Show Summary Details

Page of

PRINTED FROM the OXFORD RESEARCH ENCYCLOPEDIA, AFRICAN HISTORY (oxfordre.com/africanhistory). (c) Oxford University Press USA, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Personal use only; commercial use is strictly prohibited (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

date: 13 December 2018

Southern Zambezia States and Indian Ocean Trade, 1450–1900

Summary and Keywords

States that flourished in the area immediately south of the Zambesi River from the 15th to the 19th centuries were ruled by Karanga dynasties and were the cultural heirs of Great Zimbabwe. The most important of these states was Mokaranga, whose rulers bore the title of Monomotapa. Other important states—Teve, Manica, Barue, and Butua—all depended on the mining and trading of gold. Commerce was conducted at fairs attended by merchants from coastal towns such as Sofala and Chibuene, which were part of the networks of Indian Ocean commerce. At the beginning of the 16th century this trade attracted Portuguese traders who visited the fairs. In the 17th century, the Portuguese gradually expanded their presence through the institution of the prazos, whose owners acquired jurisdiction over extensive areas formerly ruled by the Karanga. The Portuguese were expelled from the Zimbabwe plateau in the 1690s and were succeeded by the Rosvi, another Karanga ruling elite. These states were devastated by droughts from the 1790s to the 1830s. All of them experienced civil wars before they were conquered by the Ngoni, who established the kingdom of Gaza, which covered the whole area south of the Zambesi as far as the Limpopo River until the time of the Scramble for Africa. Some of the old Karanga states, notably Manica and Barue, survived as tributaries of the Gaza state.

Keywords: Great Zimbabwe, Karanga, Monomotapa, Teve, Manica, Butua, Barue, gold, Ngoni, Gaza, prazos, Sofala

Great Zimbabwe and Its Influence

The region immediately south of the Zambesi consists of a relatively narrow strip of low veldt along the river and the sea coast backed by a broken escarpment beyond which is the plateau that extends south to the Limpopo and southwest to the Kalahari. The lowlands are not suitable for cattle, and the populations who live there have traditionally been organized in relatively small agricultural communities. The plateau, however, provides a relatively healthy environment for cattle and receives regular seasonal rainfall, though the geographical feature that most influenced the history of the region was the existence of rich strata of gold-bearing reef.1

There are almost no written records describing this region prior to the 16th century, but archaeology has shown that the plateau was first occupied by Stone Age hunter-gatherers, then by Iron-Age agriculturalists, and from about 800 ce by cattle-owning people who developed long-distance trade with the Indian Ocean.2 Cattle ownership and trade provided the concentrations of wealth that enabled polities of considerable size to come into being, their elites making use of local stone to build elaborate residences and walled settlements. The first of these states, which flourished between 1050 and 1300, was centered on Mapungubwe in the extreme south of the plateau, where a town of around 5,000 inhabitants grew. The largest of these Iron Age states, however, was that centered on Great Zimbabwe, which flourished between c. 1200 and c. 1450 and at its height was a town with a population that may have been as large as 15,000 to 20,000 people.3 The period of Great Zimbabwe’s prosperity, when the great stone buildings were erected, coincided with the richest period of the history of Kilwa on the coast of modern Tanzania and points to the prosperity of the gold trade during that period.4

Very little can be said about the state of which Great Zimbabwe was, presumably, the capital, including the extent of the territory over which it ruled. Its rulers almost certainly belonged to the ethnic group that later became known as the Karanga (or Shona), and it prospered through the control of the trade routes between the southwest gold-bearing regions and the coast where first Chibuene and then Sofala were the principal ports for foreign trade.5

The stone buildings at Great Zimbabwe are extensive and impressive, but their purpose is uncertain and the discussion among archaeologists goes to the heart of understanding the nature of the Shona/Karanga states that came later. Broadly there are three opinions about Great Zimbabwe. The first is that it was the capital of a large state and that its stone buildings had a fundamentally political purpose as the “palaces” of the ruling elite. The second view is that the buildings at Great Zimbabwe were largely ritual or ceremonial in nature and that they can only be understood as part of the symbolic world of Shona religion. The third interpretation tries to show that Great Zimbabwe was an important metal-working center.6

Great Zimbabwe reached the height of its wealth, power, and sophistication early in the 15th century, and most commentators agree that from around 1450 it went into decline.7 This has been explained either as the result of civil strife within the ruling elite, or because it lost control over the trade routes, or because the state had become too large and unwieldy.8 By the middle of the 15th century alternative trade routes made use of the Zambesi, connecting with new ports like Quelimane and Angoche north of the Zambesi delta. These new routes were more convenient as the trade in copper from central Africa expanded and gold mining became concentrated in the north of the plateau. The loss of control over the trade routes weakened Great Zimbabwe. By 1550 it had been largely abandoned and the state of which it had been the center had disappeared.9

The Founding of the Karanga States

During the period of Great Zimbabwe’s prosperity, dynasties that were offshoots of its ruling elite had already begun to found states in other parts of the region. These new dynasties may have been the supporters of those who had failed in succession disputes or younger branches of the ruling dynasty who sought to establish new “houses,” but always within the tradition of their common origin in Great Zimbabwe.10 An example of this may have been the Karanga state, called by the Portuguese Tongue, that was formed in the south, inland from Inhambane, with its capital at Manekweni.11

In seeking information about the sources of the gold that was traded on the coast, the Portuguese, who arrived in eastern Africa at the very end of the 15th century, heard about a number of different rulers whose kingdoms were involved in the production and trading of gold. The rulers of these kingdoms were referred to by the generic term Karanga. According to the Portuguese, the Karanga were cattle owners and were in the process of imposing their rule over the populations of the northern plateau and the coastal lowlands.12 A Portuguese report written as early as 1506 described in detail civil strife among the Karanga elite and mentioned the polities ruled over by the Monomotapa, which was called “Ucalanga,” and the state of Torwa.13 As their knowledge grew the Portuguese began to refer to the Monomotapa as an “emperor” whose territory was called Mokaranga and to identify four states—Barue, Madanda, Teve and Manica—whose rulers were descended from the sons of Monomotapa who had broken away from the original “empire” and established independent kingdoms.14

The idea that there had at one time been an “empire” of Monomotapa, which covered the whole north of the plateau and which may at one time have included the southwest Butua/Torwa region and much of the low veldt of the valley and the sea coast, took root in the Portuguese imagination. This was a period when the Portuguese had dealings with the large kingdom of Kongo and when the Castilians were discovering the empires of the Aztecs and Incas in Central and South America, and this colored their perceptions of southeastern Africa and influenced subsequent historiography.

A more realistic assessment of the evidence suggests that by the middle of the 16th century there were a number of polities with Karanga ruling dynasties. Some of these were large, like that ruled by the Monomotapa and Torwa; others were medium sized, like Teve, Manica, and Barue; and many were quite small like Maungwe. David Beach thought that “the Shona founded [only] four states in nearly a thousand years,” but he recognized over forty Karanga dynasties which ruled over polities, large and small.15 He concluded that the boundaries of these polities and the relations between them were very fluid. They had come into existence over quite a long period, and traditions suggest that most of them were formed through some form accommodation between the indigenous Tonga or Tavara populations, with their influential spirit cults, and the Karanga ruling elites. Sometimes the larger states established a kind of paramountcy over the smaller, exacting tribute and demanding ritual recognition; at other times the smaller polities asserted an effective independence. It does not seem that there was a clear narrative of a single large state or “empire” that gradually broke up into smaller independent and semi-independent units, but it is likely that all the Karanga ruling elites were connected in some way with the dynasty that had ruled Great Zimbabwe and that they adopted elements of the Great Zimbabwean culture, not least the tradition of building in stone.16

Madanda, Teve Manica, and Barue

Situated in the lowlands between the Sabi river and the Pungue was the kingdom of Madanda, about which the Portuguese left little information before the 19th century, except for an account of a succession dispute, which appeared to show the influential role of the royal wives in the choice of a new ruler. The Madanda kingdom was affected by civil strife during the years of drought in the early 19th century and disappeared after it was overrun by the Ngoni in the 1820s.17

Further north were the two Karanga states of Teve (called Quiteve by the Portuguese) and Manica. Teve occupied the low veldt and escarpment inland from Sofala, while the Manica state controlled the gold-bearing mountainous region that spans the border between modern Zimbabwe and Mozambique.

Manica proved very long-lived and was still in existence in the late 19th century.18 Much of its importance rested in the mining and trading of gold within its territory. The mining was first described in a detailed report made in 1573 and was then witnessed by members of the military expedition sent by the Portuguese to the highlands in 1574–5. Most of the gold was obtained by washing in the rivers, but there were also important diggings, called Bares by the Portuguese. Here gold was mined, mostly during the dry season, as a supplement to village agriculture. The Bares doubled as fairs and were visited by traders from the coast. These fairs were controlled by the ruler who taxed the gold production, but in the 17th century the Portuguese established a permanent presence and even operated some of the mines themselves.19

With the rise of the Rosvi kingdom at the end of the 17th century, and particularly after the Rosvi attack on the fair of Massekesse in 1695, Manica became a tributary state to the Rosvi. When the fair was re-established in 1715, gold trading with the Portuguese was concentrated at Massekesse. After the destruction of the Rosvi kingdom by the Ngoni in the 19th century, the fair at Massekesse was abandoned but the kingdom survived as a tributary of the Ngoni. The fair was reopened in 1856, and the kingdom was briefly made subject to the Portuguese prazo warlord Manuel António de Sousa before its territory was partitioned and absorbed into the new European colonies of Southern Rhodesia and Mozambique.20

Southern Zambezia States and Indian Ocean Trade, 1450–1900Click to view larger

Figure 1. Map of African states and Indian trading ports.

Although there appears to have been a change of dynasty early in the 19th century (the Chicanga rulers being replaced by a dynasty that used the ceremonial title of Mutasa), and although there was a period of prolonged civil war, the longevity of the Manica state remains remarkable. The narrative of its history from the 1570s to its final demise in the 20th century is a story of diplomacy, compromise, and accommodation with more powerful neighbors and overlords—a policy that ensured its long-term survival.

The Teve kingdom had close contact with the Portuguese, as it sat astride the trade routes from Manica to the port of Sofala. Portuguese documents from the early 16th century describe the gradual conquest of this lowland region by Inhamunda, who, according to tradition, was the second Karanga ruler of Teve.21 The Portuguese had to pay a tribute to the ruler to keep open the roads and have access to the gold fairs. There was also extensive gold mining in Teve, with gold being traded at fairs, the most important being the fair at Bandire. In the 17th century, however, Teve was forced to cede a large part of the north of the kingdom to the Portuguese. Areas lying between the Zambesi and Sofala were occupied and became the prazos of Gorongosa and Cheringoma with titles granted to individual Portuguese by the Crown.

The Portuguese described the institutions and practices of the Teve kingdom in some detail, and it is likely that most of the states ruled by the Karanga were organized in a similar way. During the Ngoni invasions of the first half of the 19th century, Teve was overrun and apparently ceased to exist.22

The polity south of the Zambesi that had the longest continuous independent existence was Barue. Situated due west of Sena, its territory was located entirely in the low veldt and its population was made up of Tonga agriculturalists. A Karanga ruler, with the dynastic title of Macombe, who may have been a son of one of the Monomotapas, had taken control of the area, probably in the 15th century. The region had little or no gold and was not suitable for cattle, but it sat astride some of the trade routes that led from the interior to the river port of Sena.

Unlike the other regions where the Karanga elite established their rule, the Shona language never became dominant in Barue, and the Macombe ruled through a cultural accommodation with the Tonga population and with the powerful Karuva spirit cult. Barue was sandwiched between the Portuguese on the Zambesi and in the prazos of Cheringoma and Gorongosa, and Mokaranga with which it was frequently in conflict as the Monomotapas claimed to be its overlords. The reason why Barue was able to preserve its independence is not entirely clear. While large areas of the Teve state and other Tonga polities were gradually swallowed by the Portuguese prazo senhores, Barue survived. Perhaps the very poverty and difficulty of its terrain was one part of the explanation, while another may have been the relationship it established with the Portuguese. When a new Macombe was installed, the custom grew up that the Portuguese would send a ritual gift of holy water—the mazia manga—without which the Macombe could not be considered the legitimate ruler. It is possible that Portuguese recognition helped to prevent the succession disputes that became so disabling in other Karanga states.23

Barue, like Manica, survived the Ngoni onslaught in the 19th century by recognizing Ngoni overlordship and paying tribute.24 However, toward the end of the century, Barue, like Mokaranga, fell victim to the aggressive expansionism of the prazo warlords. It became entangled in the confrontations between the Da Cruz and the Portuguese government during the Zambesi Wars and in 1880 was invaded by Manuel António de Sousa, who had himself declared Macombe, while the members of the ruling dynasty fled into exile.

Barue, however, experienced a final decade of independence when Sousa was summarily removed from the scene in 1891 by the British. The old Macombe dynasty returned, and the region was only finally incorporated into the Portuguese colony in 1902.25 There was one final reassertion of Barue independence when a revolt broke out on the Zambesi in 1917 and leaders related to the Barue ruling dynasty were active in fighting the Portuguese.

Mokaranga and the Monomotapa

The largest and best known of the Karanga states, and the one for which there is abundant written evidence from the early 16th century, was that ruled by the Monomotapa (called also Mwene Mutapa or Munhumutapa).26 The Portuguese called this state Mokaranga. It was often referred to as an “empire,” and it seems that the Monomotapas themselves claimed some kind of paramountcy over the other states ruled by Karanga dynasties. Mokaranga has usually been seen as one of two main successor states to Great Zimbabwe.27 The core of the state, even at its height in the early 17th century, consisted of the southern bank of the Zambesi between Tete and Zumbo and a portion of the high veldt, though other smaller Karanga polities may at different times have been attached to it and have paid tribute. Even within this limited core area the Monomotapa was not all-powerful and did not rule a centralized state. His authority rested on a complex series of alliances with dynasties that controlled sectors of the state and with the heads of spirit cults that belonged primarily to the indigenous population, which had been there before the Monomotapa established his dominance.28

As with other Karanga states, the mining and trading of gold enabled the ruler to amass the wealth needed to maintain his authority and was central to his relations with both the Portuguese and the coastal traders. A number of fairs and mining Bares were established in his kingdom which by the 17th century had permanent Portuguese populations. Although the king tried to control the mining and trading of gold, by the middle of the century many of the mines were being operated independently by the Portuguese.29

In the early years of the 17th century, the Monomotapa was able to exert control over the Portuguese, demanding a substantial tribute to allow them to trade in his dominions. However, as the century progressed the relationship changed. The main reasons for this were the civil wars and disputed successions, which gave the Portuguese the opportunity to intervene in support of one of the rival contenders, imposing treaties in 1607 and 1629 that granted them extensive concessions.30

As the Portuguese became increasingly important in the kingdom, some members of the Karanga ruling house were converted to Christianity and went to Goa to pursue ecclesiastical careers.31 Portuguese became established at court, writing letters for the king and eventually forming a military guard to protect him. Meanwhile other Portuguese took control not only of some of the goldfields but also of large areas of land for which they obtained titles from the Portuguese Crown as prazos da coroa. Increasingly the population emigrated southwards away from Portuguese influence. By the 1670s the Portuguese were the dominant influence at the court and in much of the kingdom, but no significant Portuguese population established itself, and their power rested on the African soldiers they enlisted to fight for them and whom they rewarded with plunder and captives taken in warfare.32

With the rise of the Rosvi kingdom toward the end of the 17th century, Mokaranga lost control of its territory on the plateau and was reduced to the two regions of Dande and Chedima in the Zambesi valley between Tete and Zumbo. The kingdom did not collapse, but it became increasingly unstable as the succession to the title was almost always contested in prolonged civil wars. Although its control of the river upstream of Tete gave it some leverage over the Portuguese, who continued to maintain a small detachment of soldiers at the king’s capital, Mokaranga had now lost control of the gold mines and gold trade that had been its main source of wealth.33

One development that helped to secure the survival of the kingdom was the emergence of the vanhai as a class of young “professional” soldiers similar to the chicunda who formed the private armies of the prazo senhores. The vanhai became increasingly important as supporters of the king and in the 19th century were sometimes referred to as though they were a distinct ethnic group, as were the chicunda.34

The debilitating civil wars that occurred on each succession contributed to the rise in importance of the spirit mediums of the early prestigious Monomotapas. These were sometimes able to mediate between rival claimants, and the population increasingly recognized their authority.35

Karanga Kingship

Thomas Huffman succinctly summed up the main characteristics of Karanga kingship as being based on “a world view characterised among other things by male hereditary leadership, and the exchange of cattle for wives.” To this he added that there was “a mystical association between leadership and the land” and “Zimbabwe kings lived on hill tops, among other reasons, because of their role as rain makers.”36

Karanga states were essentially decentralized and segmentary. The states, large as well as small, were headed by rulers, often called mambos, whose government was based on a complex relationship with the “little society” over which they ruled. Alliances had to be made with important local lineages and with the spirit cults that were so powerful among the pre-Karanga populations. It is possible that the Karanga rulers adopted from their subjects the powerful belief that the guidance and protection of the ancestors could be obtained through the mhondoros. These alliances had to be strengthened by maintaining large palaces, which became the centers for elaborate rituals surrounding the succession and burial of rulers, the audience of outsiders and petitioners, rain making, and other fertility rites and consultation with spirit mediums. Large towns grew up around the palaces, which on the plateau were usually constructed with more or less elaborate stonewalling.37

In Mokaraga the central institution of the state was focused on the royal capital—always known as the Zimbabwe. This was not located in one place, so that no monumental buildings similar to Great Zimbabwe or Khami were built. Instead, the ruler regularly moved his capital or moved himself between a number of different capitals. This may have been dictated by the need to obtain food supplies for a large dependent population numbering many thousands, for although tribute in grain was levied on the population, this was probably not sufficient to maintain the population of the capital, and much of the food was grown locally by the Monomotapa’s own immediate followers. The Karanga rulers were, in general, not able satisfactorily to meet the demands of a large urbanized population. As Peter Garlake wrote, when describing the decline of Great Zimbabwe, “there was little incentive for it to develop new crafts or industries or to change its basic economy or trading pattern . . . it was not open to change and unable to envisage or adopt new economic strategies.”38 The same could be said of all the successor states.

Karanga rulers tried to control the mining of gold, taxing production and authorizing the opening of new mines, and they sought to regulate the fairs. The evidence suggests that in all of these they were increasingly unsuccessful.39

The greatest weakness, that undermined and ultimately destroyed the Karanga states, was the problem of succession. Rules of succession seem to have varied between the succession of sons or of brothers (adelphic succession). Neither system worked well. Successions were almost invariably contested by individuals who considered they had legitimate claims or by those belonging to rival “houses,” the descendants of past rulers. In practice the wives of dead rulers often had a decisive role in deciding the succession. These succession disputes presented outsiders with the opportunity to intervene on the side of one claimant or another, weakening the state’s authority still further.40

Butua, Changamira, and the Rosvi41

The southwest region of modern Zimbabwe (roughly the area known as Matabeleland) was rich in gold and cattle. In the late 15th century the region came under the rule of the Torwa dynasty. This state was known as Butua and has usually been considered one of the principal successor states to Great Zimbabwe. Butua remained distinct from Mokaranga, though it shared with it a common heritage of Karanga beliefs and customs. The traditional boundary between Butua and Mokaranga was on the Sanyati river. Butua was famous for its cattle, and João dos Santos, writing in 1609, thought that it had contact with traders from Angola.42 The center of the Butua kingdom was probably at Khami or Danangombe (Dhlo Dhlo), where impressive Zimbabwe-style stone buildings were constructed. During the 17th century there was one occasion when the Portuguese invaded Butua and installed their nominee on the throne, and they subsequently maintained an irregular presence in the country and established a fair at Maramuca, a small pocket of Tonga people sandwiched between Mokaranga and Butua.43 However, Butua was too remote for Portuguese influence to last for long.44

The 1680s witnessed the beginnings of major change in the relations between the states south of the Zambesi, a change that began with the rise of Changamira Dombo. He is represented as having been a herdsman of Monomotapa, which may indicate that he was the keeper of one of the royal herds. He was able to attract a following of fighters because of his reputation as a sorcerer, and his military success attracted yet more supporters. His power enabled him to overthrow the Torwa dynasty and to seize control of Butua. He also occupied Maungue, a smaller Karanga polity situated due west of Manica, and planned an invasion of Manica itself.45 The Portuguese had already identified Changamira Dombo as “the deadly enemy of the Portuguese nation” and had tried to combine with the forces of the Monomotapa to defeat him.46 Before any joint campaign could be mounted, however, Changamira met and defeated a Portuguese army in a battle in 1684.

On the death of Monomotapa Mukombwe in 1692, Changamira supported the claims of Nhacunimbire against the rival claims of the Portuguese candidate, Dom Pedro, and in 1693, with the encouragement of Nhacunimbire, Changamira’s army destroyed the Portuguese fairs in Mokaranga and drove the Portuguese themselves from the plateau. However, after this he ceased to give unqualified support to Nhacunimbire and instead concentrated his forces against Manica, which he conquered in 1695.47

The dynasty founded by Changamira Dombo ruled Butua until the 1830s, when it was destroyed by invading Ngoni. Sometime during the 18th century the ruling elite of Butua adopted the name Rosvi (Borobzes according to the Portuguese), but the rulers themselves continued to use the title of Changamira. The Rosvi continued the tradition of stone wall building, and many of their elite stone buildings can be found in the southwest of modern Zimbabwe.48 Throughout the 18th century the Rosvi not only ruled in Butua but maintained a paramountcy over Manica and Maungue. They refused to allow individual Portuguese to enter their land but permitted trade to be carried on through the fairs of Manica and Zumbo and agreed that the African commercial agents of the Portuguese, called mussambazes, might come to trade in Butua. The Rosvi allowed the Portuguese to maintain permanent settlements at these two fairs, but it was always clear that they were dependent on the goodwill of the Changamiras. In 1780, for example, a Rosvi army was dispatched to restore the fair at Zumbo after it had been sacked and looted the previous year by the Monomotapa. However, Mudenge, the historian of the Rosvi, is emphatic that the economy of the Rosvi kingdom was based primarily on cattle ownership and not on the trade in gold.

The Rosvi state seems to have been much stronger and more resilient to threats—whether in the form of drought and environmental pressure or interference from the Portuguese—than the other Karanga polities. While the Monomotapa kingdom never recovered from the wars of the late 17th century and lost control of its lands on the plateau, its affairs becoming increasingly chaotic, the Rosvi state survived intact and, in spite of some succession wars, was able to exert continuous authority over its borderlands—Manica and the Portuguese town at Zumbo—and even, on occasion, intervened in the much diminished Monomotapa kingdom.

The Drought Years and the Disintegration of the Karanga States

Drought and famine punctuate the history of southern Zambesia and have profoundly influenced its development, as a few examples will illustrate. The famines of the 1570s and 1580s coincided with, and possibly caused, the Maravi invasions. A hundred years later famine and disease weakened the settlements of the Portuguese on the Zimbabwe plateau prior to their expulsion in the 1690s, and the environmental crises of the 1760s severely affected the Monomotapa state and the gold trade of Zumbo. The serious cycle of dry weather, known as the mahlatule, which affected southeastern Africa from Zululand to Lake Malawi, started around 1794 and lasted till 1802. A further dry phase began in 1817, reaching serious proportions in Mozambique in 1823, where it continued with relentless severity till 1831, but did not finally come to an end until 1836. Portuguese reports describe the devastating consequences—for the African states in the region and for the population—of drought and famine, exacerbated by the outbreak of smallpox and by the arrival in 1828 of swarms of locusts.49

Drought was a common circumstance for the peoples of southeastern Africa, but such a prolonged dry period threatened to destroy completely the economic base of traditional society, not just on the Zambesi prazos of the Portuguese but in all the neighboring communities. Trade, gold mining, and normal artisan production ceased, and the gold fairs at Manica and Zumbo closed and were abandoned. The waters of the Zambesi fell to such a low level that many of the streams of the delta had no water and became overgrown with bush. The social and economic structure of society was destroyed as agricultural production and trade ceased and the destitute inhabitants abandoned their villages. More serious even than the lack of water was the appearance of wandering groups of armed men—bandits as the Portuguese called them.

The effect of drought and famine on the polities of the region, extending over such a long period, was little short of catastrophic. One after another the old Karanga states broke down into civil conflict that destroyed their cohesion and led to some of them disappearing altogether. Civil war is recorded among the Rosvi, in Manica, Barue, and Mokaranga.50 Teve and the southern states of Madanda and Quissanga disintegrated entirely.

Ngoni

Just as the great drought was reaching its climax in the 1820s, the region south of the Zambesi was invaded by Ngoni war bands originating in the Natal region of modern South Africa. Movements of people from the southern interior into the Mozambique lowlands were not a new phenomenon. In the 18th century groups of Tsonga speakers had expanded northwards into the dry low veldt region north of the Limpopo, pushing the previous Tonga inhabitants toward the coast and supplanting some of the southernmost Karanga polities.51 Then, as a result of the dry period that began at the end of the century, there were fresh movements of peoples from the densely populated area of modern Natal. The spread of drought conditions placed great strain on the mixed agricultural economy of the Ngoni and led to increasing conflict between clans and the raiding for cattle to exchange with European traders in Delagoa Bay. Out of these conflicts emerged powerful, militarized groups that organized themselves for war in age-set regiments and exerted a centralized control over the cattle and human resources of the community.52

In 1819, with drought placing ever-greater pressure on resources, a decisive conflict took place between the Zulu and the Ndwandwe, which led to defeated Ndwandwe regiments leaving the Natal region and invading the southern areas of Mozambique. With their tight military organization, these Ngoni war bands found the Tsonga and Karanga polities easy prey. As they advanced into country already in the grip of drought, they recruited captives into their regiments, seized the cattle of the people they encountered, and turned their attention to the coastal towns where plunder was to be had. The most important of these Ngoni groups was that led by Nxaba. Nxaba invaded the Mozambique lowlands, destroying the former Karanga polities of Madanda and Quissanga in 1827, plundering the hinterland of Sofala, and from 1830 establishing a tributary state, with its center in Gorongosa, which included Barue, Manica, and the Sena prazos.53

Other Ngoni groups led by Zwangendaba and Maseko invaded the Zimbabwe plateau and in 1830 destroyed the already weakened Rosvi state ruled by the Changamira. Further clashes led to the Ngoni of Zwangendaba and Maseko heading north across the Zambesi in 1836, where, after a few years, they proceeded further north to the shores of Lake Tanganyika. From there different Ngoni groups moved into modern Tanzania, while others returned to establish states on the western side of Lake Malawi. By the middle of the 19th century, there were Ngoni states established in the highlands of the country north of Tete, while the Ngoni in Tanzania had begun raiding across the Rovuma into northern Mozambique.

Southern Zambezia States and Indian Ocean Trade, 1450–1900Click to view larger

Figure 2. The Ngoni migrations.

Meanwhile, two other powerful Ngoni groups had advanced from the south. One of these was the Ndebele under Mzilikazi, who entered the southern regions of modern Zimbabwe in 1840 and gradually consolidated a Ngoni state in the region that had once been dominated by the Rosvi. At the same time Soshangane (also known as Manicusse) had led a group north of the Limpopo, where in 1837 he defeated Nxaba and gradually extended his rule over the whole of the country between the Limpopo and the Zambesi. At first Soshangane established a capital near the Limpopo, leaving his son, Umzila, to levy tribute on the societies in the north. Although in the south he was threatened by Zulus and Swazi—a Zulu force had raided Delagoa Bay in 1833—Soshangane gradually consolidated what was to become the largest and longest-lived of all the Ngoni kingdoms. At its greatest extent in the 1850s and 1860s the Gaza kingdom covered the whole of modern Mozambique south of the Zambesi together with large parts of eastern Zimbabwe and the northern Transvaal.

Soshangane’s state was based around a Ngoni core with a large subject population that paid tribute and from which he took slaves. Many from this subject population of Tsonga speakers adopted aspects of Ngoni culture even though they were not fully assimilated. On the fringes of the kingdom, and particularly in the north, the peoples were simply made to pay tribute while retaining their own basic social formations. The Afro-Portuguese of the Sena prazos, gradually recovering some of their prosperity after the years of drought, were among those who paid tribute to Soshangane and after 1858 to his successor Umzila, but they remained at the same time part of the Portuguese colony and subject to the Portuguese Crown. Many of the Shona speakers (later called Ndau), the Chopi and the Tonga who lived around the Portuguese port of Inhambane, were never fully incorporated into the Gaza kingdom or subjected to Ngoni cultural influence and maintained a precarious independence, while the small kingdoms immediately inland of Delagoa Bay never accepted Gaza overrule at all.54

The Gaza kingdom was not as centralized as the Zulu or Swazi kingdoms and over much of its area depended on Gaza soldiers being able periodically to exact tribute. As Patrick Harries put it: “from an Amatonga perspective, there was frequently little distinction between tax-gathering and pillage.”55 The Ngoni of the Gaza kingdom were not the first ruling elite to establish its overrule in the region south of the Zambesi. The Karanga dynasties had done this before them. Never before, however, had so much of the country between the Zambesi and the Limpopo been dominated by a single ruler.

The first crisis for the Gaza kingdom occurred on the death of Soshangane in 1858. The succession, ever the weakest moment for any African state, was contested between two of his sons—Mawewe, who had strong backing from the Swazi, and Umzila, who received support from the Portuguese. The struggle for power continued for seven years, although Umzila began to gain the upper hand as early as 1862. Much of the south was devastated by the armies of each side, and in the end the victorious Umzila moved his capital to Mossurize in the Chimanimani region, where the local population, the Ndau, were related to the Shona of the plateau.56

In 1884, the year of the Berlin Congress, Umzila died and was succeeded by Gungunhana. The Gaza kingdom had by this time begun to lose control of the outlying parts of the kingdom. Zambesia was now more firmly under Portuguese control and, as if to demonstrate this, in 1884 a new administrative province of Manica was created. Gungunhana also began to lose control of the southern and coastal areas while European prospectors, missionaries, and adventurers were becoming ever more active.57

In an effort to preserve the independence of his kingdom, Gungunhana accepted the formal protection of Portugal, and in 1888, in a sudden move to enforce his authority in the south, he moved his whole capital to Bilene on the Limpopo. By this time the social discipline of Gaza society was being undermined by the departure of tens of thousands of young men as migrant workers to the South African mines, while the kingdom was being flooded with alcohol and other cheap imports. After three years during which the Gaza kingdom co-operated with the newly formed Mozambique Company, the end was brought about by a declaration of war by the Portuguese High Commissioner António Enes and a decisive rout of the Gaza forces at the battle of Marracuene in 1895. Gungunhana was captured and sent into exile.58

Indian Ocean Trade and the Formation of the Prazos

Trade between the peoples of east-central Africa and the Indian Ocean world extends back at least to the early Iron Age. The excavations at the large site at Chibuene shows it to have been an important trading port from the 8th century ce.59 Indian Ocean traders sought ivory, exotic skins, turtle shell, but above all gold.60 Goods imported included beads, metal objects, porcelain, and textiles. The trade reached a peak of prosperity in the 14th century, when commercial wealth led to the building of Great Zimbabwe and the palaces of Kilwa.

Indian Ocean trade was subject to the monsoons that blew toward Africa between October and March but never further south than the modern port of Inhambane. As it was difficult to make a return voyage from India or the Gulf within a single season, Indian Ocean merchants collaborated with local African populations to build towns along the coast that could serve as bases for traders traveling to and from the interior and which merchants could use as ports of departure for local trading voyages. These coastal towns were often rivals and continually founded new settlements and developed new routes to access inland markets. Gold was traded at inland fairs near the mining regions to which coastal traders had to travel and where some settled to form merchant communities. Ivory, on the other hand, was often brought to the coast by caravans of professional hunters and traders.61

Early in the 16th century the Portuguese made an unsuccessful attempt to take over the whole of the gold trade. They built forts at Sofala and Kilwa but found that the gold trade at these ports was in steep decline. The reasons for this appear to have been the long-term decline of Great Zimbabwe and the gold trade from the southern parts of the plateau, the chaotic situation inland from Sofala, which resulted from the Karanga conquest of what was to become the kingdom of Teve, and the opening of new trade routes making use of the Zambesi route to Quelimane and Angoche.

The Portuguese rapidly abandoned Kilwa and, although they remained in Sofala, they began to copy the other Indian Ocean traders and go inland to the gold fairs, where some of them established themselves on a permanent basis. They chose a leader who was recognized by the Monomotapa and given the honorific title of his “wife.”62 In 1572 the Portuguese sent a large military expedition to try to conquer the mines. This has usually been represented as a total failure and, by 1575 when it was finally withdrawn, hundreds of lives had been lost and no mines had been conquered. The expedition had been able to do little more than make formal diplomatic contact with the Monomotapa. However, the military presence of the Portuguese in the Zambesi trading towns of Sena and Tete over a period of six years had far-reaching consequences for the region.63

Southern Zambezia States and Indian Ocean Trade, 1450–1900Click to view larger

Figure 3. Map of trading ports on the East African Coast before the 19th century.

When the Portuguese arrived, Karanga rule over the Tonga of the valley and the coastal lowlands was, at best, recent and precarious. Father Monclaro, writing about the 1570s, thought that “the river is all divided among fumos [minor chiefs] and there is no great senhor to whom they pay tribute, but they live as in a republic.”64 The Portuguese found it easy to establish their control over the Tonga population while the Monomotapa, as a diplomatic gesture, surrendered to the Portuguese some of the small Tonga polities he controlled near Tete. Out of this situation the institution of the prazos da coroa was born—an institution that persisted in one form or another till 1930.65

Prazos had already been created in Portuguese India and Sri Lanka. Grants of land and the population living on it were made to individual Portuguese who paid a rent and owed military service to the Crown. In return, the senhor of the prazo could tax the population and administer the land on the Crown’s behalf. The institution spread in Zambesia as the Portuguese fought a series of wars, first against Maravi invaders and Tonga who were still independent and then through participation in the civil wars in Teve and Mokaranga.66 By the 1640s Teve had surrendered to the Portuguese a large section of the northern part of the kingdom, which became the prazos of Gorongosa and Cheringoma, and by the 1660s prazos had been established in large parts of Mokaranga as well. The Jesuit, Manuel Barreto, described their senhores as being like the petty princes of Germany and on the plateau they operated from fortified settlements.67 The larger prazos had now become Zambesian polities as large as, and in many ways similar to, the states around them ruled by the Karanga. Although the intention was that the prazos would be European-style feudal holdings, resembling the captaincies used by the Portuguese in the settlement of the Atlantic islands, they became in effect African polities following the customs and expectations of the African populations but subject to many of the same weaknesses when a succession occurred or raiders threatened their security during periods of drought.

The rule of the creole senhores of Zambesia was effective as long as they could keep the acquiescence of the fumos, the leaders of the “little society,” and the spirit mediums. They levied tribute in kind and through labor services and, by the 18th century, were performing many of the functions of an African ruler. The large prazos maintained private armies made up of chicunda soldiers who formed a separate class from the Tonga peasantry and whose loyalty depended on the rewards their overlord could offer them.

Discussion of the Literature

Events in southeastern Africa have been the concern of historians since the 16th century. The chroniclers of Portuguese expansion, particularly João de Barros, Diogo do Couto, and António Bocarro, all discussed them in detail.68 Although their narratives tended to focus on the activities of the Portuguese, they also described Portuguese relations with the southern Karanga states and the Swahili towns on the coast. Some wrote extensively about the African societies—Barros included in his history the earliest description of Great Zimbabwe, and Bocarro described the way Mokaranga was organized and governed. However, none of these writers were eyewitnesses, and their understanding was colored by the limited understanding that Europeans of that period had of Africa. Portuguese writers were also the first to record the oral histories of the peoples of southern Zambesia and some tried to describe how these traditions were recorded and passed down.69

The first major controversies over the history of the region resulted from Carl Mauch’s description of Great Zimbabwe, which he visited in 1873. At first most commentators thought the ruins had been built by outsiders, the Queen of Sheba being a favorite candidate.70 This view was held by R. N. Hall, who made the earliest attempt to study the ruins.71 However, after the careful excavations of Gertrude Caton-Thompson, published in 1931, there has never been any serious doubt that the builders of Great Zimbabwe were Africans and the predecessors of the modern population of the region.72 By 1975, when Peter Garlake published his lavishly produced Great Zimbabwe, the chronology of the site had been largely fixed.73 However, this did not end the scholarly debate, which has continued vigorously to the present. A large number of scholars, many of them Zimbabweans, have debated the nature and purpose of the Great Zimbabwe ruins, the reasons for the decline of the settlement, and its relation to other Shona ruin sites and to the subsequent history of Shona polities. Among the large number of contributors to these debates two stand out: Thomas Huffman, who began publishing the results of his research in the 1970s, and David Beach. These two scholars came to be seen as the protagonists of two competing interpretations, Huffman insisting that the buildings had to be seen in the context of Shona religion and the spiritual functions of kingship, Beach preferring a more secular and political interpretation.74

The history of the Shona polities in the southern Zambesian region became a focus for debate during the period when Zimbabwean nationalism was struggling to build itself as a movement during the 1950s and 1960s, culminating in the armed struggle against white rule in the 1970s.75 The historical debates were often highly charged politically, with particular emphasis being placed on the opposition that the Shona polities had mounted first against the Portuguese and then against the Rhodesians.76 Meanwhile the German and French scholars, Paul Schebesta and W. G. L.Randles, had studied the Mokaranga state trying to understand it in the context of 17th-century African politics.77 After Mozambique’s independance the Monomotapa state was revisited by the generation of Marxist scholars who wanted to see Portuguese-Shona relations through the lens of World Systems theory.78

From the 1950s on considerable research was devoted to the traditional histories of the Shona dynasties. Inspired by Jan Vansina’s Oral Tradition, scholars held that the detailed history of the Shona, as far back as the 15th century, had been remembered and could be reconstructed through interviews with the spirit mediums who were the repositories of historical memory.79 Of particular importance were the traditional histories recorded by D. P. Abraham and G. Kingsley Garbett.80 Abraham in particular tried to reconstruct the story of the Monomotapa kingdom, and his narrative became widely accepted by many historians.81 David Beach, while making full use of recorded traditions, nevertheless pointed out that in Shona society there were no “official traditional historians” and that history was remembered by various authorities in a haphazard manner.82 The work of these scholars was not, of course, confined to the painstaking reconstruction of Shona history but was part of a wide-ranging methodological battle, which went far beyond Central Africa, in which protagonists asserted the validity of, even the preference for, oral sources, over the written record. This debate is far from over today.

By the 1980s two major scholars, David Beach and S. I. Mudenge, had produced histories of the Monomotapa state which tried to combine the archival record with the oral traditions. Both books expressed reservations about the existence of an “empire” of Monomotapa and tried to give a realistic interpretation of the size and secular nature of the state in the wider context of the large number of Karanga dynasties that flourished at different times on the plateau. David Beach started his book The Shona and Zimbabwe with the striking sentence: “One of the salient features of Shona history is the fact that the Shona people have never been united under one rule at any point in their history.”83 Mudenge insisted that the rules of succession of the Monomotapas were adelphic—brother to brother—though this was never closely adhered to and did not prevent seriously contested successions.

Among the other Karanga states, Manica was the subject of a monograph by H. H. K. Bhila; Barue was studied by Allen Isaacman who used oral traditions to supplement his archival work, and Teve has been the focus of a number of studies making use of João dos Santos’s detailed account of 1609 and the equally detailed accounts of João Julião da Silva who wrote in the early 19th century.84 The Rosvi were extensively researched by S. I. Mudenge, who later became Foreign Minister of Zimbabwe. All these authors have drawn attention to the complexity of relations between the African states and the Portuguese and the strategies they used to maintain their independence. Mudenge’s exhaustive research in the archives enabled him to elaborate on the picture of the Rosvi state, which proved far more successful than that of the Monomotapa in withstanding Portuguese pressure. He was able to show the strengths of the Rosvi but also how these were ultimately undermined, not so much by the Portuguese, who were kept firmly at bay, but by succession disputes and environmental problems.85

Contacts with the Indian Ocean are clear in the archaeological record from at least 800 ce. It was long assumed that Sofala was the sole point of access to the interior of southern Zambesia, and the contacts of the Portuguese resident there with Teve were explored in detail in João dos Santos’s Etiopia Oriental published in 1609. The Portuguese records also refer to coastal trading settlements at Chiluane and in the Bazaruto Islands.86 Although much of old Sofala has disappeared through coastal erosion, archaeology has revealed other sites on the coast from which trade with the inland states was carried on—Mambone at the mouth of the Sabi and, most important, the site of what was a major port at Chibuene in Vilanculos Bay.87 Both these were closer to Great Zimbabwe than Sofala and extend the reach of the Indian Ocean commercial networks much further south and much further back in time than was previously thought. Then in 2012 what can best be described as an encyclopedia of Sofala and its hinterland was published in Portugal with 948 pages of information covering archaeology, history, geography, archival sources, and bibliography. This massive work made Sofala the best documented region of southern Zambesia.88

The founding of the Muslim trading settlements at Angoche and Quelimane north of the Zambesi delta, the existence of a wealthy trading community at Ingombe Iledi on the middle Zambesi, and the founding of Islamic trading towns at Sena and Tete on the Zambesi, from which access to the fairs on the plateau was comparatively easy, are, taken together, evidence of the opening of new trade routes late in the 15th century. It has been suggested that this was the most likely explanation for the rise of the state of Mokaranga and its location in the northern part of the plateau, 500 miles from Great Zimbabwe. During the 1960s and 1970s long-distance trade systems were intensively studied to show both the complexity of the commercial networks that were developed in the African interior and the long-term effect these had on production and consumption patterns of African societies.89 The earliest descriptions of gold mining go back to the 16th century, but recent archaeological research has added detail to the role played by mining in African society and to the way it was organized and gold was traded. It has also served to highlight the failure, over time, of the miners to develop any technical improvements for the extraction of gold.90

During the colonial period important information about the history of south-east Africa was published, but there was a tendency for historians to focus on the activities of the Portuguese within an imperial context.91 An early history by Teixeira Botelho was followed by Lobato and Axelson and reached its apogee with Almeida d’Eça’s history of the Zambesi Wars and the volumes of the Documents on the Portuguese in Mozambique and Central Africa,—an enterprise that was strongly criticised by Beach and which came to a halt with the publication of the ninth volume in 1975.92 In 1962 Lobato published a slim volume which shifted the focus of study from the formal history of the Portuguese empire to the evolution of creole society—and in particular to the iconic institution of the prazos da coroa.93 In 1972 Isaacman published his study of the prazos in which he showed how an institution rooted in Portuguese law gradually became Africanised and adopted the institutional forms of African society.94 He followed with The Tradition of Resistance in Mozambique and a series of important articles pursuing related themes, among them a seminal essay on the Chicunda.95 Isaacman was not the first person to link the origin of the Chicunda to the prazos, but he described in detail how this ethnic group was formed and in 2004 published a major study, based in part on research into oral history, which among other things linked the phenomenon of the Chicunda to the wider history of slavery in the Americas and the Indian Ocean.96 The archival research into Zambesian society has been taken up by Eugenia Rodrigues, whose series of articles between 1988 and 2006 have explored the beginning of the prazos, the port of Quelimane, municipal government, and relations with neighboring independent African polities.97

It is now important that the study of the creole societies of eastern Africa should be linked conceptually and thematically to the creole societies in Angola and West Africa as part of a project to link Atlantic with Indian Ocean history.

The study of the dispersal of the Ngoni in the early 19th century was for a long time largely limited to the history of the Zulus and Ndebele. The Ngoni migrations into southern Zambesia were seriously investigated for the first time by Liesegang, who placed them in the wider context of the Ngoni migrations into Zambia, Malawi, and Tanzania.98 That the Gaza kingdom subsequently played a major role in the events surrounding the scramble for Africa was described by Wheeler, while Harries reviewed the Gaza state with the idea of explaining the origins of the migrant labor to South Africa and placed more emphasis on the violence and chaotic conditions of Gaza overrule, particularly during the successions wars after 1858.99 Further studies of Gaza have shown its major involvement in the final stages of the slave trade, in contrast to the earlier assumptions that the Ngoni were not major participants in this trade.

The importance of the Mozambique slave trade in the 19th century was first emphasized by Vail and White and was quantified by Liesegang and made a major factor in the destruction of the old prazos and Karanga states by Isaacman.100 In looking at the slave trade there has been a shift in emphasis from the idea that Africa and Africans were the victims of capitalist exploitation to one where African agency was at every stage of history among the major determinants of change.

Primary Sources

The African states and polities that lay south of the Zambesi are now incorporated into the modern states of Zimbabwe and Mozambique. Until the partition of Africa in the 1890s, their main contacts with the world outside Africa were through the Portuguese—contact that extends back to the late 15th century. There is a great deal of Portuguese writing about the Africans they encountered, not all of which has been fully explored. The main archive where documentation can be found is the Arquivo Histórico Ultramarino (AHU) in Lisbon, but there is also important documentation in the Historical Archives in Goa, in Lisbon in the Ajuda library, the Torre de Tombo, and the Lisbon Geographical Society.

Some of the most important Portuguese sources have been published in two collections, Theal’s Records of South Eastern Africa and Documents on the Portuguese in Mozambique and Central Africa. These have made major collections of primary sources available in Portuguese with English translation. The História Tragico-Maritima, a collection of shipwreck narratives, is another major primary source. Some of the narratives have been translated and can be found scattered in different publications. A large collection of Portuguese sources concerned with the African societies, not included in the above-mentioned publications, was made by David Beach and translated by H. de Noronha under the title “The Shona and the Portuguese.” The original Portuguese texts were not reproduced, and the translations were never published. A copy is available in the Library of the University of Zimbabwe.

A major article listing and evaluating the primary sources for southern Zambesia up to 1890 is D. N. Beach, “Documents and African Society of the Zimbabwean Plateau before 1890.”101 A comprehensive bibliography, including a listing of every archival document relating to Sofala, is contained in Ana Cristina Roque, Terras de Sofala: Persistências e Mudança.102

Major Archives for Pre–20th-Century Central Africa

Ajuda (Lisbon)

Arquivo Histórico de Moçambique (Maputo)

Arquivo Histórico Ultramarino (Lisbon)

Historical Archives of Goa

Sociedade de Geografia de Lisboa (Lisbon)

Torre de Tombo (Lisbon)

Calendars and Printed Archival Documents

Beach, D. N., and H. de Noronha, eds. The Shona and the Portuguese 1575–1890. Vol. 1. 1575–1700. Vol. 2. 1700–1890. Harare: University of Zimbabwe. Find this resource:

da Silva Rego, A., T. W. Baxter, and E. E. Burke, eds. Documents on the Portuguese in Mozambique and Central Africa, 9 vols. Lisbon: Centro de Estudos Historicos Ultramarinos and National Archives of Rhodesia [and Nyasaland], 1962–1975.Find this resource:

Santana F., ed. Documentação Avulsa Moçambicana de Arquivo Histórico Ultramarino, 2 vols. Lisbon: Centro de Estudos Historicos Ultramarinos, 1964–1967.Find this resource:

Theal, G. M., Records of South Eastern Africa, 9 vols. Cape Town: Government of Cape Colony, 1898–1903. [Reprinted Struik, Cape Town, 1964]Find this resource:

História Tragico-Maritima

Boxer, C. R., ed. The Tragic History of the Sea. Cambridge, UK: Hakluyt Society, 1959.Find this resource:

Boxer, C. R., ed. Further Selections from The Tragic History of the Sea. Cambridge, UK: Hakluyt Society, 1968.Find this resource:

Gomes de Brito, Bernardo. História Tragico-Maritima. Lisbon: Occidental, 1735–1737.Find this resource:

Ley, C., ed. Portuguese Voyages. London: Dent, 1947.Find this resource:

Sergio António, ed. História Tragico-Maritima. Lisbon: Editora Sul, 1956.Find this resource:

Seventeenth Century

Bragança Pereira, A. B., ed. Arquivo Português Oriental, 11 vols. Bastora: Nova Edição, 1936–1940.Find this resource:

da Conceição, António. “Tratado dos Rios de Cuama.” In O Chronista de Tissuary. Edited by J. H. Cunha Rivara. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009.Find this resource:

Documentos remettidos da India ou Livros das Monções. publicados de ordem da Classe de Sciencias Moraes, Politicas e Bellas-Lettras da Academia Real das Sciencias de Lisboa; Dir. Raymundo António de Bulhão Pato. Lisbon: Academia Real das Sciências, 1880–1982.Find this resource:

Gomes, António. “Viagem que fez o Padre António Gomes, da Companhia de Jesus ao Imperio de Manomotapa; e assistencia que fez nas ditas terras de alguns annos” [“Journey which Father Antonio Gomes of the Company of Jesus made to the Empire of Manomotapa and his presence for some years in the said lands”] Studia 3 (1959), 155–242.Find this resource:

dos Santos, João. Etiópia Oriental e Vária História de Cousas Notáveis do Oriente. Lisbon: Comissão Nacional para as Comemorações dos Descobrimentos Portugueses, 1999.Find this resource:

Eighteenth Century

de Andrade, A. A. Relações de Moçambique Setecentista. Lisbon: Agência Geral do Utramar, 1955.Find this resource:

Carvalho Dias, Luiz Fernando. Fontes para a História, Geografia e Comércio de Moçambique (sec xviii). Lisbon: Junta da Investigações do Ultramar, 1954.Find this resource:

de Lacerda e Almeida, Francisco José. Travessia de Africa, edited by M. Murias ed. Lisbon: Agência Gerald as Colónias, 1936. An English translation of part of this account, together with other material, was published by Richard Burton as Lacerda’s Journey to Cazembe (London: John Murray, 1873) and reprinted by Negro Universities Press (New York, 1969).Find this resource:

Nogueira de Andrade, Jerónimo José. “Descripção do Estado em que ficavão os Negocios da Capitania de Mossambique nos fins de Novembro de 1789 com algumas Observaçoens, e reflecçoens sobre a causa da decadencia do Commercio dos Estabelecimentos Portugueses na Costa Oriental da Affrica: Escrita no anno de 1790.” Arquivo das Colonias 1917, vol. 1, no 2, 75–96, 116–134, 168–184, 213–235; 1918, vol. 2, no 2, 32–48.Find this resource:

Thoman, Mauriz. Reise und Lebensbeschreibung . . . 1788. Lindau, 1869.Find this resource:

Portuguese 19th-Century Accounts

Albino Manoel Pacheco. Uma Viagem de Tete ao Zumbo, Boletim Official do Governo de Moçambique (1883) Parte Não Official. Critical edition and translation by Malyn Newitt, Journey from Tete to Zumbo. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013.Find this resource:

Augusto da Fonseca de Mesquita e Solla. “Apontamentos sobre o Zumbo,” Boletim da Sociedade de Geographia de Lisboa 25 (1907): 247–257, 274–287, 319–327, 340–356, 382–391, 436–456.Find this resource:

Cunnison, Ian, ed. King Kazembe: And the Marave, Cheva, Bisa, Bemba, Lunda and Other Peoples of Southern Africa, Being the Diary of the Portuguese Expedition to That Potentate in the Years 1831 and 1832, 2 vols. Lisbon: Junta de Investigações do Ultramar, 1960.Find this resource:

Fialho Feliciano, José, and Victor Hugo Nicolau, eds. Memórias de Sofala. Lisbon: Comissão Nacional para as Comemoracões dos Descobrimentos Portugueses, 1998.Find this resource:

Gamitto, A. C. P. O Muata Cazembe e os povos Maraves, Chevas, Muizas, Muembas, Lundas e outros da Africa austral: diario da expediçāo portuguesa comandada pelo Major Monteiro, 2 vols. Lisbon: Agência Geral das Colónias, 1854.Find this resource:

Maria Bordallo, Francisco. Ensaios sobre a Estatística das Possessões Portuguezas no Ultramar: Provincia de Moçambique. Lisbon: Imprensa Nacional, 1859.Find this resource:

Mémoire et Documents sur les Droits du Portugal aux Territoires de Machona et Nyassa: 1890. Lisbon: Imprimerie Nationale, 1890.Find this resource:

Livingstone’s Expeditions

Foskett, Reginald, ed. The Zambesi Journal of Dr John Kirk, 2 vols. London: Oliver and Boyd, 1965.Find this resource:

Livingstone, David. Missionary Travels and Researches in South Africa. London: Murray, 1857.Find this resource:

Livingstone, David, and Charles Livingstone, Narrative of an Expedition to the Zambesi and Its Tributaries. London: John Murray, 1865. [Edition used, Duckworth (London, 2001)]Find this resource:

Tabler, E. C., ed. The Zambezi Papers of Richard Thornton, 2 vols. London: Chatto and Windus, 1963.Find this resource:

Wallis, J. P. R., ed. The Zambezi Expedition of David Livingstone 1858–1863, 2 vols. London: Chatto and Windus, 1956.Find this resource:

Periodic Publications in Which Original Documents Have Been Published

Annaes do Concelho Ultramarino

Arquivo das Colónias

Boletim do Governo de Moçambique (parte não oficial)

Boletim da Sociedade de Geografia de Lisboa

Mare Liberum

Monumenta

Oceanos

Studia

Further Reading

Axelson, Eric. Portuguese in South-East Africa 1600–1700. Johannesburg: Witwatersrand University Press, 1960.Find this resource:

Axelson, Eric. Portugal and the Scramble for Africa. Johannesburg: Witwatersrand University Press, 1967.Find this resource:

Axelson, Eric. Portuguese in South-East Africa 1488–1600. Cape Town: Struik, 1973.Find this resource:

Beach, David. The Shona & Zimbabwe 900–1850. London: Heinemann 1980.Find this resource:

Garlake, Peter. Great Zimbabwe. New York: Stein and Day, 1973.Find this resource:

Harries, Patrick. Work, Culture and Identity. Migrant Laborers in Mozambique and South Africa, c.1860–1910. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann, 1994.Find this resource:

Isaacman Allen. Mozambique: the Africanisation of a European Institution. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1972.Find this resource:

Isaacman, Allen. The Tradition of Resistance in Mozambique. London: Heinemann, 1976.Find this resource:

Liesegang, Gerhard. “Nguni Migrations Between Delagoa Bay and the Zambesi, 1821–1839.” African Historical Studies 3 (1970): 317–337.Find this resource:

MacGonagle, Elizabeth. Crafting Identity in Zimbabwe and Mozambique. Rochester, NY: Rochester University Press, 2007.Find this resource:

Mudenge, S. I. A Political History of Munumutapa c1400–1902. Harare: Zimbabwe Publishing House, 1988.Find this resource:

Newitt, Malyn. History of Mozambique. London: Hurst, 1995.Find this resource:

Pélissier, René. Naissance du Mozambique, 2 vols. Orgéval: Pélissier, 1984.Find this resource:

Vail, Leroy, and Landeg White. Capitalism and Colonialism in Mozambique. London: Heinemann, 1980.Find this resource:

Notes:

(1.) David Beach, The Shona & Zimbabwe 900–1850 (London: Heinemann 1980), 1–4.

(2.) Beach, The Shona & Zimbabwe, 4–17.

(3.) These numbers are too large according to Shadreck Chirikure et al., “What Was the Population of Great Zimbabwe (CE 1000–1800)?” PLOS One (June 2017): 1–16.

(4.) Peter Garlake, Great Zimbabwe (New York: Stein and Day, 1973), 133; Thomas N. Huffman, “Debating Great Zimbabwe,” The South African Archaeological Bulletin 66 (2011): 27–40. Thomas N. Huffman, “State Formation in Southern Africa: A Reply to Kim and Kisumba,” African Archaeological Review 27 ((2010): 1–11. The primacy of Mapungubwe has been challenged by Shadreck Chirikure et al. in “Zimbabwe Culture Before Mapungubwe: New Evidence from Mapela Hill, South-Western Zimbabwe,” PLOS One 9 (October 2014): 1–18. This is discussed in Thomas N. Huffman, “Mapela, Mapungubwe and the Origin of States in Southern Africa,” The South African Archaeological Bulletin 70 (2015): 15–27.

(5.) Paul J. J. Sinclair, “Chibuene: An Early Trading Site in Southern Mozambique,” Paideuma 28 (1982): 150–164.

(6.) For a simple summary of the different viewpoints, see Roderick J. McIntosh and D. Coulson, “Riddle of Great Zimbabwe,” Archaeology 51 (1998): 44–49. Edward Matenga, The Soapstone Birds of Great Zimbabwe. Symbols of a Nation (Harare, Zimbabwe: African Publishing Group, 1998).

(7.) Garlake, Great Zimbabwe, 197.

(8.) Garlake, 198.

(9.) Innocent Pikirayi, “Great Zimbabwe in Historical Archaeology. Reconceptualising Decline, Abandonment and Reoccupation of an Ancient Polity, AD 1450–1900,” Historical Archaeology 47 (2013): 26–37.

(10.) Beach, The Shona & Zimbabwe, ch. 2.

(11.) Peter Garlake, “An Investigation of Manekweni, Mozambique,” Azania 11 (1976): 25–47. “Letter of Andre Fernandes, dated 24 June 1560,” in Records of South Eastern Africa, 9 vols., ed. G. M. Theal (Cape Town: Government of Cape Colony, 1898–1903; reprint Struik: Cape Town, 1964), 66.

(12.) In one of his letters the missionary, Gonçalo da Silveira, reports that the Karanga of Tongue near Inhambane ‘have no refreshments such as lemons, figs, vegetables etc. but an abundance of good meat’,” Letter dated 9 Aug 1560,” in Records of South Eastern Africa, vol. 2, 95.

(13.) “Letter from Diogo de Alcaçova to the King, Cochin, 20 November 1506,” in Documents on the Portuguese in Mozambique and Central Africa, vol. 1, eds. A. da Silva Rego, T. W. Baxter, and E. E. Burke (Lisbon: Centro de Estudos Históricos Ultramarinos and National Archives of Rhodesia and Nyasaland, 1962), 388–401.

(14.) The earliest accounts of the Karanga states are Duarte Barbosa, The Book of Duarte Barbosa, 2 vols., ed. M. L. Dames (London: Hakluyt Society, 1918–1921); and João de Barros, Da Asia and Diogo do Couto, Da Asia. Extracts printed in, Records of South Eastern Africa, vol. 6.

(15.) Beach, The Shona & Zimbabwe, xii.

(16.) This paragraph summarises the arguments of Beach, The Shona and Zimbabwe.

(17.) João dos Santos, Etiópia Oriental e Vária História de Cousas Notáveis do Oriente (Lisbon: Comissão Nacional para as Comemorações dos Descobrimentos Portugueses, 1999; originally published by Évora, 1609); João Julião da Silva, “Memória sobre Sofala” in Memórias de Sofala, eds. José Fialho Feliciano and Victor Hugo Nicolau (Lisbon: Comissão Nacional para as Comemoracões dos Descobrimentos Portugueses, 1998), 85–86.

(18.) H. H. K. Bhila, Trade and Politics in a Shona Kingdom (Harlow: Longman, 1982).

(19.) Bhila, Trade and Politics in a Shona Kingdom, chs. 1 and 2.

(20.) Bila, chs. 3–9.

(21.) S. I. Mudenge, A Political History of Munhumutapa c1400–1902 (Harare: Zimbabwe Publishing House, 1988), 51–53.

(22.) The most important descriptions of Teve are those by Santos, Etiópia Oriental, and Silva, “Memória sobre Sofala.”

(23.) Allen Isaacman, “Madzi-Manga, Mhondoro and the Use of Oral Traditions—A Chapter in Barue Religious and Political History,” Journal of African History 14 (1973): 395–409.

(24.) Bhila, Trade and Politics in a Shona Kingdom.

(25.) For the Zambesi Wars, see Filipe Gastão Almeida d’Eça, História das Guerras no Zambeze, 2 vols. (Lisbon: Agência Geral do Ultramar, 1953), and for Barue’s role in 19th-century politics see Allen Isaacman, The Tradition of Resistance in Mozambique (London: Heinemann, 1976).

(26.) David Beach, “The Mutapa Dynasty: A Comparison of Documentary and Traditional Evidence,” History in Africa 3 (1976): 1–17; and Mudenge, A Political History of Munhumutapa c1400–1902.

(27.) Garlake, Great Zimbabwe, 194.

(28.) The most detailed early account of Mokaranga is António Bocarro, “Década 13 da História da Índia,” in Theal, Records of South Eastern Africa, 254–435; see also Beach, The Shona & Zimbabwe and Mudenge, A Political History of Munhumutapa.

(29.) P. S. Garlake, “Seventeenth Century Portuguese Earthworks in Rhodesia,” South African Archaeological Bulletin 21, no. 84, part IV (1967): 157–170; and P. S. Garlake, “Excavations at the Seventeenth-Century Portuguese site of Dambarare, Rhodesia,” Proceedings and Transactions of the Rhodesia Scientific Association 54 (1969): 23–61.

(30.) Eric Axelson, Portuguese in South-East Africa 1600–1700 (Johannesburg: Witwatersrand University Press, 1960).

(31.) S. I. Mudenge, Christian Education at the Mutapa Court (Harare: Zimbabwe Publishing house, 1986).

(32.) Beach, The Shona & Zimbabwe, ch. 4.

(33.) For the rise of Changamira and the loss of control of the plateau, see S. I. Mudenge, “The Rozvi Empire and the Feira of Zumbo,” unpublished PhD thesis (London University, 1971).

(34.) For example, Albino Manoel Pacheco, Journey from Tete to Zumbo, ed. Malyn Newitt (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013), 115; and A. C. P. Gamitto, O Muata Cazembe e os povos Maraves, Chevas, Muizas, Muembas, Lundas e outros da Africa austral: diario da expediçāo portuguesa comandada pelo Major Monteiro, 2 vols. (Lisbon: Agência Geral das Colónias 1854); King Kazembe: and the Marave, Cheva, Bisa, Bemba, Lunda and Other Peoples of Southern Africa, Being the Diary of the Portuguese Expedition to That Potentate in the Years 1831 and 1832, 2 vols., nos. 42 and 43, trans. Ian Cunnison (Lisbon: Junta de Investigações do Ultramar, Estudos de Ciências Politicas e Sociais, 1960), 63–64.

(35.) Pacheco, Journey from Tete to Zumbo, 53.

(36.) Huffman, “State Formation in Southern Africa, 4; and Huffman, “Debating Great Zimbabwe,” 29.

(37.) Bocarro, “Década 13 da História da Índia.”

(38.) Garlake, Great Zimbabwe, 197–198.

(39.) The earliest detailed descriptions of gold mining are in Barros, Da Asia, and Couto, Da Asia. See also Duncan Miller, Nirdev Desai, and Julia Lee-Thorp, “Indigenous Gold Mining in Southern Africa: A Review,” Southern African Archaeological society. Goodwin Series 8 (2000): 91–99.

(40.) Mudenge, A Political History of Munhumutapa, 81–84.

(41.) Mudenge, “The Rozvi Empire and the Feira of Zumbo”; and S. I. Mudenge, “The Role of Foreign Trade in the Rozvi Empire: A Reappraisal,” Journal of African History 15 (1974): 373–391.

(42.) Santos, Etiópia Oriental.

(43.) C. R. Boxer, “Sisnando Dias Bayão; conquistador da ‘Mãe de Ouro’” (Lisbon: I Congresso da História da Expansão Portuguesa no Mundo, 4 secção, 1938).

(44.) D. P. Abraham, “Maramuca.” An exercise in the combined use of Portuguese records and oral tradition,” Journal of African History 2 (1961): 213–225.

(45.) Bhila, Trade and Politics in a Shona Kingdom, ch. 3.

(46.) António da Conceição, Treatise on the Rivers of Cuama (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), xxxii.

(47.) Mudenge, “The Rozvi Empire and the Feira of Zumbo.”

(48.) Mudenge.

(49.) Malyn Newitt, “Drought in Mozambique, 1823–1831,” Journal of African History 15 (1988): 15–35.

(50.) Bhila, Trade and Politics in a Shona Kingdom, ch. 5.

(51.) A. Smith, “The Struggle for the Control of Southern Mozambique, 1720–1835” (PhD diss., University of California, Los Angeles 1970).

(52.) Gerhard Liesegang, “Nguni Migrations Between Delagoa Bay and the Zambesi, 1821–1839,” African Historical Sudies 3 (1970): 317–337; and João Julião da Silva, “Memória sobre Sofala” in Feliciano and Nicolau, Memórias de Sofala.

(53.) da Silva.

(54.) da Silva; Gerhard Liesegang, “Notes on the Internal Structure of the Gaza Kingdom of Southern Mozambique, 1840–1895,” in Before and After Shaka, ed. J. B. Peires (Grahamstown, South Africa: Institute of Social and Economic Research, 1983); Elizabeth MacGonagle, Crafting Identity in Zimbabwe and Mozambique (Rochester NY: Rochester University Press, 2007); and review by Eric Allina-Pisano, Journal of African History 49 (2008): 323–335.

(55.) Harries, Work, Culture and Identity, 4.

(56.) Liesegang, “Nguni Migrations Between Delagoa Bay and the Zambesi”; and Harries, Work, Culture and Identity.

(57.) Eric Axelson, Portugal and the Scramble for Africa (Johannesburg: Witwatersrand University Press, 1967), ch. 7; and René Pélissier, Naissance du Mozambique, 2 vols. (Orgéval, 1984), vol. 2, ch. 7.

(58.) Douglas Wheeler, “Gungunyane the Negotiator: A Study in African Diplomacy,” Journal of African History 9 (1968): 583–602.

(59.) Sinclair “Chibuene: An Early Trading Site in Southern Mozambique”; and Marilee Wood, Laure Dussubieux, and Peter Robertshaw, “The Glass of Chibuene: New Insights into Early Indian Ocean Trade,” The South African Archaeological Bulletin 67 (2012): 59.

(60.) Francisco Monclaro SJ, “Account of the Journey Made by the Fathers of the Company of Jesus with Francisco Barreto in the Conquest of Monomotapa in the Year 1569,” in Theal, Records of South Eastern Africa, 3: 217.

(61.) Axelson, Portuguese in South-East Africa 1600–1700; and Alexandre Lobato, A Expansão Portuguesa em Moçambique de 1498 a 1530, 3 vols. (Lisbon: Centro de Estudos Históricos Ultramarinos, 1954).

(62.) Monclaro, “Account of the Journey Made by the Fathers of the Company of Jesus . . .,” 252.

(63.) João C. Reis, A Empresa da Conquista do Senhorio do Monomotapa (Lisbon: Heuris, 1984).

(64.) Monclaro, “Account of the Journey Made by the Fathers of the Company of Jesus . . .,” 220.

(65.) For the history of the prazos, see Alexandre Lobato, Colonização Senhorial da Zambézia (Lisbon: Junta de Invetigações do Ultramar, 1962); Allen Isaacman, Mozambique: the Africanisation of a European Institution, (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1972); and Eugénia Rodrigues, “Mercadores, Conquistadores e Foreiros: a Construção dos Prazos nos Rios de Cuama na Primeira Metade do Século XVII,” Vasco da Gama. Homem, Viagens e Culturas, Actas do Congresso Internacional (Lisbon: Comissão Nacional para as Comemorações dos Descobrimentos Portugueses, 2001), 1, 445–479.

(66.) Axelson, Portuguese in South-East Africa 1600–1700.

(67.) Manoel Barretto, “Informação do Estado e Conquista dos Rios de Cuama, vulgar e verdeiramente chamados Rios do Ouro,” in Theal, Records of South Eastern Africa 3: 436–508; Garlake, “Seventeenth Century Portuguese Earthworks in Rhodesia”; Garlake, “Excavations at the Seventeenth-Century Portuguese site of Dambarare, Rhodesia”; and Innocent Pikirayi, “Palaces, Feiras and Prazos: an Historical, Archaeological Perspective on African-Portuguese Contact in Northern Zimbabwe,” African Archaeological Review 26 (2009): 163–185.

(68.) Barros, Da Asia, and Diogo do Couto, Da Asia; and Bocarro, “Década 13 da História da Índia.”

(69.) Pacheco, Journey from Tete to Zumbo.

(70.) This idea first received a detailed formulation in Barros, Da Asia, which was published in 1552.

(71.) R. N. Hall, Great Zimbabwe (London: Methuen, 1905).

(72.) Gertrude Caton-Thomson, The Zimbabwe Culture (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1931).

(73.) Garlake, Great Zimbabwe.

(74.) Huffman, “Debating Great Zimbabwe”; Huffman, “State Formation in Southern Africa: A Reply to Kim and Kisumba.” See also Edward Matenga, The Soapstone Birds of Great Zimbabwe. Symbols of a Nation (Harare, Zimbabwe: African Publishing Group, 1998) and review by Paul Sinclair, The South African Archaeological Bulletin 56 (2001): 105–106.

(75.) David Lan, Guns & Rain. Guerrillas & Spirit Mediums in Zimbabwe (London: James Currey, 1985).

(76.) For example, see Isaacman, The Tradition of Resistance in Mozambique, and Terence Ranger, Revolt in Southern Rhodesia, 1896–97 (London: Heinemann, 1967; 2nd ed., 1979).

(77.) W. G. L., Randles, “La Fondation de l’empire du Monomotapa,” Cahiers d’Etudes Africaines, 54 (1974): 211–236; W. G. L Randles, L’Empire du Monomotapa du XVe au XIXe siècle (Paris: Mouton, 1975); and Paul Schebesta, Portugals Konquistamission in Südost-Afrika (St. Augustin, Germany: Steyler, 1966).

(78.) J. J. Nogueira da Costa, O Caso do Muenemutapa, (Maputo, Mozambique: Cadernos Tempo, 1982); and Carlos Serra, Como a Penetração Estrangeira transformou o modo de producção dos camponeses Moçambicanos, 2 vols. (Maputo, Mozambique: Universidade Eduardo Mondlane, 1986).

(79.) Jan Vansina, Oral Tradition. A Study in Historical Methodology, trans. H. M. Wright (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1965).

(80.) D. P. Abraham, “The Monomotapa Dynasty,” NADA, 36 (1959), 58–84; D. P. Abraham, “The Early Political History of the Kingdom of Mwene Mutapa (850–1589),” Historians in Tropical Africa, Proceedings of the Leverhulme Inter-Collegiate History Conference, cyclostyled (Salisbury: University College of Rhodesia and Nyasaland, 1962): 61–92; D. P. Abraham, “The Roles of ‘Chaminuka’ and the Mhondoro-cults in Shona Political History,” in The Zambesian Past, eds. E. Stokes and R. Brown (Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press, 1966): 28–46. G. Kingsley Garbett, “Religious Aspects of Political Succession Among the Valley Korekore (N. Shona),” The Zambesian Past, 137–170; G. Kingsley Garbett, “Disparate Regional Cults and a Unitary Ritual Field in Zimbabwe,” in Regional Cults, ed. R. Werbner (London: Academic Press, 1977), 55–92. See also M. F. C. Bourdillon, The Shona Peoples (Gwelo: Mambo Press, 1976).

(81.) Mudenge, A Political History of Munumutapa, ch. 2. See review of Abraham’s work in D. N. Beach, “The Mutapa Dynasty. A Comparison of Documentary and Traditional Evidence,” History in Africa 3 (1976): 1–17.

(82.) Beach,The Shona & Zimbabwe, 53–55.

(83.) Beach, viii.

(84.) Santos, Etiópia Oriental.

(85.) Mudenge, “The Rozvi Empire and the Feira of Zumbo”; and Mudenge, “The Role of Foreign Trade in the Rozvi Empire: A Reappraisal.”

(86.) Gerhard Liesegang, “Archaeological Sites on the Bay of Sofala,” Azania 7 (1972): 147–159. See also A. Teixeira da Mota, “Cartografia antiga de Sofala,” Monumenta 9 (1973): 5–18; and R. W. Dickinson, “The Archaeology of the Sofala Coast,” The South African Archaeological Bulletin 30 (1975): 84–104.

(87.) Sinclair, “Chibuene: an early trading site in southern Mozambique.”

(88.) Ana Cristina Roque, Terras de Sofala: Persistências e Mudança (Lisbon: Fundação Calouste Gulbenian and Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia, 2012).

(89.) R. Gray and D. Birmingham, eds., Pre-colonial African Trade (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1970).

(90.) Miller, Desai, and Lee-Thorp, “Indigenous Gold Mining in Southern Africa: A Review.”

(91.) For example, see Pacheco, Uma Viagem de Tete ao Zu.

(92.) José Justino Teixeira Botelho, História militar e política dos Portugueses em Moçambique. De 1833 aos nossos dias, (Coimbra: Imprensa da Universidade, 1921); Alexandre Lobato, A Expansão Portuguesa em Moçambique de 1498 a 1530; Eric Axelson, Portuguese in South-East Africa 1600–1700 and Portuguese in South-East Africa 1488–1600 (Cape Town: Struik, 1973); Almeida d’Eça, História das Guerras no Zambeze; and Baxter, and Silva Rego, Documents on the Portuguese in Mozambique and Central Africa.

(93.) Lobato, Colonisação Senhorial da Zambezia e outros Estudos.

(94.) Isaacman, Mozambique: the Africanisation of a European Institution, the Zambesi prazos, 1750–1902.

(95.) Isaacman, The Tradition of Resistance in Mozambique; for example, Isaacman, “Madzi-Manga, Mhondoro and the Use of Oral Traditions”; and Allen Isaacman, “The Origin, Formation and Early History of the Chikunda of South Central Africa,” Journal of African History 13 (1972): 443–461.

(96.) Allen and Barbara Isaacman, Slavery and Beyond. The Making of Men and Chikunda Ethnic Identities in the Unstable World of South-Central Africa, 1750–1920 (Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann, 2004).

(97.) Rodrigues, “Mercadores, Conquistadores e Foreiros: a Construção dos Prazos nos Rios de Cuama na Primeira Metade do Século XVII”; Eugénia Rodrigues, “O Porto de Quelimane e a Carreira dos Rios de Sena na Segunda Metade do Século XVIII,” Portos, Escalas e Ilhéus no Relaciamento entre o Ocidente e o Oriente, Actas do Congresso Internacional Comemorativo do Regresso de Vasco da Gama a Portugal 1 (Lisbon: Comissão Nacional para as Comemorações dos Descobrimentos Portugueses, 2001): 177–211.

(98.) Liesegang, “Nguni Migrations between Delagoa Bay and the Zambesi, 1821–1839.”

(99.) Wheeler, “Gungunyane the Negotiator: a Study in African Diplomacy”; and Harries, Work, Culture and Identity.

(100.) Leroy Vail and Landeg White, Capitalism and Colonialism in Mozambique: A Study of Quelimane District (London: Heinemann, 1980); Gerhard Liesegang, “A First Look at the Import and Export Trade of Mozambique 1800–1914,” Proceedings of the Symposium on the Quantification and Structure of the Import and Export and Long Distance Trade of Africa in the 19th Century (c. 1800–1913) (St. Augustin, Germany: Steyler, 1983), 452–523; and Isaacman, Mozambique: the Africanisation of a European Institution.

(101.) D. N. Beach, “Documents and African Society of the Zimbabwean Plateau before 1890,” Paideuma 33 (1987): 129–145.

(102.) Roque, Terras de Sofala: Persistências e Mudança.