by Peires, Jeff
Of all the unbelievers in Mhala’s chiefdom only one man, Bulungwa, Mhala’s nephew and a chief in his own right, dared to cultivate.
The story of Mhala will be taken up again in Chapter 6. Here we must summarise the position as it stood at the beginning of November 1856. Sandile, the most senior chief in British Kaffraria, was declining to cultivate but he was under pressure from Commissioner Brownlee. The unbelieving chiefs Anta, Oba, Toyise, Jali and Dyani Tshatshu were trying with some success to keep their people in line. Their fellow unbelievers, Chiefs Siwani and Kama, were failing to contain the believers in their chiefdoms. Maqoma publicly supported the Cattle-Killing and his fellow believers Phatho and Mhala were slowly coming out into the open. The overwhelming majority of ordinary Xhosa commoners were inclining towards the movement.
On the other hand, there was continuing uncertainty with regard to the actual date of the manifestation of the new people, and many believers were growing anxious about the lack of tangible results. The leading chiefs of the Thembu, the Mpondo and the Mpondomise had all made known their opinion that Mhlakaza was a ‘fool’, and five leading chiefs of Sarhili’s own Gcaleka Xhosa had told the prophet that if he did not produce the new people forthwith they would cut him to shreds.18 Chief Ngubo, Sarhili’s highly respected cousin, had beaten Nongqawuse and called her a liar to her face. The Cattle-Killing movement was growing, but it was very fragile. Predictably, it was Governor Grey who gave it another boost.
As early as August, Grey had considered making some sort of naval demonstration at the mouth of the Kei River near the Gxarha.19 He approached the captain of the Castor who pointed out that a visit to Kei mouth might prove counter-productive if the Xhosa thought that troops wanted to land but were unable to do so. This was sound advice, but Grey did not take it. In mid-October, he engaged HMS Geyser en route from Natal to Cape Town to call in at Kei mouth and see if it was possible to land men and supplies there (November 1856).
It was never a good idea to send the Geyser into Kei mouth without a very precise conception of the effect its presence was supposed to produce, but the plan miscarried to a truly spectacular extent. The acting commander was drunk and he did not stop at East London to pick up the pilot he required. The Geyser entered the Kei by the wrong channel. After sailing a little way up the river, it sent out a boat which promptly overturned, nearly drowning the five men in it. One of these, a Mr Upjohn from Cape Town, flatly refused to get back in the boat and walked all the way back to East London.
As soon as the Geyser entered the river, the Xhosa sounded the war cry and gathered in great numbers. They had no way of knowing that the ship was instructed only to make a survey and, given the very recent hostile exchange between Grey and Sarhili, they naturally presumed that the Geyser had come to attack them. When the boat capsized and the Geyser sailed tamely away without apparently achieving anything, the Xhosa were deeply impressed. The news soon spread that the new people had destroyed a ship, leaving only one man (Mr Upjohn) alive to carry the tidings home. As the rumour circulated, it grew in stature until it was commonly believed that Sarhili’s father, the martyred Hintsa, had destroyed the Geyser with a wave of his hand, or that Mhlakaza had driven the troops on board mad, and sent them running wildly along the Kei road firing away their powder and ammunition.20
The news of the ‘destruction’ of the Geyser caused a great sensation among the Xhosa who greeted it with ‘joy and avidity’. Many who had started to cultivate now stopped, and the only fields that were eventually sown were those of the original unbelievers. Cattle were killed ‘more madly than ever’ and within two weeks of the Geyser incident their numbers had visibly decreased. The believers, who were getting hungry, expected the Great Day to occur very soon, although there were some among them who felt that the new people were waiting for another ship so that they could demonstrate their power by again destroying it.
1 Imperial Blue Book 2352 of 1857-8, C Brownlee-J Maclean, 27 Sept. 1856, Memorandum of a meeting, 29 Sept. 1856, pp.32-3; AW Burton (1950), p.31; BK 70 C Brownlee-J Maclean, 29 Sept. 1856.
2 BK 140 Minutes of a meeting at Pato’s Great Place, 26 Sept. 1856.
3 Grahamstown Journal, 7, 11 Nov. 1856; GH 8/30 C Brownlee-J Maclean, 7 Dec. 1856; MS 2990 Cory Library, J Ross-R Ross, 13 Sept. 1856; GH 8/49 J Maclean-G Grey, 13 Oct. 1856.
4 BK 70 C Brownlee-J Maclean, 21 Sept. 1856; BK 81 J Gawler-J Maclean, 1 Oct. 1856; MS 3328 Cory Library, J Ross-J Laing, 11 Oct. 1856; MS 3236 Cory Library, J Ross-A Thomson, 24 Nov. 1856; Mission Record (United Presbyterian Church), 12 (1857), Letter from J Cumming, 3 Dec. 1856.
5 GH 8/30 C Brownlee-J Maclean, 7 Dec. 1856. See also BK 373 J Maclean-G Grey, 3 Nov. 1856; BK 81 J Gawler-J Maclean, 17 Oct. 1856; GH 8/49 J Maclean-G Grey, 11 Dec. 1856.
6 Brownlee (1916), p.134; BK 70 C Brownlee-J Maclean 28, 31 Aug., 19 Oct. 1856. For further details on the composition of the believing and unbelieving parties, see Ch. 4/4.
7 Brownlee (1916), pp.146-7; MS 8981 Cory Library, C Brownlee-P Wodehouse, 19 June 1866.
8 BK 70 C Brownlee-J Maclean, 13, 19 Oct., 2 Nov. 1856; Acc 793 J Gawler- J Maclean, 24 Oct. 1856.
9 GH 8/29 C Brownlee-J Maclean, 22 Oct. 1856; BK 70 C Brownlee-J Maclean, 2, 19 Nov. 1856.
10 BK 71 C Brownlee-J Maclean, 28 May 1857; BK 85 R Robertson-J Maclean, 30 Oct. 1856; BK 89 R Fielding-J Maclean, 14 Oct. 1856; GH 20/2/1 John Ayliff (jnr)-J Maclean, 11 Oct. 1856; BK 140 H Vigne-J Maclean, 25 Oct., 20 Nov. 1856; GH 8/49 R Tainton-J Maclean, 29 Dec. 1856.
11 BK 140 Information communicated to the Chief Commissioner, 8 Oct. 1856; GH 8/31 R Hawkes-J Maclean, 17 March 1857; CO 2935 T Stringfellow-R Southey, 14 Sept. 1856; KWT Gazette, 4 Sept. 1856.
12 BK 86 F Reeve, Diary, 27 Sept. 1856.
13 BK 89 Secret information, 19 Sept. 1856.
14 BK 86 F Reeve, Diary 7 Sept., 15 Oct., 27 Nov. 1856; BK 86 F Reeve-J Maclean, 12 Dec. 1856.
15 BK 82 H Lucas-J Maclean, 26 Oct., 29 Nov. 1856; GH 8/29 H Lucas-J Maclean, 27 Sept. 1856; BK 70 C Brownlee-J Maclean, 19 Oct. 1856; GH 8/49 J Fitzgerald-J Maclean, n.d. (Dec. 1856).
16 BK 83 H Vigne-J Maclean, 16 Sept. 1856; BK 140 H Vigne-J Maclean, 10, 20 Nov. 1856; GH 28/71 H Vigne-J Maclean, 9 Aug. 1856; GH 8/49 J Maclean-G Grey, 27 Oct. 1856.
17 GH 18/6 J Gawler-J Maclean, 15 Aug. 1856; BK 81 J Gawler-J Maclean, 1, 14 Oct. 1856; GH 8/49 J Gawler-J Maclean, 11 Oct. 1856.
18 Acc 793 J Gawler-J Maclean, 24 Oct. 1856; KWT Gazette, 13 Nov. 1856.
19 On the Geyser, see GH 22/8 H Trotter-G Grey, 15 Aug. 1856; GH 8/49 J Maclean-G Grey, 16 Oct., 10, 20 Nov. 1856; GH 30/4 G Grey-J Maclean, 18, 28 Oct. 1856; BK 81 J Gawler-J Maclean, 17 Oct. 1856; Gtn Journal, 28 July 1857.
20 On the Xhosa reaction to the Geyser incident: BK 70 C Brownlee-J Maclean, 11 Dec. 1856; BK 81 J Gawler-J Maclean, 20 Nov. 1856; GH 8/30 R Robertson-J Maclean, 23 Nov. 1856; GH 8/30 C Brownlee-J Maclean, 7 Dec. 1856; Argus, 3 Jan. 1857.
4. THE CENTRAL BELIEFS OF THE XHOSA CATTLE-KILLING
The stunning magnitude and seeming incomprehensibility of the Cattle-Killing have brought forth explanations as fantastic as the movement itself. Governor Grey and colonial historiography blamed the Cattle-Killing on a conspiracy by the Xhosa chiefs to foment war. Most Xhosa today blame the movement on a plot by Grey to fool their simple forefathers.1 We need to look rather more closely at the central beliefs of the movement if we are to understand how and why the Xhosa came to believe in the message of Nongqawuse. Merely to talk of ‘superstition’ and ‘delusion’ explains nothing at all. We have to try and understand why beliefs which seem to us – and to all Xhosa now living – patently absurd and impossible seemed logical and plausible to the Xhosa of 1856. As the explanation is not a simple one and will take some time and patience, readers wh
o are eager to find out what happened next are encouraged to skip the remainder of this section, and proceed immediately to Chapter 5.
One reason why most explanations of the Cattle-Killing are so inadequate is that they are based on inadequate information. Historians and anthropologists have contented themselves with the order to kill cattle and with the prediction that the dead would rise, and have thus begged a great many questions. Who were the spirits who appeared to Nongqawuse? Were the cattle to be sacrificed or merely killed? Where did the idea of the resurrection come from? Which dead exactly were going to rise? What was supposed to happen after the resurrection? It is necessary to define the practices and the expectations of the believers in much greater detail before one can begin to explain the logic which underlay their actions. In doing so, it is very important to recreate as far as possible the Xhosa-language vocabulary used by the believers. Many of the most relevant concepts of the Cattle-Killing movement either do not translate directly into English, or are translated by English words which lack the weight and connotations of their Xhosa equivalents and thus hide from the English reader associations and connections which would be immediately apparent to a Xhosa.
In this section, I advance three propositions which will, I hope, clear up some of the existing misconceptions concerning the Cattle-Killing and explain why beliefs and practices which seem bizarre and irrational to us appeared natural and logical to the Xhosa of the 1850s.
(a) The form which the movement took, namely the killing of cattle, was suggested and determined by the lungsickness epidemic of 1854.
(b) The resurrection of the dead was only an aspect of a much wider event which the Xhosa believed to be in prospect, namely the regeneration of the earth and the re-enactment of the original Creation.
(c) The movement was by no means a ‘pagan reaction’, but one which combined Christian and pre-Christian elements fused under the heroic leadership of the expected redeemer, the son of Sifubasibanzi, the Broad-Chested One.
Nothing which follows should be interpreted as meaning that the Cattle-Killing movement was possessed of a fully articulated orthodox ideology. There were many uncertainties and ambiguities in the prophecies and instructions, and there was, in any case, plenty of room in the Xhosa world view for a variety of not necessarily consistent beliefs. The Cattle-Killing did, however, have a widespread and spontaneous appeal for the overwhelming majority of Xhosa. It cut right across the spectrum of divergent interests in Xhosa society. Its programme of action seemed necessary, credible and effective. This would not have been the case had it not been compatible with bedrock common beliefs which most Xhosa of the time shared but which are not obvious to us today.
(a) Lungsickness and cattle-killing
The lungsickness epidemic was a necessary cause of the Xhosa Cattle-Killing. Without it, the movement could never have occurred. This is not to say that lungsickness was a sufficient cause in itself, for it spread all over Africa without producing the same effect anywhere else. But at its very first stop, in Xhosaland, it encountered an exceptionally battered and divided society, demoralised by the frustration of a long series of military defeats; by the social insecurity of expulsion from natal lands and pastures; by the material sufferings of migrant labour and of resettlement in cramped and ecologically deficient locations; by the new wealth of those who had climbed on the military-commercial bandwagon of settler expansionism. Such conditions fed and sustained a belief which would have starved on the scepticism of a population enjoying economic abundance and social opportunity. The movement was further encouraged by contingent factors such as Grey’s new policies and the hopes raised by rumours of British defeat in the Crimean War. But ultimately it was lungsickness which determined the form of the Cattle-Killing.
We have already seen that the early cattle-killing prophets, such as the wife of Bhulu, were inspired to dreams of resurrection by the outbreak of lungsickness. Nongqawuse’s own prophecies were similarly linked with the epidemic. Information reaching Chief Commissioner Maclean indicated that the Xhosa had been ordered to ‘kill all their cattle, so as to be stocked with others that are free from the disease’, and that ‘the cattle at present possessed by the Kaffirs are bewitched and that they must sacrifice them for others’. According to the Ndlambe Xhosa, Mhlakaza ordered them ‘to get rid of their cattle … and the reason he has assigned is that they have all been wicked and everything belonging to them is therefore bad’. The Xhosa King Sarhili, whose enthusiastic support was crucial to the success of the movement, initially preserved his corn …
… but is killing his cattle faster than the flesh can be consumed, he says it is because the lungsickness has broken out among his flocks, but from whatever cause it may be, I believe his slaughtering is confined to the flocks in which the disease has shown itself.2
Everywhere lungsickness went in Xhosaland, cattle-killing followed. This cannot have been a coincidence.
When, despite all their efforts, lungsickness broke out everywhere, the thoughts of the Xhosa turned naturally to the ultimate source of the disease. They recognised a category of minor illness, umkuhlane, but beyond umkuhlane lay isifo, or disease proper. ‘In those days,’ wrote the historian EG Sihele, ‘there was no person who became sick just so. Being sick was caused by a reason.’ Xhosa doctors of the time openly boasted of their power to ‘raise plagues of all sorts, and inflict sores and different kinds of leprosy’. Major disasters such as drought or smallpox were usually blamed on malevolent sorcery, and there is some evidence that several people were executed as witches in the early attempts of the Xhosa to halt the spread of lungsickness. But since executing witches failed to stop the disease, the Xhosa were forced to look elsewhere for the sort of explanation which could serve as the basis for effective action.3
An alternative explanation for misfortune was that it was due to one’s own shortcomings and derelictions of duty. The spirit world, as the guardians of the moral order, were responsible for punishing both individual and collective misbehaviour. Sickness in cattle was a common mark of divine displeasure as two texts, more than 100 years apart, both demonstrate. Andrew Smith, writing in the 1820s, reported:
When many cattle die at a kraal the sorcerers affirm that they see and talk with the shologoo (ghost or apparition) of some person deceased, and they affirm that the destruction of the cattle … is the result of the vengeance of the angry shologoo for the neglect of some arrangement relative to the cattle or people.4
And Chief Ndumiso Bhotomane, the distinguished oral historian, said in 1968:
At times the cattle die. At times you expect to have good maize, but you don’t get maize. Yes, sometimes you break a bone. You are being told about something, but you are stubborn. You are repeatedly told to do certain things, but you don’t do them. That is why your thing is broken.5
This condition was referred to by Chief Bhotomane as umzi ungalungi (the homestead is not right), and the process of putting it right again is called ukulungisa. ‘-Lunga’ in Xhosa combines the twin meanings of ‘right’ in English, namely the concept of order and the concept of justice. The term ‘homestead’ used by Chief Bhotomane might refer either to the residence of an individual or to the whole Xhosa nation, which was conceptualised in many contexts as one great family. Thus Nxele, the prophet of 1818-9, called on the Xhosa to leave evil ways so that the earth might be made ‘right’ (-lunga) again. Nongqawuse herself said that the spirits told her that they had come to ‘put the country to rights’.6
The moral wrong for which the Xhosa had incurred the punishment of lungsickness was expressed in terms of ‘witchcraft’. The injunction to give up witchcraft, little noticed in English secondary sources, is emphasised in both the Xhosa texts and in the original colonial accounts. According to Gqoba, the spirit who first appeared to Nongqawuse explained his order to kill by referring to the ‘witchcraft’ of the people:
All those [cattle] now living must be s
laughtered for they have been herded by defiled hands, for there are people about who are handling witchcraft.7
The spirit repeated his warning against witchcraft just before he disappeared, and Nongqawuse herself mentioned witchcraft on three occasions in Gqoba’s relatively short text. Commissioner Brownlee reported that the ‘ancestors’ had told the Xhosa that ‘before anything could be done for them, they were to put away witchcraft’, and Chief Commissioner Maclean noted that ‘all charms are to be given up’. The believing chief, Mhala, ‘considered a man’s killing his cattle a proof that the man either used no witchcraft or that he put it away now altogether’.8
Witchcraft, in the narrow sense of malevolent sorcery, was undoubtedly widespread in Xhosaland. Writing in the late 1850s, Agent Warner claimed that ‘there is not the slightest doubt that the [Xhosa] do frequently attempt to bewitch each other; and for which purpose they practise a great number of villanous tricks’. And since all good or bad fortune was attributed to witchcraft, people believed it to be even more prevalent than it actually was. Thus the believing chief, Phatho, gave the following order to his upstart brother, Kama: ‘Bulala ubuthi [Kill your witchcraft] which has made you a great chief though not the Great Son.’9
Witchcraft was also associated with any sort of morally wrong behaviour which, being evil, constituted a polluting and harmful force in the naturally good and harmonious universe. This broader, more pervasive sense of witchcraft is apparent in Gqoba’s phrase ‘herded by defiled (ezincolileyo) hands’, which he later amplifies as follows:
