The Sunday News
Pathisa Nyathi
FOR several weeks we have been looking at names, with regard, in particular, to why they were given and their role in communities. What emerged is that names in the African setting were a form of documentation, social commenting and desired future life or socio-economic condition. Our names were viewed differently from the manner in which they were viewed during the world and times of William Shakespeare.
As we begin the countdown towards the end of the articles on names, we have today decided to look at names that ultimately gave rise to names of ethnic groups or tribes. This has been prompted by our recent interviews at Singwangombe in Nkayi. There, Minus Mabhena was adamant that they are aManala and nothing else. In a way Minus was giving credence to the very fact that names of originators of lineages end up as tribal or ethnic identity tags. The process is not however, cast in stone. Descendants of Manala would have identified themselves with a later ancestor and thus become a distinct lineage which may not even have knowledge about Manala.
Last week there was a visit to Bulawayo by a chief of the Batlokwa from the Limpopo Province of South Africa. The chief has his Botlokwa village between Makhado (formerly Louis Trichardt) and Polokwane (formerly Pietersburg). Today they identify their ethnic group after the name of Motlokwa, though they seem at a loss regarding the meaning of the name Motlokwa. For our purposes though, we are content with the fact that an ancestor’s first name has survived as the name of a huge tribe that is found in South Africa, Mozambique, Lesotho, Botswana, Zambia and Zimbabwe. The possibility exists that they are to be found in other countries besides the ones enumerated above.
The name Motlokwa is their identity tag and goes along with their praises which are, on account of their settling in communities that spoke a different language, have found expression in languages other than Setlokwa. Some of them are found in Zimbabwe where they have become Mdlongwa. Broadly, these Mdlongwa people, though historically the same people descended from Motlokwa, belong to two groups. The larger component is found in the southern part of Gwanda and Matobo districts. Here they call themselves Batokwa. Like their counterparts in Polokwane, they are descended from one Tshaka and they are thus identified as Batokwa bakaMatshaka.
Tshaka(the word tshaka refers to a spear) was the son of Khunwana, oaMosima, oaMafisa. They, like the Bapedi and Babirwa, are thought to be descended from Mokgatla. One man, Mabeba who had, in the company of other Motlokwas, moved to southern Zimbabwe. It is not clear whether he and his followers moved ahead of the Babirwa who got there earlier than 1825, ahead of the Swazi and the Ndebele of King Mzilikazi. There does not seem to be any chiefs in that part of the country who are Batlokwa. Certainly they, Batlokwa and the Babirwa, have shared a common history both in the Limpopo Province of South Africa and south western Zimbabwe.
Maretha Dube, from the MSU’s Language Institute, who attended the function hosted in honour of the visiting Batlokwa delegation, identified the sections of the Batlokwa found in Matabeleland South: Mazhale (to which she belongs), Nkoate (to which the late Stuart belonged), Thabulo, Nkoali (found at eNqameni) and Kabane. These still speak Setlokwa though not recognised as such. They refer to their language as Sotho, a derogatory term thrust on them by the Nguni.
The other section, who call themselves Mdlongwa, came into this country with King Mzilikazi and his people in the 1830s. These were involuntarily incorporated into the Ndebele society. As a form of identifying with King Mzilikazi’s people, they had their lower earlobes pierced. They abandoned their language and cultural practices and adopted those of the Ndebele. They were conscripted into the Ndebele regiments as per Ndebele military tradition and fitted into the Abenhla social stratum. They regarded themselves as superior to those who still clung to their language and culture.
Some of their descendants are to be found in Nkayi (the descendants of Simbo). There are others in Ntabazinduna. This is a group that provides a good case study in socio-cultural incorporation and assimilation as happened with the Ndebele state which sought, and did achieve, cultural hegemony. Both sections were represented at the reception held at Esaph Mdlongwa’s house in Luveve. Undoubtedly, those from Gwanda came in larger numbers.
A few of us, on another day, got together to have a look at the history of the Batlokwa who live in all the provinces of South Africa, from the Orange Free State to the North-Western Province. What was of interest to me was the genealogy that Martin Kgoali had. I was interested, in particular, in the names of men which later gave rise to various genealogies. The overall genealogy linked such names as Mokgatla, Morolong, Motlokwa, Mohurutshe, Ngwaketse, Kwena, Thabane and Mohale.
An interesting debate ensued. How does Kwena belong together with Motlokoa, Morolong and Thabane? The Batlokwa in Limpopo Province taboo the leopard, nkwe as their totem. Those under Gaborone at Tlokweng (meaning at a place where Batlokwa live) taboo the ant bear, thakadu, while Barolong are said to be Ndlovu. The way totemic names have been crafted in central and southern Africa makes us raise some eyebrows. There are groups, lineages, clans and tribes whose totems are water-related such as Mlambo, Mhlanga, Ntini, Hove, Mvubu, Siziba, Nyoni (Hungwe/inkwazi) etc. On the other hand, there are those whose totems are of land animals such as Dube, Ndlovu, Mvundla, Mpala, Nyathi, Mpofu, inter alia. The totems for the Nguni have somewhat been forgotten though observation of cultural and ritual practices. They use ancestral names such as Gumede, Zulu, Khumalo, Matshazi, Mafu, Masuku, Mthimkhulu etc.
How does Kwena a crocodile which lives in water get lumped together with Mokgatla, Morolong, Mongwaketse, Mohurutshe and others, all of which have land-based animal totems? Heads were scratched and we finally reached some tentative consensus. The name Kwena in the genealogy is not a totemic Kwena, the crocodile. This means there are several people who erroneously translated Kwena to mean crocodile and have identified themselves as such when in actual fact they are one with the Kgabos and others named above. But, are there no Kwena people whose totem is the crocodile? It was not too difficult to isolate these people, simply by identifying a well-known but missing name in the genealogy. It is that of the Bafokeng.
The Bafokeng do not belong together with the Kgabos, Barolong, Ngwato, Babirwa, Bapedi etc. These are the totemic Kwenas who inhabited the Orange Free State and they have cultural identities that set them apart. Of course, they have experienced, over the years, fission that resulted in several sub-lineages. An example are the “mist people”(inkungu). That makes sense in that a mist is water vapour and the separate group would still belong to the water group in which we find the Nguni people. Of course, we should take cognisance of the fact that some groups from the Sotho-Tswana assimilated into the Nguni. Totems, it seems, are an important genetic identity among the Africans, and indeed all of them had totems. Do you remember President Robert Mugabe at one time referring to a totemless people?
Many cultural identities emerged that are common to the VaVhenda, Babirwa, Bapedi, Batlokoa, “Bakwena,” Barolong, BaNgwato, BaHurutshe, BaNgwaketse, Basiya, Bakolokwe, BaKgatla and others. As long as we use nomenclatures thrust upon a people, we will not get very far. Totems hold hope in terms of identifying Africans, at least those in southern Africa as long as we keep tabs on how and why totems change, albeit within the broad water-land dichotomy.
