, III,nos. 1 and 2, 1973, pp. 25, 27

4E11enberger, History of the Basuto: Ancient and Modern,translated by J. C. Macgregor, London, 1912; reprintedNew York, 1969, p. 34

5Inskeep, R. R., 'Archeological Background', in Wilson andThompson, eds., Oxford History, I, p. 36; J. Walton,'Early Bafokeng Settlement in South Africa',African Studies, XV, 1956, pp. 37-38

6Wilson, 'The Sotho, Venda and Tsonga', p. 139

7Mason, 'Prehistory of the Transvaal, pp. 378-381;Wilson, 'The Sotho, Venda and Tsonga', p. 139

9Doke• C. M •• 'Language'. in Schapera. ed•• Bantu-speakin~ Tribes •••• pp. 309-312; S~ M. Mole...The Bantu - Past and Present: An Ethnographical andHistorical Study of the Native Races of South Africa,Edinburg. 1920. pp. 153-157

10Krige. E. J •• 'Individual Development'. in Schapera. ed ••Bantu-speakin~ Tribes. pp. 100-107. 113

llQuoted in A. J. Wills. An Introduction tQ History ofCentral Africa. London. 1967, p. 19; J. D. Clark.The Prehistory of Southern Africa, Harmondsworth,1959

l2Ellenberger, History of the Basutho. pp. xviii. xix;Molema, Bantu - Past and Present, p. 40

l3Guthrie, H •• 'Some Developments in the Prehistory ofBantu Languages'. Journal of African History. III. 2.1962. pp. 277-278. But see Ehret, 'Patterns of Bantuand Central Sudanic Settlement', pp. 10-13. where heshows that all the Bantu languages today coveringmost of Malawi, Mozambique and eastern Zambia andsoutheastern Africa, and including Bemba, Cewa.Makua. Shona and Nguni belong to a grouping known asPembela bear traits of interaction with CentralSudanic societies. The Pembela grouping later sub-divided into seven sub-groups which became distributedrelatively evenly across a vast span of countrystretching from far north Zambia to South Africa.Ehret further hypothesizes that: 'Because Shona isonly one language. though with many diverse dialectsit is possible to argue •••that ancient Shona-CentralSudanic interactions might have taken place beforeor as ancestral Shona-speakers began to settle acrossthe Zambezi perhaps in an area as far south asZambia'.

referred to in precedingothers. 'OutliningARe_evaluation.

III. 1. 1972. pp. 9-72

l41n addition to Ehret's viewsfootnote, see C. Ehret andSouthern African HistoryA.D. 100-1500'. Efahamu.

l5Ehret• 'Outlining Southern African History'. pp. 11-15

l6Abraham. D. P., '1he Early Political History of theKingdom of Hwene Mutapa 850-1589'. Leverhulme Inter-Collegiate History Conference. Hi~torians in TropicalAfrica. Salisbury. 1960, pp. 62. 77; Idem ••

~ramuca : An Exercise in the combined use ofPortuguese Records and Oral Tradition'. Journal ofAfrican History. II. 2, 1961. p. 211

41

l7Stow, G., The Native Races of Southern Africa, London1905, facsimile reprint Cape Town, 1964, chapters21-26; Schapera, Ethnic Composition, pp. 5-6;Idem., The Tswana, p. 14; Breutz, Mafeking District,pp. 23-24; Transvaal Native Affairs Department,Short History of the Native Tribes, Pretoria 1905pp. 8-13; Ellenberger and Macgregor, History of theBasuto, pp. 15-20

18Vansina, J., Kingdoms of the Savanna, Madison, 1966;Ehret, 'Patterns of Bantu and Central SudanicSettlement ••• ', pp. 1-2, 9; Idem., 'Outlining SouthernAfrican History', pp. 13-20; Legassick, 'The Sotho-Tswana ••• ', PP. 92-93; Parsons, 'Origins of theBaaaNgwato', pp. 82, 91; D. W. Phillipson, 'Earlyiron-using peoples of Southern Africa', in Thompson,ed., African Societies, p. 45

19Vilson, M., 'Changes in Social Structure', in Thompson,ed., African Societies, pp. 76-83

20Schapera, I., 'Kingship and Marriages Among the Tswana',in A. R. Radcliffe-Brown and Daryll Forde, ed.,African Systems of Kingship and Marriage, London 1950pp. 150-151

21Cf• Ehret, 'Outlining Southern African History', p. 13where he makes a similar suggestion regarding lingui-stic developments. See also Legassick, 'The Sotho-Tswana •••', p. 93

220n the 'Cave of Lowe' at Matsieng, see Wookey, Dico,p. 43; P. L. Breutz, The Tribes of Marico DistrICt,Pretoria, 1953-1954, pp. 67-68; Schapera, The Tswanap. 59

23Summers, R., 'The Southern Rhodesian Iron-Age',Journal of African History, II, 1, 1962, p. 7;A. Galloway, The Skeletal Remains of Bambandyanalo,Johannesburg, 1959, p. 11; Brian Fagan, 'The LaterIron Age in South Africa', in Thompson, ed., AfricanSocieties, indicates that evidence points toMapungubwe being an industry of Bantu Speakers. Thisview is endorsed by Inskeep. See R. R. Inskeep,'The Archeological Background', in Wilson andThompson, eds., Oxford History, I, p. 39; ~.,'South Africa~ in Shinnie, ed., The African Iron Age,p. 261

42

24Mason, R., 'First Early Iron Age in South Africa:Broederstroom 24/73, Brits District, Transvaal',S.A.J.S., LXIX, November 1973. In a subsequentarticle, Mason released new dates for Buispoort sitesranging from A.D. 1240-18501 see R. Mason, 'Backgroundto the Transvaal Iron Age - new discoveries atOlifantspoort and Broederstroom', S.A.J.S., LXXIV, 6,January 1974

25Legassick, 'The Sotho-Tswana ••• ', pp. 100 et seq.;Parsons, 'Origins of the BamaNgwato', pp. 91-92

26Fagan, B., Southern Africa, London 1965, p. 157

27Klapwijk, M., 'An Early Iron Age site near Tzaneen, N.E.Transvaal', S.A.J.S., LXIX, November, 1973,pp. 324-326

28Mason, R., 'Background to the Transvaal Iron Age _ newdiscoveries at Olifantspoort and Broederstroom',J.S.A.I.M.M., LXXIV, 6, January 1974.

30For examples of such tendencies, see Legassick, 'TheSotho-Tswana ••• ', pp. 92-93

31Ellenberger and Macgregor, History of the Basutho,pp. 15, 333; J. Walton, 'Early Bafokeng Settlement inSouth Africa', African Studies, XV, 1, 1956, pp.37-38

32Ellenberger and Macgregor, History of the Basutho,pp. 15, 16; P. L. Breutz, The Tribes of the Rustenburgand Pilanesberg districts, Pretoria 1952-53,pp. 59-61

33Ellenberger and Macgregor, History of the Basuto, p. 68;Walton, 'Early Bafokeng Settlement •••', p. 38. Itwill be noticed that Ellenberger and Macgregor con-tradict themselves here. On page 53 they stated, moreaccurately, that the Dighoja were the first of theSotho-Tswana peoples to migrate south of the Vaal, andthat they were also responsible for the stone ruinsof Dithakong near Kudumane.

34Walton, 'Early Bafokeng Settlement ....', p. 38

35Schofield, J. F., Primitive Pottery, Cape Town, 1948pp. 151-152

43

the TshidiJune 1945, p. 12;ed., Ditirafalo,30, 31

36Ibid.; Inskeep, 'South Africa', in Shinnie, ed.,~e African Iron A~e, pp. 255-256

37Walton, 'Early Bafokeng Settlement •••', p. 38

39Fagan, 'The Later Iron Age', in Thompson, ed., AfricanSocieties, pp. 64-65

40Mason, Prehistory of the Transvaal, pp. 379-380; ~.,'The Origin of South African Society', S.A.J.S., LXI,7, 1965, pp. 255-267

41Breutz, Mafekin~ District, p. 25, states that the firsttwo kings of Kwena-Hurutshe ('United Phofu'confederacy) were contemporaneous with the Rolongkings, Morare and Mabe.

42Ellenberger and Macgregor, History of the Basuto; p.393

43Ibid., pp. xviii-xix; Wilson, 'The Sotho, Venda and~onga', in Oxford History, I, p. 145; Breutz,

Mafeking District, p. 25. Breutz differs withEllenberger and Macgregor and states that Morolongmeans 'kookoo-man' in the same way that Mokwena means'crocodile-man'. In the Interlacustrine region,along the shores of the Nyanza (Victoria) an earlyethnic group of iron workers were known as Barongo orBalongo. Their earliest chi~' dates to about A.D.1250. Newcomers who were not iron workers mixedwith the Balongo and new dynasties emerged in thefifteenth century. Iron working ritual was prominentamong these new kings.

44Abraham, 'The Early Political History of the Kingdom ofMwene Mutapa (850-1589)', pp. 62, 77

45Dikgatl0 means confluence or meeting place

46Language, F. J., 'Herkoms en Geskiedenis van dieTlhaping', African Studies, I, 2, 1943, pp. 120, 133;Stow, Native Races •••, pp. 434-439; Brown, Bantu~, p. 206; Wookey, Dico, p. 12 ---

47Matthews, Z. K., 'A Short History ofBarolong', Fort Hare Papers, I, 1,~., 'Barolong', in I. Schapera,p. 9; Breutz, Marico District, pp.

48Language, 'Herkoms en Geskiedenis •••', p. 121

49Ngcongco, L. D., 'Aspects of the History of theBangwaketse to 1910', pp. 38-40

50Ellenberger and Macgregor, History of the Basuto,chapter 7, passim; TNAD, Short History of NativeTribes; R. Massie, The Native Tribes of the Transvaal,London 1905; Breutz, The Tribes of Rustenburg andPilanesber~ Districts, pp. 19-20; Sillery,Bechuanaland Protectorate, pp. 104-105;Schapera, Ethnic Composition, p. 9

51According to this tradition, when the time for bitingthe curcubitae ('go loma thotse') came, it was foundthat baboons had already eaten the melons and Kwenaaccordingly refused to eat the saliva-stained melons,while Mohurutshe and his people did so. In this way,Mohurutshe acquired seniority or rank while Kwenaappeared to have gained political control.(See Wookey, Dico, p. 44; also footnote 56 below)

52Breutz, Marico District, p. 25; Idem., Mafekin~District, p. 28

53Abraham, 'Early History of Mwene Mutapa', pp. 62, 77.According to Abraham, this entry of militarilystrong Sotho-Tswana clans stimulates a militaryorganization of Shona peoples under Rozvi leadership,in order to consolidate Rozvi suzerainty. Theresult is that by the start of the fifteenthcentury there was what Abraham calls 'an establishedpolitical hierarchy'. This is followed by a shiftof the Karanga kingdoms from the Guruuswa to theDande area just below the Zambezi, around A.D. 1400

54Ibid., p. 63

55Ibid., p. 64

4S

56The baboons and the crisis associated with the biting ofthe melon may in fact be an allegory which masks anembarassing historical event. It is possible to lookupon the baboons which ate the melons as famine-stricken refugees of the tshwene or baboon totem whojoined the Hurutshe-Kwena complex, and who broke theritual taboo of eating the new harvests before themo1omo or first fruits ceremony. This would make thedISPUte between Mohurutshe and Kwena one over whetherto accept these ill-mannered refugees as citizens ofthe chiefdom or not. Thus the phofu peoples formedthe Bahurutshe state while Kwena set up his own chief-dom of Kwena-venerating people. Upon the death ofMohurutshe, his son Motebe1e ruled, and again conflictwith the tshwene or baboon group arose and was againtold in allegory. Motebele gave a young baboon hehad caught to his younger 'brother' Motebejana wholost it and was chastised for it by the king andseceded in consequence. It seems possible thatMotebejana may have been of the tshwene totem or hadbeen made a sub-chief over a tshwene-venerating clan.In any case, when Motebe1e died, the group was re-united under Motebejana of the tshwene totem, the~hofu having disappeared upon the death of Motebele.The story strongly suggests a change in the dynastyrather than a simple change of totem of the olddynasty as the tradition purports.

57Schapera, 'Bakwena', Ditirafa10, p. 35; Abraham,'Early History of Mwene-Mutapa', pp. 70 and 87, whereAbraham cites de Souza, Oriente Conquistado, I-V-II

58Which is being referred to in this study as the Kwena-Kgabo in order to distinguish them from the Kwena-Mogopa.

59Schapera, 'Bakwena', Ditirafalo, pp. 35-3660Conditions of drought and famine did not disappear for

long periods. For instance, during the years 1600-1700, droughts have been recorded for the areas nearthe Indian Ocean in 1630, 1645 and 1660

61Ngcongco, 'History of the Bangwaketse', pp. 53-5762van Warme10, N. J., The Bakgat1a of Moset1ha, p. 463See Chart VII in the Appendix64For an illuminating discussion on the dangers of

lengthy king-lists supposed to be based on regularfather-son successions, see Henige, The Chronology ofOral Tradition, Chapter 2, passim.

65Wookey, Dico, pp. 38-39. During the generationsc.1565-1595 and c.1595-1625, the Kgat1a threw offsegments that went to form the independent Kgat1a-Mmakau, Kgatla-Motsha, Kgat1a-Mosetlha as well as thePedi chiefdoms. It is possible that the 1561 faminecited by Abraham may have been felt here too