Bulozi under the Luyana Kings: Political Evolution and State Formation in Pre-Colonial Zambia

4. The Makololo and the fall of the Lozi kingdom in the mid-nineteenth century

4 The Makololoand the fall of the Lozi kingdom in the mid-nineteenth century In about 1840, the Lozi kingdom was overrun by a group of invaders from the south known as the Makololo, a Sotho people originally of the Fokeng group. As a result of the military and political revolutions which shook South African tribes in the early 1 nineteenth century, the Makololo were compelled to leave their home region in the present Orange Free State in 1823 and trek northwards. The Makololo, under the leadership of Sibitwane, 2 finally came to settle in Bulozi. They established themselves as overlordsof Bulozi until 1864,whentheLozisucceeded inregaining theirsovereigntyinthevalley. It is clearly necessary to explain how the highly complex Lozi State described in the previous chapters came to succumb to the Makololo. Theanswertothisproblem hastotakeintoconsideration certain weaknesses inherent in the structure of the Lozi State, as well as the peculiar characteristics of the Kololo which resulted in theirsuccess. Whiletracingtheevolutionof Lozi institutionsandof theStateas a whole, it was possible to see where tension and friction were likely toarise. In the first place, there was the division between the Luyana groups in the north, which dominated and controlled central government, and the Tonga groups in the south who, apart from J. D. Omer Cooper, The Zulu Aftermath: a nineteenth-century revolution in Bantu Africa, Longman1966. For a detailed and full account of the Makololo's northward march, see: D. Livingstone, Missionary Travels and Researches in South Africa, John Murray 1857, pp. 84ff’. Edwin W. Smith, Great Lion of Bechuanaland, Independent Press 1957, Appendix A, pp. 367–410. 'Sibitwane and theMakololo',AfricanStudies,xv, 2, 1956. – 1 2 61 having to put up with Luyana domination, had been compelled to fall backsouthwardsintotheMashiorLinyantiswampsand intothe present Sesheke and Batoka Districts. These Tonga groups did not hesitate to seize every opportunity which promised to undermine Luyana authority or to reverse the political roles of the two groups. Whenever the central kingship showed signs of weakness a section of the Tonga groups in the south would rebel and seek to establish some sort of autonomy. Similarly, as became clear during the nineteenthcentury, theydid nothesitatetoallythemselveswithany outside group which offered them a chance to defy Luyana authority. To a great extent this seems to explain why the Makololo, after their successful invasion of Bulozi, concentrated on the south, onLinyantiand Sesheke. So far, theonlyexplanationgiven forthe Kololoconcentrationon the south has been their fear of Matebele attacks from the present Rhodesia. The Matebele certainly raided the southern limits of BuloziandtheBatokacountry. Livingstone and other writers concluded that the Makololo were concerned with guarding the fords on the Zambezi, and that the 3 Linyanti and Mashi swamps kept them in the south. This explanation, however, does not seem adequate since, later on, the Lozi were to be similarly inflicted with Ndebele raids, and yet they did not move theirgovernment headquarters to the borderwith the Matebele. It is possible that the Makololo concentrated their settlementinthesouthbecausetheretheymetwithleastresistance. As will be seen, the Ma Subiya had solicited Kololo support in a dispute with the Leya, at the time Sibitwane crossed the Zambezi into the present Southern Province and before entering Bulozi. The Makololo then were, in the south, among old allies. It is interesting also that there were some significant contrasts in later Lozi recollections of the Makololo when the pioneer missionary, Francois Coillard of the Paris Evangelical Missionary Society, visited Sesheke in 1878 and the valley where he founded a permanent mission after 1885. At Sesheke, Coillard sensed admiration for, and great attachment to, the Makololo, while similar sentiments were hardly 4 noticeableinthevalley. The second weakness in the structure of the Lozi State was the rivalry between Namuso (Lealui) and Lwambi (Nalolo). This went D. Livingstone,MissionaryTravels,p. 91. F. Coillard, 'Voyagesettravauxdemission', SurIeHautZambeze,1899,pp. 58-9. Bulozi under the Luyana Kings 3 4 62 back to the time of Mboo (K1). Initially, as already seen, Mwanambinyi, Mboo's 'brother', nearly succeeded in establishing an independent kingdom in the present Senanga area, which although eventually crushed and brought back under central control, developed into a genuine rival centre of Lozi political power. Following the establishment of the Nalolo kingship during the reign of Ngombala (K6) the basis of rivalry changed but was in nowayremoved. Therivalryforsuccessiontothecentral kingshipat Namuso resulted in a number of civil wars between Namuso and Lwambi. As shall be seen, it was during such a civil war that the Makololoarrived inBulozi. Another weakness in the Lozi system was...