World History: The Zulu Kingdom

A depiction of Shaka

One of the mythologised part of pre-colonial African history is that of the Zulu kingdom. In 1879 Zulu forces defeated the British at Isandlwana first brought the Zulu into the European imagination, and since a pervasive myth of feather clad warriors has persisted. Even among modern Zulus the old kingdom, and its famous leader Shaka, has been used in nationalist rhetoric - the semi-independent KwaZulu bantustan under Apartheid saw some support by hearkening back to the Zulu Kingdom. Today we will be looking about what is fact, and fiction, about the Zulu.

Who and Where, and Problems of Sources

What would become 'Zululand' originated in what is now South Africa in a vibrant region. Nestled between the Phongolo and Thukela rivers, and the Drakensberg mountains to the west and the Indian Ocean to the east, it provided fertile grasslands for various cultures. The names of the various peoples are often retroactively given to them - it is important when reading about these cultures and ethnicities that at the time they did not refer to themselves as that. For example, many of the local linguistic groups belong to the 'Bantu' family - a term coined by German ethnologist W.H.I. Bleek in 1862 - and, specifically, the Zulu now belong to the 'Nguni' language group - a term coined in 1929 by A.T. Bryant. When we look at imperialism and colonialism we will expand on this concept, but before rigidity introduced by colonial officials ethnic identities were often fluid. One could hold several different ethnic identities at once. For example, the Nguni linguistic group shows a lot of overlap with the San linguistic group; Nguni languages like Zulu and Xhosa contain clicks, something not seen in other Bantu languages like Swahili. A variety of cultures in the region had different social structures and organisations. One common important point of similarity is the importance of cows and cattle in society - cattle went beyond simple prestige and held great symbolic value for Zulu communities. Although milk was was staple of diet, cattle slaughter for food was done reluctantly.

The region today

We often encounter a troubling aspect of pre-colonial African history which we will see when discussing the Zulu. Until a paradigm shift beginning in the 1980s, historians really only focused on written sources, especially those from official archives. However, as many African languages and cultures had no written sources, this meant that many initial sources were written by European colonialists. Africans did influence these narratives - most of the initial sources about Shaka's life was written by Natal administrator James Stuart who used oral testimonies from informants - but is is important to understand that African voices were filtered through colonialist ones. There are also other issues. Stuart was writing between 50 to 80 years after Shaka's death, and many other primary material, like Nathaniel Isaacs' Travels and Adventures in Eastern Africa, contain fabrications or holes in their stories. Since the 1980s historians have been engaging increasingly with alternate forms of primary material. By focusing on archaeological material and oral sources from Africans have started dispelling prior held notions about various pre-colonial, and colonial, societies.

Before the Rise

A stereotype that has emerged was that, before the rise of Shaka, 'total war' did not exist and warfare was 'negotiable' and 'gentlemanly' in the Thukela-Phongolo region. This narrative was even adopted by Zulu peoples themselves, one of James Stuart's informants called Lugubu said:

In the fights that took place in former days, the men would hurl assegais at one another. They did not approach closely. If one side was defeated and a man was left exhausted, he would say, 'Mo! I am defenceless!' He would be taken captive, but never killed... Chiefs had not yet begun putting people to death, even if they had done wrong.

However, historians now believe that this is an exaggeration. According to Martin Meredith, 'As the population of northern Nguniland expanded, however, the character of the chiefdoms began to change'. Dan Wylie disagrees about overpopulation leading to an escalation of violence - he agrees that it did help, but was not the most important factor. Instead, he places increased presence of Europeans at Delagoa Bay to the north, and the voortrekkers, Dutch/Afrikaan farmers, moving up from the south. As early as 1780 Xhosa and Boer clashes were taking place over land use, and slavery and the ivory trade at Delagoa aided escalations of violence. Eagerness to access lucrative Portuguese trade at Delagoa meant that local leaders were willing to use violence to solidify their access to it. Delagoa Bay was not an intensive site of the slave trade, as it was in West Africa, so slavery was part of a series of larger factors - such as the arrival of voortrekkers, growing population, and the ivory trade - which increased violence. In 1810, the eruption of Krakatoa caused crops to fail worldwide as global temperatures dropped - this aided in the violence as land for food became more heavily contested. Shaka's reforms had their origins in this time period as well; the armed regiments known as ambutho and strict control over customary initiation rites began in this period. It was not all violence. Regularly different communities, of various ethnicities, intermarried - a war around 1795 the Swazi 'queen mother' and the Ndwandwe ruler were siblings. In the 1810s two Nguni 'kingdoms' had emerged in the region: the Ndwandwe under Zwide in the north-west, and the Mthethwa under Dingiswayo in the south-east. In 1817, Ndwandwe defeated the Mthethwa army killing Dingiswayo, but then Shaka came around.

Shaka and the Rise of the Zulu

A European depiction of a dance at Shaka's kraal, c.1827

The figure of Shaka has become heavily mythologised over the almost two centuries after his death - partly by colonialists, partly by nationalists. Oral histories have started to shed greater light on the life of Shaka, and the rise of the Zulu, as many of the original primary sources were written fifty years after his death. Shaka's father, Senzangakhona, was sworn to Dingiswayo, and, possibly, had an illegitimate son with a woman called Nandi - Shaka. Nandi was a skilled negotiator, and could have aided in getting the young Shaka the leadership of his own regiment aged 23 to serve Dingiswayo, so much so that when Senzangakhona died in 1816 Dingiswayo organised for Shaka to replace him in a coup. This was not done alone - Nandi was an influential figure in organising the coup, and the reigning Queen Regent Mnkabayi kaJama eagerly aided in Shaka's rise to power. Dingiswayo's policy of aggression, and war against the Ndwandwe, created ample opportunities for combat which allowed Shaka the opportunity the distinguish himself, and the iziCwe regiment which he served. Aged 28 Shaka's coup ousted his brother, Sigujana, and soon enough the Ndwandwe killed Dingiswayo. Despite leading a small clan of just a few thousand Shaka managed to expand Zulu rule quickly. Skilful diplomacy forged alliances with smaller clans who were brought under his rule, and the vacuum left by the destruction of the Mthethwa allowed quick conquest. A big reason for this was the amabutho regimental system - this existed before Shaka and has often been referred to as simple military regiments. The amabutho were segregated based on sex and age to foster a central bond and identity, each one was meant to have its own song, war cry, and sign of identification, so they would enforce Shaka's rule. Very strictly disciplined they were trained in new fighting styles in order to streamline battle - short spears called iklwa replaced traditional throwing issegai as the primary weapon, shields were made thicker but more manoeuvrable, light runners were used for resupply, and a 'bull formation' used to battle. This involved senior veterans serving as the 'chest' directly engaging in frontal melee; the 'horns' would flank the opposing forces; and the 'loins' who would sit with their back to the battle (as to not get demoralised) until the enemy possibly broke out of their encirclement. Through this Shaka managed to build up conquests quickly.

Initially, the Zulu Empire's main opponent was the Ndwandwe who had conquered their former rulers, the Mthethwa. The small Zulu clan within two years managed to conquer the Ndwandwe by using Shaka's military reforms. It is, however, heavily debated how much Shaka borrowed, and how much he invented, but, regardless, it proved incredibly effective. From the capital of kwaBulawayo conquests went out with a relentless fury, and impis (armed warriors) were sent out on raids. They were done to seize cattle, booty, and to destabilise possible opponents. As mentioned earlier, cattle was a major sign of prestige in Zulu society, so the loss of cattle could potentially delegitimise rival rulers. Impis raided south of the Tegela River, and to the west forced the Hlubi under Mpangazitha to retreat from the Drakensberg foothills. These, in turn, could cause a ripple effect - in 1822 the Hlubi attacked Sotho clans in order to enrich their own lost herds. Sometimes these raids could lead to the creation of new polities. Mzilikazi of the Khumalo near the Black Mfolozi River, and happened to be the grandson of Ndwandwe's ruler Zwide, had joined Shaka in 1818. However, Shaka was angered when Mzilikazi kept the booty from a raid on the Sotho in 1820, so he moved and conquered a region between the Vaal and Limpopo rivers. To gain legitimacy he even called his people 'Zulu', but became known as the Matabele, or later the Ndebele, meaning 'strangers', who are now one of the largest ethnic groups in Zimbabwe.

Ruling an Empire

A depiction of a Zulu kraal

Unlike other conquerors, like Alexander the Great, the sudden death of Shaka in 1828 did not see the immediate collapse of the empire - Dan Wylie placed more emphasis on European encroachment half a century later for the empire's collapse. A big reason why the empire had such cohesion was the amabutho. Young men, and some women, were conscripted into the army in order to both conquer and rule. At times Shaka's brutality has been exaggerated, but it was well earned at times. The amabutho were rigidly disciplined and were used to hunt down opponents, at times entire villages could be wiped out, and Donald Morris alleges that up to 7,000 were executed for showing disrespect to the deceased Nandi after 1827. Prohibited from marriage, segregated from the rest of society, prevented from disbanding, and with a familial bond forged between members of each amabutho it ensured that an efficient force was formed. John Omer-Cooper has argued that this was a part of the building of a new state. They were also not only used for the enforcement of power. Women were tasked with cultivating the king's fields while men hunted for ivory or herded the cattle. With up to 40,000 at one's service it ensured that more attention could be devoted to other means whenever the king needed. What would become important over the next century is the forging of a Zulu identity. Although never complete, competing identities continued to exist, the implementation of one language and the forging of the amabutho allowed populations to see themselves as being one. Increasingly, those within the empire saw themselves as 'Zulu' - the People of the Heaven - and, therefore, Zulu identity was the most reified. Shaka, in particular, was keen to present himself as the father of the Zulu. His sentencing of 'kill the wizards' was to eliminated potential threats, and he was keen in 1825 to purchase Rowland's Macassar Oil from Port Natal traders as it could hide grey hairs - to him, a king 'must never have wrinkles, nor grey hairs, as they are distinguishing marks of disqualification for becoming a monarch of warlike people'. That does not mean that Shaka's rule went unchallenged - rivals at times came close to assassinating him, and his half-brothers, Dingane and Mhlangana, assassinated him on September 24, 1828. 

Women and Power

A depiction of Queen Nandi

It is undeniable that the Zulu kingdom/empire was patriarchal - contemporary misogyny and patriarchy can find its roots to pre-colonial culture. Sifiso Ndlovu while praising traditional feminist ideas, argues that it does obscure the possibilities where traditional gender relations could offer channels of influence and power. Of course, women were subjugated to men - adult women were seen as possessing ritual impurity so were barred from cattle ownership and, therefore, the marker of prestige in society. However, there were opportunities for women to exert influence. Zulu patriarch Ndukwana kaMbengwana in 1897 explained that children performed the same tasks regardless of sex, and girls could be 'be in charge of the calves if the father is going to the royal kraal'. As we have already seen, female amabutho regiments were used by Zulu kings - in 1827 incursions into amaMpondo territory was done by women and a former attendant to Dingane in 1904 stated that Shaka had launched campaigns with married women. Zulu oral tradition also gives insight to the agency of elite women in ruling the kingdom. Traditionally, an institution named the izigodhlo has been described as a harem, but Ndlovu has argued that the women of the izigodhlo could have great influence in deciding who were members of other institutes. Furthermore, post-menopausal women were not seen as 'unclean' so could serve in the very influential amakhanda which helped decide important rituals and policies. Queen Mkabayi, the paternal aunt of Shaka and his brothers, held incredible sway in the empire, it was largely thanks to her influence that Shaka could become king, and possibly influenced his brothers in assassinating him when his reign became too despotic after his mother's death. However, it must be stated that this was largely an elite aspect of Zulu life - your average woman was likely unable to benefit from the same benefits which elite women did.

The mfecane debate

Throughout the period of the Zulu conquests the bloodshed and war caused mass displacement of peoples in southern Africa which has become known as the mfecane. From one conquest figures like Mzilikazi went on to conquer more regions, who would move and conquer new regions, and all the while displacing people wanting to escape the war. Traditionally, this has been seen as being due to the Zulu conquests, and John Omer-Cooper even argued this was essential for the build up of a Zulu state. However, in the 1980s Julian Cobbing rejected this notion of the mfecane arguing that it was an 'alibi' and oversimplified. As we have seen, the wars and displacement occurred before the rise of the Zulu, so if we do use the term the Zulu were just part of a wider series of violent displacements. Cobbing has argued that more emphasis should be placed on European slaving at Delagoa Bay instead, although this has been debated as well. Cobbing argued that the need for slaves influenced displacement, although archaeological evidence has revealed the absence of large-scale slaving as seen in West Africa. However, Cobbing's other argument has become increasingly part of historiography - the influence of Europeans in mfecane. Voortrekkers helped place greater pressure on the land influencing displacements and violence, and white narratives helped forge a 'myth'. Early narratives, such as by Nathaniel Isaacs, tried to paint Shaka's rule as being barbaric as possible in order to justify annexation of African land by the British, or Boers. A myth which existed in Apartheid narratives, and among current white nationalist narratives, was that the land was 'empty' thanks to the mfecane, so white farmers were not displacing Africans from their land. Of course, this is wrong - lands were never 'emptied' - but the mfecane became a convenient myth for Europeans to ignore their own actions and justify disappropriation of African.

Cracks in the Empire

Cetshwayo

Before the complete fall of the Zulu Empire cracks emerged, however, these cracks were not entirely the reason for the downfall of the empire as what happened with most others in history. A key reason why these cracks emerged was due to power and accountability. Shaka's brutality has been exaggerated for various reasons, but that does not mean that he wasn't brutal. This brutality led to his assassination, and his successors had to resort to harsh means to solidify their own rule. Dingane's defeat by the Swazi in 1839 caused Mpande to flee to the Boers, and he later returned in 1840 routing Dingane's forces at the Maqongo Hills - the defeated king would die as a fugitive. We will shortly get to why this became an issue, but the next crack in Zulu power came thanks to succession. Shaka and Dingane solved this by having no legitimate offspring, but Mpande's many wives had given him many legitimate sons. Before he died he played several against one another - principally Mbuyazi and Cetshwayo - who battled at Ndondakusuka in 1856. Cetshwayo came out on top forcing Mpande to share power with him until his death in 1872. Meanwhile, the most important reason why Zulu power cracked was growing stronger: Europeans. Decades prior to the Zulu's rise white settlers had clashed with African polities, particularly the Xhosa, and in 1824 the Zulu came into contact with British traders and hunters at Port Natal (now Durban). Originally, they had been welcomed. They offered better goods than the Portuguese at Delagoa Bay, and Shaka was eager to access European goods - especially firearms. For decades southern African elites used European goods as a marker of prestige - the Comaroffs write about this very well among the Tswana at the end of the century. Shaka had hoped to use the British as intermediaries, but Boer settlers developing contacts with Port Natal settlers would deeply affect the Zulu. In October 1837, Boer settlers, armed with firearms, started seizing land threatening Dingane's rule. Clashing with Boer settlers Dingane was initially defeated leading to the formation of the Republiek Natalia, and the Zulu Civil War between Mpande and Dingane. Mpande had used Boer alliances to take control of the kingdom, and in return he ceded all the land between the Thukela and the Black Mfolozi to the new Natal Republic. The rise of white presence in the region would spell the end of the Zulu Kingdom.

The Anglo-Zulu War and an End of a Kingdom

Isandlwana today

As Boers formed their own republic the British proceeded to annex them. At the same time, in the 1870s there was a series of uprisings against British rule among black African polities - the ninth Xhosa War saw Gcaleka Xhosa and Ngqika Xhosa resist the British for seven months from September 1877, and a rising by Griqua in Griqualand East in February 1878 quickly spread to other ethnic groups. The new high commissioner, Sir Bartle Frere, saw the risings as being part of a 'black conspiracy', as long as independent black policies existed he saw them as encouraging uprisings. Mpande had maintained cordial relations with Britain after they annexed Natal in 1856, particularly with Theophilius Shepstone, the Natal secretary of native affairs. Cetshwayo continued these relations with Shepstone describing him as 'a man of considerable ability, much force of character, and has a dignified manner'. Cetshwayo feared British annexationist policies, and their placating of Boer land claims; to diffuse the situation Cetshwayo said that 'I love the English. I am not Mpande's son. I am the child of Queen Victoria. But I am also a king in my own country and must be treated as such...I shall not hear dictation...I shall perish first'. The British were eager to oblige. When Cetshwayo refused to abolish the amabutho the British invaded on January 11, 1879 beginning the Anglo-Zulu War. This war has gone down in British, South African, and Zulu memory as a decisive war. 20,000 Zulu warriors swept into the British camp at Islndlwana annihilating six companies of the 24th regiment - out of a garrison of 1,760 troops only 450 survived to just 1,000 Zulu deaths. This battle has remained a key focal point in Zulu nationalism, and even caused Lord Chelmsford to be disgraced back in Britain. However, the Zulu's attempt to wipe out the British at the thinly defended base at Rorke's Drift. Despite British victory at Rorke's Drift the Zulu army made Natal's white community terrified, and Britain was angered that an unsanctioned war was humiliating them. Ignoring Cetshwayo's call for peace the British captured him after the Battle of Ulundi on July 4, and annexed Zululand, abolished the monarchy and the amabutho system. In 1882 Cethswayo was allowed to rule some of his land as 'a flea in the blanket of Britain', but Zulu formal power had been broken. His son, Dinuzulu, made an alliance with a newly formed Republic of South Africa in 1881 after Boer victory in the First Anglo-Boer War, but like the British the Boers continued to chip away at his land. Eventually, Zululand was annexed by the British and opened to white settlement by 1897.

Conclusion 

The Zulu Kingdom forged a myth and lasting legacy for Zulu populations to this day. Zulu identity was one of the few somewhat centralised identity before the rise of European rule, and this identity proved to be a lasting beacon of resistance to white rule after initial annexation in 1879. When Apartheid South Africa forged the batustans in the 1970s a Zulu batustan was created, and Zulu elites hearkened back to the Zulu Empire to justify their co-operation with the Apartheid regime. The far-right Inkatha party would brutally implement a patriarchal, ethno-nationalist regime in the region, and openly ally with white nationalists against anti-Apartheid groups in the 1990s. Myths of the Zulu Empire has been shaped continuously. White settlers justifying land expropriation or Apartheid exaggerated or created stories of Zulu barbarity - it's not appalling if you were doing it to brutal peoples. Meanwhile, Dan Wylie has discussed how the rise of African nationalism inspired white writers to create a series of literature fawning over Shaka in particular - E.A. Ritter's 1955 novel Shaka Zulu is a good example of this. Zulu nationalists, for better or ill, later adopted this rhetoric. Oral histories from Africans have been shedding light on new narratives concerning the Zulu. Speaking as a white European, white historians have too long ignored African voices in the writing of their own history - Zulu history shows that white voices need to step back to show a fairer depiction of the past of colonised cultures.

Thank you for reading and our next World History post will be about the rise of capitalism and socialism. The sources I have used are as follows:

-Martin Meredith, The Fortunes of Africa: A 5,000-Year History of Wealth, Greed, and Endeavour, (London: Simon & Schuster, 2014)

-Dan Wylie, Myth of Iron: Shaka in History, (Scottsville: University of KwaZulu-Natal Press, 2006)

-Donald Morris, The Washing of the Spears: The History of the Rise of the Zulu Nation under Shaka and Its Fall in the Zulu War of 1879, (London: Jonathan Cape, 1966)

-Benedict Carton, John Laband, and Jabulini Sithole, (eds.), Zulu Identities: Being Zulu, Past and Present, (London: Hurst & Company, 2008)

-Julian Cobbing, 'The Mfecane as Alibi: Thoughts on Dithakong and Mbolompo', The Journal of African History, 29:3, (1988), 487-519

-Fred Fynner, Zululand and the Zulus: being an enlargement upon two lectures delivered by Fred. B.

Fynney ... under the titles of The rise & fall of the Zulu nation and Our native tribes:

their customs, superstitions and beliefs, (Manchester: Foreign and Commonwealth Office Collection, 1885)

-John Omer-Cooper, The Zulu Revolution: A Nineteenth-Century Revolution in Bantu Africa, (London: Longmans, 1966)

Thank you for reading and I hope you found it interesting. For other World History posts please see our list here. For future blog updates please see our Facebook or catch me on Twitter @LewisTwiby.