TSONGA / MACHANGANA

HISTORY
TSONGA HISTORY PERSPECTIVE BY MANDLA MATHEBULA, ROBERT NKUNA, HLENGANI
MABASA AND MUKHACANI MALULEKE

[INITIALLY WRITTEN AS A RESPONSE TO THE TSONGA-SHANGAAN KINGSHIP DEBATE]

Early History of Tsonga communities in South East Africa

Archaeological evidence points to a continuous occupation of the area between St Lucia

Bay from at least the thirteen century, probably at 1250. Early Portuguese documents of
shipwreck sailors indicate that Tsonga Communities were already based between Maputo
and Saint Lucia Bay by 1550. Writings of Perestrello (Santa. Bento-1554), Diogo de Couto
(Santa Thome-1589), Lavanha (Santa Alberto-1593) record presence of Ronga chiefdoms
between Saint Lucia Bay and the Maputo region in sixteen century. They recorded the
names of chiefdoms like Ngomane, Nyaka, Mpfumo, Lebombo (Livombo), Manyisa and
Tembe. These names have survived till today. What is significant is that Portuguese
documents of the 16th century point to the fact that Tsonga (Ronga) chiefdoms were
larger their Nguni counterparts. Actually, Nyaka and Tembe developed powerful
kingdoms, the first extending from Delagoa Bay in the north to as far as Saint Lucia Bay in
the south and the latter covering the Delagoa Bay region and all land as far as the
Lebombo (Livombo) mountains.
By the eighteen century, the Maxabane (Mashabane) (which broke away from the Nyaka
chiefdom), , Matsolo and Mabota chiefdoms were added to the chiefdoms observed by the
Portuguese in the sixteenth century.

Historically, Tsonga communities stretched from St Lucia Bay in Northern KwaZulu Natal
up to the upper Save river in Mozambique, covering parts of Swaziland, Mpumalanga,
Kruger National Park and South Eastern Zimbabwe

In the 1720s , Portuguese and Dutch identified the Tsonga as linguistically and culturally
belonging to one group despite the fact that they belonged to different chiefdoms. This
was motivated by the fact the Ronga themselves identified themselves as one group with
people who spoke the same language, regardless of the fact that they belonged to
different chiefdoms. Dutch reports mention that there were visitors into the Delagoa Bay
area from the interior (probably the Hlanganu) who were identified by the Ronga as
speaking the same language as them and that members of the Hlengwe sub-group had the
same scarifications as the Ronga. The Dutch stressed that the Ronga recognized the Tonga
of Inhambane and the Chopi as separate from them.

Some Hlengwe oral traditions also claim that the Hlengwe were part of Ronga of Northern
KZN and Maputo region of Mozambique. In the late 1600s to mid 1700’s there are
Portuguese reports about the movement of some Ronga people from the Lourenço
Marques region to Inhambane region. These Ronga/Hlengwe communities are reported to
have ransacked the Tonga of Inhambane and some Shona communities in the upper Save
river. This movement was happening almost simultaneously with the with entering of
Sotho-speaking people into the hinterland of Delagoa Bay. The Portuguese of Inhambane
knew both the Hlengwe of Chauke (Cawuke) clan and Sono in the early eighteen century.

Henri P Junod , postulated that Tsonga communities could be divided into these dialects:
(a) Hlengwe-mainly found in the upper Limpopo river and Save river in Mozambique and
Southern Eastern Zimbabwe. The Hlengwe dialect is a transition between standard Tsonga
and Tshwa
(b) Hlanganu- historically found in Swaziland, Mpumalanga Kruger National Park and
between Sabie and Nkomati rivers in Mozambique. The Hlanganu dialect is a transition
between mainstream Tsonga [based largely on Dzonga] and Ronga.
(c) Dzonga (South)-found between the Sabie and Nkomati rivers
(d) N’walungu (North)- mainly found between Limpopo and the Olifants River in
Mozambique
(e) Vatshwa-mainly found in Inhambane in Mozambique
(f) Xika-mainly found in North East Nkomati in Mpumalanga
(g) Ronga (East) - mainly found in the Northern KwaZulu Natal and Maputo region in
Mozambique. In KZN there are two Ronga dialects worth mentioning: the Xissonga in the
Pongola valley, more especially in the Ndumo area and the Xikonde around the Saint
Lucia Bay. These two sub-dialects may be nearer to extinction.
(h) Bila (Vila)-found in Bileni in Mozambique.

These people were so named mainly because of their geographical location and dialects.
Though they spoke different dialects, the language and cultural practices were largely
the same. Hence they constituted a single cultural and linguistic community. It is for this
reason that when one reads Vutlharhi bya Vatsonga (a collection of Tsonga proverbs) by
Junod, it is difficult to separate proverbs along the different dialects!!!!

For over centuries Tsonga have assimilated other cultural groups who came to live with
them in the South East Africa region. The following clans are a case in point:
(a) Shona
(i)Tembe-Karanga (Kalanga)- were in Delagoa Bay region by 1554
(ii) Baloyi(Valoyi) –Rozvi (Lozwi) – they were already in the N’walungu region during the
time of the Dutch occupation of the Delagoa Bay (1721-31). Some Hlengwe oral traditions
claimed that the Hlengwe were actually the ones who converted the Valoyi from Rozvi
(Lozwi) into Tsonga in Zimbabwe and Mozambique. This probably happened after the
death of the powerful king of Rozvi, Changameri Dombo in 1696.
(b) Shiburi (Xivuri) were Sotho. They entered Mozambique as conquerors from the
Mpumalanga lowveld in the 1700s as separate groups, but they organised themselves into
a Shiburi (Xivuri) chiefdom.
(c) Manganyi were Nguni who lived in Kwa-Magoda in Kwa-Zulu Natal
(d) Mabunda and Maswanganyi were part of the Mazibuko (Nguni) clan in KwaZulu Natal.
(e) Gaza-Ngoni-Shangaan: several Nguni clans who left with Soshangane to Mozambique
from 1821 abandoned their Nguni language and became Tsonga speaking
(f) Chopi- several Chopi people have joined the Maluleke clan.
(g) Ndau- several Ndau clans like Mashaba (Maxava or Machava), Sithole, Moyana,
Miyambu, Simango are now part of the Tsonga.
(h) Nkuna- came from Ngome in KZN.

It must be understood that although the Tsonga assimilated foreign cultural elements, it
does not follow that the people are merely a hybrid of the assimilated groups mentioned
above. In fact, the Tsonga have for centuries been identified as a cultural and linguistic
group sufficiently different from other neighbouring cultural groups like the Tonga of
Inhambane, The Zulu (Nguni or Ngoni) and the Karanga and the Sotho in South East Africa.

As indicated above the Gaza-Ngoni-Shangaan of Soshangane were not the first Nguni from
Zululand (or Kwazulu/Natal) to enter Tsonga dominated Southern Mozambique. There
were other groups like the Nkuna (spoke Mbayi) who left Ngome in Northern KwaZulu,
(probably during the time of Dingiswayo’s rule) for Lydenburg district in Mpumalanga and
then Mozambique. In Mozambique they settled among the Rikhotso. They abandoned the
Mbayi dialect and adopted Nhlave, a Dzonga sub-dialect. The Manganyi were from Kwa-
Magoda. They settled among the Van’walungu and adopted the N’walungu dialect. The
Mabunda (Mavundza) and Maswanganyi were part of the Mazibuko clan in KwaZulu. They
left for Nhlave area of Southern Mozambique where they adopted the Nhlave sub-dialect
of Dzonga. When Soshangane arrived in Mozambique they were already Tsonga speaking ,
which means that they had been there long enough to allow for their Nguni dialect to be
swallowed by Tsonga.

THE EARLY HISTORY OF THE GAZA-NGONI (“Shangaans”)

The Gaza were a junior section (inKohlo branch) of the Ndwandwe. In 1819 when the
Ndwandwe were defeated by Shaka Zulu the Gaza were under the leadership of Manukuza
(alias Soshangane ), who doubled as the chief commander of the Ndwandwe forces
defeated by Shaka. The Gaza lived in the Mkuzi area, around the eNtshaneni mountain..
The senior house under Zwide lived in Magudu, near the Pongola valley. The Gaza lived
side by side with Ronga [Thonga] communities as the Mkuzi river was a historical
boundary between Nguni and Ronga [Thonga] communities. There were also Ronga
speaking communities [Xissonga speaking communities] in the Pongola valley, near the
area where Zwide was based. This means that when the Gaza arrived in Mozambique
between 1820 and 1821 , they had already interacted with Tsonga communities for a very
long time. After the defeat of the Ndwandwe in 1819 Zwide moved from Magudu to
present day Piet Retief area in Mpumalanga. His new domain apparently included some
parts of South West Swaziland. He is believed to have died in 1824.

The Formation of the Gaza Empire

After his defeat by Shaka, Soshangane left with few followers for the eastern Lebombo
foothills, till they reached the vicinity of upper Tembe river, where they were met by
Captain W. Owen of the British Navy in 1822. Owen claimed that Soshangane’s followers
numbered between 200 and 300. About 1825 Soshangane entered the country between
Matsolo and Nkomati river where he found Zwangendaba Hlatswayo of the Jele [Jere] clan
, a former Ndwandwe subsidiary chief. They briefly formed an alliance. After clashing
with Soshangane, Zwangendaba and his followers left for Vendaland, between Limpopo
(Vembe) and Levubu (Ribvubye) rivers, where they lived there for a while, before
migrating to Rozviland, near present day Bulawayo. He defeated the Changameri Rozvi.
He later left for Manyikaland in the North east where he met Soshangane again in the
1830’s. He was defeated by Soshangane (some say he fled without a fight) and he crossed
the Zambezi for Malawi in 1835.

By 1825 Nxaba Msane, another former Ndwandwe general and subsidiary chief had
entered central Mozambique, in the Sofala province. He ruled Sofala undisturbed for
about 10 years, between 1825 and 1835. It was only in 1835 when his was removed by
Soshangane. Nxaba left Sofala for Zambia.

After defeating Nxaba, Soshangane lived for a while in Musapa in Zimbabwe, where he
conquered the Ndau (Vandau) and Manyika (Vamanyika). Some Gaza Ngoni lived in various
Manyika regions in Zimbabwe, like the Zindi, Samanga, Nyamhuka, Karombe and
Murahwa. They intermarried with local women.

Between 1838 and 1845 Soshangane brought the whole region between Nkomati and
Zambezi rivers under his political control. Although he raided the Lourenço Marques area
in the early 1820’s, after leaving the Tembe river for Bilene (Bileni) in the Limpopo valley
in late 1820’s [about 1827], the area did not fall under his sphere of influence. In fact,
Dingane’s Zulu army, with auxiliaries from Matsolo [Matola] and Maputsu [Maputo]
ransacked Lourenço Marques in 1833 and killed the Portuguese governor. After 1838, Zulu
influence of the Lourenço Marques had waned. For a large part of Gaza rule in
Mozambique, the Lourenço Marques region was regarded as nominally part of Portuguese
rule. European visitors to this region in the 1800’s claimed that Portuguese control of the
Ronga chiefdoms was virtually a theoretical claim rather than a reality. Sometimes
Portuguese governors actually paid tribute to Ronga chiefs.

The Nkuna, Valoyi, Mavundza and Rikhotso left for the Transvaal in 1835 after refusing to
accompany Soshangane in his pursuit of Zwangendaba. Soshangane’s attempt to pursue
them became fruitless and ended in 1842 in the battle of Matshengwana.

The Maluleke (or Van’wanati) had long established themselves around the northern part
of the present day Kruger National Park and around the confluence of South Africa,
Mozambique and Zimbabwe. In other words, although they were raided by the Gaza and
the Ndebele, these groups refused to be subjugated. For over a period of about 150 years
to this date, these groups lived outside the Gaza Kingdom, they re-established themselves
as independent polities.

Another group of the Tsonga people left with the Portuguese hunter Joao (aka Jiwawa or
Juwawa) Albasini to settle in Luonde [Riyondze], near the present day Makhado Town. He
established the Spelonken or Xipilongo empire, which was constituted by the
“Magwamba” community. For close to two decades, Jiwawa Albasini did not have any
relationship with Soshangane or the Gaza Kingdom until the late 1850’s when
Soshangane’s son, Muzila, fled to Spelonken or Xipilongo in the face of a civil war with his
brother Mawewe. Soshangane died in October 1858. After his death a struggle ensued
among his sons. Modanise was his eldest son by his first wife, Muzila, by his second wife,
and uSihono and Mawewe, by his third wife. The third wife was the ‘great wife’ as her
lobolo was paid by the nation. uSihono, the elder brother of Mawewe, was technically the
rightful heir to the throne after Soshangane’s death. The Gaza elders (who supported
Mawewe) kept Soshangane’s death a secret and organized war against Modanise, uSihone,
Yopanjwa, Mzila and Mhlabandabuka. Mzila had fled to the Spelonken whilst the other
brothers fled north to the vicinity of the Zambezi river where Mawewe’s armies followed
and killed them all by May 1859, except Mhlabandabuka who managed to cross the
Zambezi river into Malawi. Mawewe was left to rule the Gaza empire.

Muzila returned to Mozambique at about November 1861 armed with more support from
Jiwawa Albasini, Hosi Magudu Khosa of Khoseni, Hosi Mahuntsi of Makwakwa and the
Portuguese of Lourenco Marques, which enabled him to drive Mawewe into Swaziland
where some of his descendents live to this day. Muzila ruled the Gaza Kingdom from
Musapa (Mustapha or Mussourize), in the Chimanimani mountains in the present-day
Zimbabwe for over 20 years.
Muzila’s rein continued until August 1884 when he died, living his son, Mdungazi, alias
Nghungunyani, to take over. Nghunghunyani moved the capital from Musapa to
Mandlhakazi, near Bileni in 1889, to try to reestablish the shaky authority of the Gaza
empire over the communities of Limpopo valley, more especially the Vachopi.

Like his father, Nghungunyani did nothing to re-conquer the Tsonga who had established
themselves outside the Gaza Kingdom. In fact, Nghunghunyani only attempted to conquer
some Ronga Communities whom his father and grandfather had failed to subjugate during
their lifetime. He, too, failed to subjugate them and instead opted to establish some
diplomatic relations with some of them. Nghunghunyani ruled his people from his new
capital city of Mandlakazi near Xai-Xai (or Ncayi-ncayi).

Bannerman (1978) argues that the relationship between the many Southern Hlengwe
chiefs in Zimbabwe and the Gaza kingdom was more complex. He states that rival
Hlengwe groups occasionally sought the support of both the Ndebele and the Gaza to
settle scores against each other. Xitanga [Chitanga], for instance, sought Ndebele help to
help deal with his rebellious Induna Mpapa. According to Forestall , the Sengwe was the
only Southern Hlengwe chiefdom that paid tribute to Muzila, but was also subject to
Chikwalakwala. The other groups were occasionally raided by Gaza forces while the
Sengwe was spared because of its tribute-paying status. Some Hlengwe chiefs also paid
tribute to Boers in the Transvaal. Tribute paying was not always or necessarily an
indication of subjugation of a community. It seems like some communities used tribute
paying as a tool to retain their autonomy rather than face constant raids by rival powerful
groups. This is demonstrated by the paying of tribute to rival powerful rulers as some
Hlengwe clans did. Even Soshangane paid the Boers 300 head of cattle as compensation
for the attack and defeat he inflicted on them in August 1836 and made himself a nominal
tributary.

In 1894, a war broke out between Nghungunyani and the Portuguese settlers in Lourenco
Marques - now Maputo - (named after a Ronga King, Maputsu). In the course of the war
Nghungunyani was captured in 1895 leading to the royal family abandoning the war for
the bush, leaving Magigwana Khosa – the army chief general - fighting with his generals.
Magigwana Khosa continued with the fight until 1897 when he was killed by the
Portuguese army at a place called Mapulangweni. The royal family abandoned the war at
the time when the people needed them to give direction. The core of the royal family
located in Bushbuckridge with no attempt to return and reclaim their Kingdom.

In Bushbuckridge, the Nxumalos established their own Amashangane Tribal Authority.

(The exact location and the map of this area are explicitly illustrated between page 44
and 45 of Vukosi bya Buyisonto) a copy of the map is attached as Annexure ?.

It is interesting to note that when they arrived in South Africa, no attempts were made to
claim the people who were already living this side of the border (the “Magwamba” in the
Hlanganani, Giyani, Louis Tritchardt and Malamulele districts; Mavundza in Tzaneen and
eastern Giyani districts; Valoyi also in eastern Giyani and Tzaneen districts; the Xika in
Komatipoort and Barberton districts; Hoxani and Nhlanganu groups who lived near them in
Bushbuckridge; and the Nkuna in the Tzaneen district) or those they have never fought at
all (the Thonga or Rhonga-Tembe in northern Natal).

In fact, these people were not involved in the war against the Portuguese as they were
not under the command of the Ndwandwe forces. The second group of the Nxumalos, led
by Gija, fled to Xipilongo under a Venda Chief Tshimbupfe Davhana as his ndhuna and he
and his people were later removed to Xaswita in Maluleke country (under hosi Xikundu).
They did not stay long there as they were expelled from the area by hosi Xikundu when
they refused to live by Xikundu’s rules on his land and they were settled in Ntlhaveni on
land traditionally belonging to other Maluleke clans, but which had been confiscated by
the Boers. When they arrived at Davhana’s country, they were treated as ordinary people
who were running from their own war. No attempts were made by Gija to claim the
N’wanati or the nearby “Magwamba” because he recognized their independence. In fact,
in a statement Gija gave to the government of the day in 1904, he confirmed most of
what is contained in this submission. This was nine years after the defeat of the Nxumalos
by the Portuguese and about seven years after the arrival of most of them in the
Transvaal territory (The full statement and related handwritten notes are attached as
Annexure and ?).

To further show that they accepted that Gaza was a lost case, when Buyisonto,
Nghunghunyani’s heir, returned from Portugal where he had been held captive with his
father, no attempt was made to resurrect the Gaza kingdom. Buyisonto was not
welcomed by the “Magwamba” as their King even though he landed in the nearby Louis
Tritchadt train station. More information on this is contained in Makamu and Mathebula’s
books and all the trekpasses of Buyisonto’s trip from Windhoek, via Johannesburg to Louis
Tritchadt are attached as Annexure , and ?)

Instead he was linked with the Maxobye people, who were under Gija, who took him to
his people in Bushbuckridge. On his way to Bushbuckridge, he traveled past many Tsonga
communities who were not even aware of his presence. They included the Nkuna, Valoyi,
Rikhotso and Mavundza. During his coronation in about 1922 as the King of the
Amashangana, none of the other Tsonga leaders were invited as they were busy with their
independent businesses. Not even the nearby Mnisi, Khosa and Hoxani clans attended the
coronation, let alone the Ngomane, who were also not very far from the area.

Buyisonto ruled until his death without having claimed to be the King of the South African
Tsonga people. Upon his death, he was again replaced by his brother Thulamahashi as
regent for the second time. Thulamahashi had earlier took over from his paternal uncle,
Mpisana, in 1910 as regent for his brother and relinquished power when Buyisonto came
back from captivity. On both occasions that he was a regent, Thulamahashi was never, at
any stage, a King of the Tsonga. Since their settlement in South Africa, this group was
ruled by Mpisane, Thulamahashi, Buyisonto, Nghobo, Mafemani, Kheto and Eric (Mpisana
II), and of course Gija, Magona and SDW Nxumalo. There is no known record of any of
these leaders attempting to re-organise their Kingdom.

A rumour that Thulamahashi (Nghunghunyani’s remaining son and regent at the time) was
trying to mobilise his people in about 1912 to return to Gaza with him disintegrated when
Thulamahashi was made to swear before the Pretoria authorities that the rumour was not
true (a full report is attached as Annexure?). But, even if this was true, it is clear that
Thulamahashi would not have instructed the N’wanati, Mavundza, Nkuna, “Magwamba”,
and several Tsonga clans under Venda chiefs to return to Gaza because they were not
under his authority. Let alone the Hoxani and Nhlanganu groups who lived near them in
Bushbuckridge. Between 1918 and 2005 we count 87 years of lull. Between 1896 and 2006
we count 110 years since the fall of the Gaza Kingdom.

In Xitsonga we have three sayings that are relevant in understanding kingship:

(a) Vuhosi a byi peli nambu (Kingship does not cross a river [boundary])
(b) Xisola hosi xi sola xi sukile (a person undermines a king only when he or she has left
the king’s kingdom).
(c) Loko mhisi yi pela nambu yi hundzuka mbyana (when a person crosses his/her
boundary, he/she becomes a member of the group on the other side of the boundary)

Tsonga communities who fled away from Soshangane and his successors for the former
Transvaal should be understood in terms of the first two sayings mentioned above. These
communities chose to cross the “river” and subject themselves to Sotho and Venda rule
or alternatively maintained their independence. The arrival of the Ndwandwe in the
Transvaal must be understood in terms of the third expression.

The history of the Gaza Kingdom, although it is an important part of Tsonga history, it is
not the alpha and omega of Tsonga history. Soshangane never founded a so-called
Shangaan nation. He merely created a shaky multicultural and multilingual empire which
was a conglomeration of groups like Vatsonga, Vachopi, Vatonga, VaSena.and Shona
groups like Vandau, Vamanyika, Teve and Podza. Soshangane did attempt to impose his
language in the royal kraal and the military. Many of the conquered groups who were part
of a group known as Mabuyandlela did briefly adopt some Ngoni custom and language
(lala)- northern Nguni dialect that sounds like a mixture of Siswati and isiZulu. This
dialect is characterized by a Thefuya form of speech, which tends to replace the “L” with
“y’. For instance Nxumalo becomes Nxumayo, Mabulandlela becomes Mabuyandlela

The majority of the people who were outside the military continued to practice their
cultures and languages rather than Ngoni custom. The cultures and languages of the
conquered groups remained fairly intact today. This is not to say that these conquered
groups have not adopted some elements of Ngoni culture, but it is rather to emphasize
that they retained their original identities to a level which cannot be confused with Ngoni
culture. On the contrary, descendants of Soshangane and his people largely abandoned
Ngoni custom and Ngoni-Shangaan language and joined the cultures and languages of the
conquered or defeated groups. For example, in Chipinga, Zimbabwe there is a Gaza
chiefdom that originates from one of Nghunghunyani’s brothers and its people are Ndau
speaking rather than Ngoni. In South Africa there several Gaza chiefdoms like Magona
(Tsonga speaking) at Malamulele, two Mkhatswa chiefdoms in Barberton (Siswati
speaking) and AmaShangane Traditional Authority under Hosi Eric Nxumalo in
Bushbackridge (Tsonga speaking).

REFLECTIONS ON HOSI NXUMALO’S CLAIM

THE TSONGA OR SHANGAAN DEBATE

The issue of the identity of our ethnic group is somehow linked to the issue of royalty.
While we did not attend to it in great detail in the original submission, Hosi Nxumalo’s
submission brought about the need for us to highlight more salient points which will assist
the commission in carrying its work:

There is a view that since Soshangane defeated many Tsonga groups, all of us should
therefore be called Shangaans. In our assessment we find this to be a retrogressive way of
reading history. This is so because when one looks at the situation since about 1858, the
Nxumalo’s have been assimilated to the Tsonga and not the other way round. For us, it is
like suggesting that because the Shona were once defeated by Mzilikazi then they should
be called Ndebeles. Accepting this proposition will create a big problem in South Africa as
it would mean the Nxumalo’s themselves, the Hlubi, and others who were defeated by
Shaka should be called Zulus.

If we say all communities that ran away from the Nxumalo in the 1800s should be brought
under their control, won’t we imply that all those who were defeated by Shaka should
return to Zululand, in which case the descendents of Soshangane (especially Hosi Nxumalo
and his community) will go back to Zululand? Our submission is that the Shangaan
community which has been linguistically and culturally assimilated should, as is the case
right now, form a component of the Tsonga and not the other way round. Earlier on we
indicated that the Valoyi and others are now called Tsonga’s because they have been
assimilated over a long period of time. The Nxumalo cannot be an exception.

Hosi Nxumalo’s claim

1. Amongst the Machangana people there is a debate going around in respect of the
difference between Machangana and Vatsonga and called this a trite argument.
2. A lame attempt to portray Machangana as a different species from the group referred
(to) as Vatsonga.
3. This view is neither empirical nor innocent.
4. It is common course that for a very long time, “Xichangana” and “Xitsonga” have been
used interchangeably.
5. An attempt to draw a wedge between Machangana and Vatsonga is not only ridiculous,
but flies in the face of practice.
6. Xitsonga is synonymous to Xichangani.
7. Talked about the so-called four main regional dialects of Tsonga language:

Bushbuchridgeϖ
Ritaviϖ
ϖ Groot Spelonken
Mozambican dialectϖ

The Tsonga versus Shangaan issue

We submit that the Gaza remained primarily a raiding empire; unlike the Ndebele state in
Zimbabwe which developed into a nation Basically today the Gaza-Nguni-Ndwandwe (so-
called Shangaans), just like the Ngoni of Malawi (who did create a Ngoni nation, but are
part of Chewa, Nsenga and Tumbuka) refuse to accept the reality that there is no
Shangaan nation to talk about, rather the descendents of Soshangane exist today as part
of other cultural and language groups like Vatsonga and EmaSwati in South Africa and
Swaziland and Vandau, VaManyika-in Zimbwabwe and Mozambique as well as part of
other societies like VaSena, Vatonga and Vacopi in Mozambique?

It is also a fallacy that there are only three Tsonga dialects in South Africa and that they
are named or categorized as Hosi Nxumalo has pointed out in his submission.

Hosi Nxumalo also alleged that one of the 11 official languages recognized by the
Constitution of the Republic of South Africa (Act 108 of 1996) is Shangaan / Tsonga. We
submit Annexure?, which is an extract from the Constitution of the Republic of South
African, which recognizes our language as Tsonga and not Shangaan/Tsonga. We are
therefore submitting that it is not true that our language is Shangaan/Tsonga and Hosi
Nxumalo’s submission to this effect is incorrect.

Hosi Nxumalo also alleges that the population register recognizes Machangana / Vatsonga,
as part of the South African population. We submit Annexure? To prove that the register
actually recognizes our ethnic group as Tsonga and not Machangana/Vatsonga. In this
instance, Hosi Nxumalo’s submission is also incorrect.

Junod H P(1977) in Matimu ya Vatsonga and Junod (1905:15), both of which Hosi Nxumalo
quoted extensively in his presentation have explained the difference between Tsonga and
Shangaan, particularly how Shangaan became commonly used in the Reef and other South
African mining areas. We are surprised that Hosi Nxumalo decided to ignore this piece of
information from the same sources that he used because they obviously find credible and
authentic.

Junod H A (1905:15) states: “Another name, which is much used among white people to
designate the Thongas (Tsongas) is the word Shangaan. …But this term was never
accepted by the Ba-Ronga (Varonga), who consider it as an insult. It is applied in
Johannesburg roughly to all the East Coast ‘boys’, even to the Ba-Chopi (Vacopi), who are
considered by the Ba-Ronga of Delagoa Bay (Maputo) as much inferior to them. Its
adoption would be objectionable on that account”.

We therefore submit that:

Hosi¬ Nxumalo is aware of the difference between Tsonga and Shangaan, but wants to
use the confusion created by colonialism and apartheid to boost his claim. It is our
understanding that he thinks by perpetuating this confusion, he will lay a claim on all the
Tsonga speaking communities with ease.
Hosi Nxumalo’s team is¬ aware of the information we are submitting about the
difference between the Tsonga and Shangaan as contained in the sources they used (that
we are referring to as well), but decided to ignore the information that they thought may
be contrary to their claim.
Hosi Nxumalo’s representative has not obeyed the¬ oath he took before the Commission
and therefore the Commission must take steps against him.

SOSHANGANE DID NOT CONQUER ALL THE TSONGA COMMUNTIES

Hosi Nxumalo’s submission brought about a lot of confusion on three concepts:

Tribute payment – used at the time as a symbol of friendship, diplomatic relations,
alliance or subjugation We argue that tribute-paying was not always an acknowledgement
of subordination but was one of the strategies used by some societies to create friendship
with powerful societies to avoid wars with them, thereby retaining their political,
cultural and linguistic autonomy. The concept of tribute-paying as a strategy of retaining
autonomy accounts mainly for many claims found in oral traditions of several Tsonga
communities, like the Khosa , Southern Hlengwe and other groups that the Gaza claimed
to have conquered, whereas they themselves claimed not to been conquered. It is also
witnessed but the fact that some Tsonga communities (e.g. some Hlengwe) paid tribute
to different powerful groups (Gaza, Ndebele and the Boers) at the same time.

Military defeat – which may mean ‘simple’¬ defeat and nothing else unless other
processes follow thereafter
¬ Subjugation – an act of subjecting groups of people into ones rule
¬ Assimilation – an act of absorbing groups of people in terms of language, culture and
values
Paramount Chief – the equivalent of king denoting to all¬ monarchs under British rule

Hosi Nxumalo’s claim

In 1894 – 5 Nghungunyani accepted two Rhonga chiefs, Mahazule Mabyaya (Mazwaya) and
N’wamatibyana Mpfumo as his subjects.
Hosi Nxumalo’s claim

At the height of the Gaza power in the 1850s, the direct authority of its rulers extended
over the whole of what is today Southern Mozambique, among other areas.

So, if Mahazule and N’wamatibyana only became subject to Nghunghunyani in 1894-5 as

Hosi Nxumalo pointed out, the submission that in the 1850s Gaza included the whole of
Southern Mozambique cannot be correct.

The fact that Mahazule and N’wamatibyana were not Gaza subjects before 1894-5, makes
the submission that in the 1850s Gaza included the whole of southern Mozambique. It also
proves incorrect the statement that Soshangane conquered all Tsonga communities, let
alone the claim that he defeated all of them.

We want to submit that there were four main kingdoms around the present day Maputo
during the time of the Gaza. These were the Mpfumo, Nondwana, Mazwaya (polluted by
Portuguese to Mabyaya), and the Maphutha or Tembe. None of these communities were
ever conquered by the Gaza. Even the suggestion that the fleeing of the two Rhonga
leaders to Gaza in 1894 was a sign of their submission to Nghunghunyani is incorrect.

The truth, therefore, is that Mahazule and N’wamatibyana took refuge in Nghungunyani’s
country when they were attacked by the Portuguese as would happen to any leader who
is in trouble but has a friend somewhere.

When Phungashe, the chief of the Buthelezi was attacked by Shaka, he fled to Zwide of
the Ndwandwe, not to become his subject, but to get protection or asylum.

When Mgubho, the chief of the Xika community was attacked by the Ndwandwe in the
1820s, he fled to Noziyingili of the Tembe in the east, but never became his subject.

We can cite more examples in other societies such as the Ndebele and the Pedi to
substantiate on this fact.
It is a fact that Nghunghunyani’s part in the Rhonga war was precipitated by his
acceptance of Zihlahla and Mahazule as refugees in his country and therefore asylum
seekers.

Other historians, whom Hosi Nxumalo refers to as his sources in his claim agree with us in
this regard.

Junod 1905: (472 – 473) states that Mahazule and N’wamatibyana had taken refugee in
Gaza in July /August 1895.

Junod (1905: 473) states that the … regiments of Ngungunyana would fratenise with those
of Maputsu (N’wamatibyana), with whom they were on good terms.

Junod (1905: 473) says the Rhonga war (only) spread to Ngungunyana country (Gaza).

Junod (1905: 475) states that Maputsu fought Nondwana in 1876. How would this be
possible if the two were Gaza subjects?

We also want to dispel the notion that Soshangane interacted with Tsonga communities
for a first time when he fled from Shaka. The truth is that the Ndwandwe shared the
boundary with the Tembe long before they fled from Shaka. Xikonde (Ronga sub-dialect)
was spoken around the Mkuzi river where Soshangane’s chiefdom was based. Xissonga
(Ronga sub-dialect was spoken in the Pongola valley around where Zwide’s capital,
Magudu was based.
We therefore submit that:

The Tembe¬ arrived in the present day South Africa in the 1400s
The Tembe were neither¬ defeated nor conquered by the Gaza
They never paid tribute to the Gaza¬
¬ They are presently led by Hosi Maputsu II (Mabhudu II), who is a senior traditional
leader
In truth, Mpfumu, Nondwana, Mazwaya and Tembe were¬ neither defeated nor
conquered by the Gaza
Tongaland/ Maputaland in¬ northern KZN, which is occupied by the Tembe, was an
independent state which was recognized as such by all the colonial powers of the time.
In the late¬ 1800s, that is, during Nghunghunyani’s reign, the reigning Queen Zambili
Tembe was recognized as the Paramount Chief of Tongaland/ Maputaland.

We therefore submit that:

Tongaland / Maputaland was independent from¬ Mpfumu, Gaza, Swazi and Zulu states
and was recognized as such by all the colonial powers of the time.

HOSI NXUMALO’S CLAIM OVER EASTERN TRANSVAAL (MPUMALANGA) HAS NO BASIS

Hosi Nxumalo’s claim

In the height of the Gaza Kingdom in the 1850’s extended to parts of present day
Mpumalanga, among other areas.

Hosi Nxumalo did not give the names of the communities he claims in Mpumalanga.
However, we assume he refers to the Ngomane community, which currently has three
groups: the Lugedlane, Siboshwa and Hoyi.

According to Myburgh, in 1885 Dlavu, the brother to Ntiyi, the then reigning leader of the
Ngomane, killed an ostrich and went to do regimental duty at the Swazi king Mbandeni’s
capital dressed in its skin and feathers. When the king demanded an explanation why
tribute had not been paid all along, Dlavu blamed Ntiyi for the omission. Seeing that he
had betrayed his brother, Dlavu fled to Gaza. The king of Gaza, Nghunghunyani, sent an
expeditionary force in the same year to go and attack Ntiyi’s people along Mgwenya River
and Ntiyi fled to Mpakeni where he died in 1886. It was during this battle that Ntiyi‘s
heir, Hoyi was captured and sent to Nghunghunyani.

The statement itself tells that prior to this incident, the Ngomana may have paid tribute
to the Swazi king.

If the Ngomana were part of Gaza, and tribute payment meant subordination, by going to
the Swazi capital to pay tribute, Dlavu would have betrayed not only his brother, but also
the Gaza king for paying tribute to another king.

If Dlavu had betrayed the Gaza king by paying tribute to a rival king, how would he flee
to the same king and how would Nghunghunyani protect him and even assist him militarily
to attack the very same good servant of Gaza, who did not want to pay tribute to this
rival king?

We therefore submit that Nghunghunyani would not have protected Dlavu if the
Ngomana, including Dlavu himself, were his subjects and Dlavu had clashed with his
brother for betraying him to the king rival to Nghunghunyani. In fact, we believe would
have attacked Dlavu, instead.

Nghunghunyani attacked the current Hoyi section of the Ngomana in 1885 and captured
the heir to the Ngomane throne, Hoyi, forcing the reigning leader, Ntiyi, to flee to a
place called Mpakeni. How would Nghunghunyani attack him if he was his subject?

THE LIMPOPO LOWVELD CLAIM

TZANEEN

Hosi Nxumalo’s claim

The area from White River to Tzaneen was not occupied during Soshangane rule. In his
oral presentation, Hosi Nxumalo’s representative substantiated this claim by saying only
insignificant communities and hunting communities occupied this area.

According to Myburgh (1949: 06), in the 1700s, the Xika were an independent community
among the Sothos and they lives on Lugogotho mountain in Nsikazi. This area incorporated
among others, White River.

Hosi Nxumalo’s claim

The western neighbours (of Gaza) were Pedis of Sekhukhuni and Vendas at the time of
Soshangane’s reign. Responding to our question during the hearings of the 27th of March
2006, Hosi Nxumalo’s representative said ‘he did not think about the Lobedu of
Modjadji’.

We submitted on that day that we suspect that the Lobedu were deliberately excluded
from Hosi Nxumalo’s claim because of the role they played in the history of the Tsonga,
which gives information contrary to the Nxumalo claim.

We also submitted the following:

That the Nkuna community came to Tzaneen in about 1836 (some say 1834, but there is
consensus that it was not later than 1839). They were running away from Soshangane and
therefore did not want to be part of his kingdom.

When the Nkuna arrived in the Tzaneen area, they were welcomed by Queen Maale of the
Bakgaga community. This community had been living there for many years. They were
assisted with settlement land by the Bakgaga, Queen Makaepea of the Banareng and
Queen Modjadji of the Lobedu.

Soshangane tried to recapture the Nkuna people on their arrival in Tzaneen in what was
known as the Battle of Matshengwana?

In response to our question on 27th March 2006, Hosi Nxumalo’s representatives produced
a book by Ntsan’wisi and Shiluvana, entitled Muhlaba, which talks about the defeat of
Xiluvana of the Nkuna by Soshangane. We also refer the Commission to the same book as
it confirms that Xiluvana and the Nkuna fled from Soshangane after the defeat and
settled in Tzaneen.

Apart from the Nkuna, there are other Tsonga groups that came to Tzaneen in the 1830s
such as the Rikhotso of N’wamungololo, Mavunda or Nhlave of Nyavana and the Valoyi of
N’wamitwa, who were also fleeing from Soshangane’s rule. Queen Modjadji of the Lobedu
played a pivotal role in giving land to these communities in exchange of their military
strength, before they acquired their own land in the nearby areas.
We have evidence that when the Rikhotso, Valoyi and Mavunda came to Tzaneen, they
became subject to Modjadji, whom they gave military assistance, and who, in turn, gave
them land for settlement. One such evidence is a report by the Commissioner of
Duiwelskloof dated 1944, which reads
“the present tribe of Mabunda (Mavundza) originated from Nyabana [Nyavana]. Nyabana
[Nyavana] was one of Modjadji’s followers in Modjaji’s location. Nyabana had two wives:
1st wife’s son Shihoko [Xihoko] and 2nd wife’s sons Ngobe (Ngove) and Dumeri [Dzumeri].
Shihoko [Xihoko] the elder son and heir to Nyabana (Nyavana) left Modjadji’s location
before Nyabana (Nyavana) died to Shirulurulu [Xirulurulu], where he was then appointed
by the tribe of Shirulurulu [Xirulurulu] as their Headman and afterwards appointed by the
Department. When Nyabana (Nyavana) died, the two brothers Ngobe Ngove) the elder
brother and Dumeri [Dzumeri] the young(er) brother left Modjadji’s location to the
unsurveyed land, where Ngobe (Ngove) became the leader of the tribe”.

It is clear that the Nkuna later established their own Kingdom in Tzaneen. Our evidence
shows that the Nkuna had their own army that was independent from that of the Gaza
and it was commanded by Nyavele wa ka Rikhotso and later by Mankelu wa Xiluvana. The
Nkuna could not have had their independent army if they were part of Gaza.

This army had no relationship with the Gaza army that was commanded by Magigwani
during the final years of the Gaza. The Nkuna army also did not participate in Gaza’s wars
with the Portuguese or any other group that the Gaza army fought against after the
Nkuna arrived in the Transvaal. In the Ntsan’wisi and Shiluvana book, you find the names
of Nkuna regiments, all of whom were never part of the Gaza army.

In Tzaneen, the Nkuna fought many battles in which Soshangane‘s army generals had no
role at all. We therefore submit that it was not going to be possible for a subordinate
chief to give military assistance to another kingdom without consent from his/her
overlord (king). And we also submit that the Nkuna, Valoyi, Rikhotso and Mavunda gave
Modjadji and Maake this assistance without Gaza’s consent and the Gaza kings did nothing
about that.

We also want to submit that the Gaza kings knew about Modjadji and other Sotho leaders,
apart from Sekhukhune and that they gave them the necessary recognition.

So, we submit that Modjadji’s kingdom was in existence during Soshangane and was
known to Gaza. Soon after Mawewe ascended the Gaza throne, there was drought in Gaza
in the years 1860/1. It was believed that the drought was as a result of the gods who
were angry that Mawewe had murdered his brothers, whom he thought would make his
rule difficult. Mawewe was forced to seek help from Modjadji.

“Mawewe, desperaat, stuur ‘n gesantskap na die reenkoningin, Modjadji, om help (Das

Nerves 1879:100).

““MAGWAMBA”” / ALBASINI TERRITORY

Hosi Nxumalo’s claim

During the Mzila – Mawewe war, Mzila “moved” to Groot Spelonken, (because) at the
height of Gaza’s power in 1850s, the direct authority of its rulers extended over the
whole of Limpopo Province Lowveld (and) Mzila regarded Groot Spelonken to be part of
Gaza. (Where he prepared for war).

We are not aware of any example any where in the history of African polity, where a
leader ‘moved’ and settled on another part of the same country and prepared for war
against the leader of the same country.

Hosi Nxumalo’s claim

Joao Albasini was “pushed by the spirit of exploitation” and his (Albasini’s) motives were
clear and included, among others, destabilizing of life and kingdoms.

Albasini collected destitute and quizzical black refugees around him for maximum
exploitation by:
Ploughing his fields¬
Looking after livestock¬
Hunting for him,¬ and
Cleaning of his castle and looking after pets.¬
This part of Hosi Nxumalo’s submission is very contradictory to itself. First, it criticizes
Albasini as an exploitative colonialist. Secondly, it claims Muzila ‘moved’ from Musapa
and settled in Groot Spelonken (Xipilongo), which he perceived to be falling under Gaza.
Thirdly, it claims Muzila was allocated the most fertile land (there) by Albasini. Fourthly,
it denied that Muzila was a refugee in Spelonken and claims he (Muzila) directed Albasini
to assist him to dislodge Mawewe. Fifly, it claims only people who ate from his hand
glorified him. Sixly, it claims there were those who believed he was an emperor. Lastly, it
says Albasini turned sell – outs and collaborators into headmen.

We want to first submit that Muzila fled from Gaza to Xipilongo and settled there knowing
pretty well that the area was not part of Gaza. The fact that Hosi Nxumalo admits that
when he got to Xipilongo, Muzila was allocated land by Albasini, a non-resident of Gaza is
enough proof for that. The fact that he was fleeing from Gaza to that area is further
proof for that.

(De Waal 1953:20) states: “Muzila wat reeds in 1859 deur Mawewe verslaan is en uit
Gazaland gevlug het, het hom sedertdien by Albasini in die Transvaal gevestig”.

Grandjean 1899:82 states: “Muzila, met soos baie ander vlugteling kapteins voor hom,
met groot verlies van aantal onderdane, meide en kinders, as ‘n verarmde na die
Transvaal toe uitgekyk en by Albasini gaan beskerming soek. Hier is hy gul ontvang
aangesin sy teenwoordigheid nie net die prestige van Albasini verhoog het nie, maar ook
die troepe van laasgenoemde aansienlik versterk het”

Grandjean (1899:82) states: “Hier is hy gul ontvang aangesien sy teenwoordigheid nie net
die prestige van Albasini verhoog het nie, maar ook die troepe van laasgenoemde
aansienlik versterk het”

From Musapa, where Mzila was staying, to Groot Speloken, Mzila left behind Tsonga chiefs
in the N’wanati and Valoyi areas in the Lowveld, and chose Albasini instead.

Suppose they were fearing that the N’wanati and Valoyi areas were closer to Mawewe
than Albasini’s place, how about the option of going to Xiluvane in Tzaneen or any of the
areas Hosi Nxumalo claims were part of the Gaza kingdom, in Bushbuckridge or
Mpumalanga?
In his presentation entitled “Historical Background of the Gaza-Ndwandwe Nxumalo Royal
House 10/03/2006 pp.29-30”, Hosi Nxumalo refers to an unpublished book, entitled
Albasini dated 1988. The book was written by Joao Albasini III, a grandson to Joao
Albasini. We trust that Hosi Nxumalo regards this book credible, hence his reference to it.
This book has some few points worth bringing to the attention of the Commission:

1. Joao Albasini was the Paramount Chief of the “Magwamba” tribe (pp. 4)
2. Joao Albasini had an army that was led by N’wamanungu wa N’wamavungu of the
Siweya clan (pp. 9)

Ntsan’wisi and Shiluvane, also state that Muzila was part of Albasini and the
Schoemansdal army that attacked Xiluvana and the Nkuna army in 1859. Hosi Nxumalo
himself agrees with all historians that Muzila was assisted by Albasini and the Portuguese
in defeating and dislodging Mawewe. If Hosi Nxumalo maintains that those who worked
with Albasini were sell-outs and collaborators, this should be said about Muzila’s
relationship with Albasini:

Muzila¬ became a collaborator when he fled to Albasini and established a strong

relationship with him in 1859
Muzila became a sell-out by collaborating¬ with Albasini and the Schoemansdal Boers to
attack Xiluvana and the Nkuna in 1859
Muzila intensified his collaboration with Albasini when he sold-out¬ Mawewe when he
attacked and dislodged him from his throne with the help of Albasini and the Portuguese
of Lourenco Marques in 1861
If other leaders¬ are said to have been exploited by Albasini, Muzila too, should have
been suffered from the same fate of exploitation
So, the big question is: “What¬ did Muzila and Albasini benefit from each other and who
suffered in the process?”

THE VAN’WANATI CLAIM

We dispute that the land of the Van’wanati or the Van’wanati people belonged to the
Gaza. We submit that the Van’wanati inhabited the land they currently occupy in about
1640 (more that a century and half before the rise of Soshangane) when they migrated
with the Valoyi from Mashonaland (now Zimbabwe). Since then, they have been ruled by
Malenga, Maxakadzi, Guyu, Dlamani (who massacred the infamous Van Rensberg party in
1836), Nkuri, Mhinga, Sundhuza I, Nkhavi, Maxawu, Sundhuza II, Xilungwa and others
whose descendents are currently based in South Africa and Mozambique. Although they
were occasionally raided by the Gaza and the Ndebele of Mzilikazi, they were never
subjugated but remained culturally, linguistically and politically independent from both
the two groups.

BUSHBUCKRIDGE

The Tsonga communities who inhabited the Bushbuckridge area were mainly the
Vanhlanganu (Mnisi and Khosa) and the Hoxani branch of the Nkuna. When Mpisana and
other senior members of the Ndwandwe Royal families and some subjects migrated to
Bushbuckridge after the defeat and capture of Nghunghunyani in 1895, Magwagwaza ruled
the Mnisi, Njonjela ruled the Khosa while N’wambatini ruled the Hoxani. These
communities were independent from each other and also independent from the Gaza. To
show that they were indeed independent from the Gaza, Mpisana did not even bother to
contact these leaders on his arrival.

Under normal circumstances, it was expected that Mpisana would have done one or more
of the following:

Send messengers¬ to alert the three leaders that he (Mpisana) and the Royal Family
were coming to the area and to arrange for them to meet their ‘Prince Regent’ and
Nghunghunyani’s queens. When Hoyi of the Vaxika was released from captivity by
Nghunghunyani in 1890, he was welcomed by three of his subject chiefs, Didimba,
Maphehlukhuni and Mjokane and an army of the Vaxika.
Make the three chiefs¬ arrange some regiments to escort him and the Royal family to
safety
Make¬ the three chiefs contribute land for the settlement of the Ndwandwe Royal family
and the people who accompanied them
Assemble the army from all the Tsonga¬ chiefs in the Transvaal to go and assist
Magigwani, who was still fighting the Portuguese

Instead, Mpisana never even contacted the three leaders, let alone those who were based
in the Zoutpansberg district and other areas. Instead, he contacted Abel Erasmus, the
Native Commission for the Eastern Transvaal with the aim of acquiring land from him.

Hosi Nxumalo’s claim

Mpisani led the remnants of the Ndwandwe royal house to their “new home” (and) ruled
without clearly knowing his status.

In response to our question on 27th March 2006, Hosi Nxumalo’s representative denied
that Mpisana met with Abel Erasmus upon his arrival in the Transvaal and maintained that
Mpisana occupied the Bushbuckridge land on his own accord because he understood the
land to belong to the Gaza and therefore to the Ndwandwe.

We submit that Hosi Nxumalo’s representative deliberately told lies to the Commission
and therefore submit the following as evidence that he (Mpisana) approached Erasmus for
land as a refugee in the area:

The University of South Africa, in a document entitled Die Hierkoms en Woongebied van
die Suidelike Changana, states: “Mpisane stuur twee gesante nl. Matsavana (Matlhavana)
and Maswamene (Maswameni) met geskenke na die Transvaal om geskikte woonplek te
vind terwyl hy sy gevolg versamel en in ‘n westelike rigting oor die Lebomboberge versit”.

Stevenson-Hamilton (1949:204) states: “Die destydse verkornet van die Z.A.R, belas met
die administrasie van die Transvaalse laeveld, Abel Erasmus, kon nie opgespoor word nie.
Aangesien die gebied tussen die Lebombo en Drakensberge bykans totaal onbewoon was
en die kaptein van die Pulanastam (Oos-Sotho) in die omgewing van Mabulaneni
(Mapulaneng) (huidige Bosbokranddistrik) geen beswaar teen sodanige vestiging langs sy
gebied gehad het nie, keer die gesante terug waar hul Mpisane, tesame met al die
oorblywende vroue en kinders van Nghunghunyani en ‘n gevolg van ‘n paar honderd
Changana, reeds in aantog vind.”

Stevenson-Hamilton (1949:206) further states: “Tydens 1898 vertrek Mpisane met ‘n

geskenk (informante beweer diamante en olifanttande) na Abel Erasmus, waar hul
versoek om bewoning van die Laeveld, toegestaan word.”
Unisa continues to state: “In hierdie gebied het die Changana nou rustig … met die
Swazistamme aan hul suide, Oos-Sothostamme (Pai, Pulana en Kutswe) ten weste en
Hlanganu, noord sowel as oos van hulle gewoon.”

A Report of the Natives Land Commission, 1916, Vol.II, pp.389 states: “About 400 families
of Tshangaans came into the (Sabie) district in 1906 from the Portuguese side. The chiefs
could not afford to buy land, not tribally even. They came here practically naked”

File N.A. 727/1906 Nr. 3664/06 dated 17-08-1906 states: “That he (Mpisane) was in the
position of being a refugee in this colony… and that kindness was extended to him by the
late government in that Abel Erasmus, the late Native Commissioner, Lydenburg,
….allowed (to) remain in that district and take up occupation.”

Hosi Nxumalo’s claim

After the defeat of Nghunghunyani in 1895, none of his descendents were recognized as
king (and) Paul Kruger and (others) accorded the Ndwandwe leaders the status of chief.

We would have liked Hosi nxumalo to specify his family’s interaction with the Tsonga
chiefs and their communities that were in the Transvaal and clarify the influence his
ancestors had to these groups even though they were not recognised as kings. The reality
is that they still could have had some influence to these communities even if the
government was not according them the status of king, which would mainly be on paper.

Just to give the example of the Zulus, whom Hosi Nxumalo used comparatively to the
Shangaans:

“…Shepstone’s ideas of “government tribes” could be fairly readily implemented (but)

this proved not to be the case north of Thukela river where the Zulu population had a
recent history of centralized rule, focused on the Zulu royal house, and of independence
(Cope 1993:2)”.

“After 1925, Solomon’s multifaceted role as Zulu king thus represented a more powerful
and pervasive presence in Zulu speaking society (Cope 1993:139)”
During the First World, Buyisonto, Nghunghunyani’s heir was enlisted by the Portuguese to
fight, first in Europe and later in Africa. When he was in Angola, he deflected to the
British and crossed to South West Africa (Namibia). The Namibian authorities helped him
link up with the Commissioner of Louis Tritchard, who arranged his reunion with Mpisana
in Bushbuckridge.

Buyisonto was scheduled to live Windhoek for Johannesburg’s Park Station, where he was
to be met by a representative of the Swiss Mission Church in Elim, Hakamela Tlakula.
When Buyisonto arrived in the Lousi Tritchardt area, he was introduced to his relatives,
Gija and the Maxobye family. None of the other Tsonga chiefs were informed of
Buyisonto’s arrival in 1922.

From Louis Tritchardt, he was escorted by Gija and the Maxobye family to Mpisana in
Bushbuckridge. Along the way, he passed a number of Tsonga communities, including the
Nkuna, without notice. On his arrival in bushbuckridge, he found his younger brother,
Thulamahaxi, reigning as prince regent.

Mpisana instructed that Thulamahaxi relinguishes the throne to Buyisonto and a

coronation ceremony was held at Mpisana’s palace. No Tsonga traditional leader was
invited in that ceremony and two significant things happened:

First, Buyisonto formally announced the death of his father,¬ Nghunghunyani, in exiled
prison of Azores. He instructed every member of the community to participate in an
extensive mourning ritual. None of communities outside the Amashangana Tribal
Authority participated in that ritual
¬ Secondly, Buyisonto decreed a raiding war against the nearby Pulana community. One
of the reasons for that war was to collect cattle to beef up the stock that was there.
According to Buyisonto’s biographer, “Buyisonto remarked that the Ndwandwe had left
their cattle in Gaza”. None of other Tsonga chiefs contributed regiments to this war.

When Mpisane settled in the Bushbuckridge area after the demise of the Gaza empire,
there was another group of the Ndwandwe led by Gija, a member of the Ndwandwe Royal
Family that fled via Man’ombe and settled on land belonging to Khosi Davhana of the
Venda.
We stated during question time on 27th March 2006 that Man’ombe is the area in which
Giyani town has been built. We also stated that in passing through this area, Gija and his
people passed through the Chavalalas, Nhlaves, Valoyis, Cawukes, the Van’wanati and
other communities that they currently claim as their subjects and proceeded to the
“Magwamba” community, but settled on land belonging to the Venda.

In his response, Hosi Nxumalo’s representative said that was understandable as in a war
situation, people run to the safest destination and even forget their allies along the way.
But it would be interesting to see how Hosi nxumalo would respond to these questions:
Were the communities Gija¬ passed along the way aware of his fleeing through their
areas?
What support¬ did these communities give to him and his people?
If they were the Gaza¬ subjects, weren’t they expected to escort the Royal members to
safety and provide food and other necessary logistics?
If Davhana’s country was safe,¬ wasn’t the Riyondze capital of the “Magwamba” even
safer?
How about the¬ Tzaneen destination and other areas that were far from Gaza or where
they were coming from?

Apart from these unanswered questions, we wish Hosi Nxumalo could explain the
following:

Why was he and his people expelled from¬ Davhana’s country, forcing them to settle at
Xaswita, the land belonging to the Van’wanati chief called Xikundu?
Why did Hosi Xikundu also expel them from¬ his land and how would that be possible if
indeed Hosi Xikundu was their subject?

We know for sure that even Gija himself did not regard the nearby Tsonga communities as
the subjects of Gaza. We have evidence that shows that he actually recognized Mpisana
and his people as the only group linked to his.

In a statement to the white authorities dated 15th January 1904 and attached as
Annexure?, these are some of the statements Gija said:

“….I have come to Johannesburg to see my fellow tribesmen, with the object of
collecting money for purpose of buying food.”
“I know Mpisana who is in charge of Gungunyana’s people in the Lydenburg District. We
fled from the Portuguese after the capture of Gungunyana. The larger number of the
refugees went into the Lydenburg District, with gungunyana’s son, Thulilamahashi, and
the chief wife, Sonile, and other wives of Gungunyana. I fled by another route towards
Madzimangombe, in the Spelonken District, where I have lived ever since with my
following.”

“I cannot state the number of souls who are with me in Spelonken, but there are not very
many.”

OTHER PERTINENT ISSUES RAISED BY HOSI NXUMALO

We have already highlighted most of the inconsistencies, inaccuracies, contradictions and

fallacies raised by Hosi Nxumalo in his submission to the Commission.

He says Jacques and Junod correctly see¬ Machangana as Vatsonga, citing the titles of
their books as “Swivongo swa Machangana (Vatsonga)” and “Vultharhi bya Vatsonga
(Machangana)” (and) that only people with an agenda will find fault with this view. Hosi
Nxumalo must read more about the works of these authors, including the many articles
that they have written about the Tsonga in order to understand the context in which they
were writing and their own personal understanding of the Tsonga and Shangaans. He will
realize that the very same authors had a dilemma and pointed out in some of their works
that they were writing for white man’s understanding. These authors were aware of the
fact that Vatsonga were ethnologically different from Ngoni-Shangaan group of
Soshangane. However, they had a dilemma that the name Shangaan was popularized in
South African mines by white employers as representing people who were ethnologically
Tsonga. In order not to confuse many whites who were more familiar with the name
“Shangaan”, the authors tended to either write Tsonga-Shangaan as a double-barrel name
or alternatively write Tsonga and Shangaan in brackets. H A Junod did allude to the fact
that many Tsongas rejected the Shangaan label at the turn of 20th century.

H P Junod (1977) in Matimu ya Vatsonga addresses the issue of the name of the language
directly:
Kambe loko Vatsonga va vulavula hi ririmi ra vona, swa twala leswaku a va vulavuli ririmi
ra Sochangana, xi nga Xingoni[Xichangana], va vulavula Xitsonga; tibuku hinkwato ta hina
i ta Xitsonga. Vatukulu va Sochangana, Muzila na Nghunyanyana, va hundzukile Vatsonga,
va vulavula Xitsonga. (p.52)

[When Vatsonga speak it is very clear that they do not speak Ngoni [Shangaan] the
language of Soshangane, but they speak Xitsonga. Descendents of Soshangane, Muzila and
Nghunghuyani have been assimilated into the Vatsonga group and are Xitsonga speaking]

Historically, Xitsonga is¬ a language spoken by a very small and insignificant language
group in Mozambique. Their language is unlike the Xitsonga used in written orthography
within the Republic of South Africa.

Hosi Nxumalo confuses the Tonga¬ language of Inhambane (Nyembane) with Tsonga and
therefore this statement must be ignored by the Commission. Further entertainment of
this statement will perpetuate the confusion that was created by colonial writers, which
we are currently working hard to correct. In Mozambican Tsonga is divided into three
branches which are treated as almost separate languages :

(a) Xirhonga is found predominatly in the South Eastern region, South of the Nkomati
river.
(b) Xitshwa-found predominatly south of the Great Save river more especially in the
Inhambane (Nyembane) province
(c) Xitsonga proper-found predominantly in the central and North Eastern reaches of the
Southern parts of the country, mainly the Gaza province. This branch was historically
subdivided into Hlengwe, N’walungu, Dzonga and Bila. The Dzonga dialect formed the
basis of the South African standard Tsonga, the language has some elements of the other
dialects here and there. In Mozambique, Xitsonga proper has been mislabeled Xichangana.
Our document demonstrates throughout that this is a mistake because this language is not
Nguni and is not even nearer to be a Nguni dialect. The confusion is perhaps caused by
the fact that the some people conflate the Gaza province as a colonial and post-colonial
district and the Gaza empire which used to incorporate both Manica, Sofala and
Inhambane provinces.

It is a bit strange that people of Manica province would be prepared to call the people of
Gaza province Shangaans although they are not Ngoni-Shangaan speaking but Tsonga
speaking, whereas the capital of the Gaza empire was based in Manica (a predominatly
Ndau and Manyika speaking areas) for over 20 years, and they themselves are not
prepared to call their languages Ndau and Manyika Shangaan.

In the same vein, the people of Sofala province (who are Ndau speaking), more especially
the Cheringoma area (between Beira and the Zambezi river) which was ruled in 1888 by
the family of Singuimene (Sohomene), who was one of the widows of Soshangane are not
prepared to call their Ndau Shangaan.

It must be noted that Xitshwa and Xironga are not significantly represented in South
Africa to constitute separate languages. We merely have some Ronga dialects like
Xissonga in Ndumo KZN and Xikonde in Saint Lucia Bay in KZN that may be nearer to
extinction.

Any attempt to separate Xitsonga from¬ Xichangana is a hodge-podge of untruths and

half-truths and a misrepresentation of facts. This is the pain the Ndwandwe will have to
live with for the sake of our nation.
Other cultural features of the Machangana include religious¬ beliefs, marriage patterns,
burial rites, food and facial beautification. We need a lot of time on this.
Those who are possessed (by ancestral spirits)¬ carry two spirits within them, viz a Ngoni
and Ndzawu ancestral spirits. The presence of Ngoni and Ndau spirits among Tsonga
speaking people merely indicates a history of interaction between Vatsonga and the two
groups, not that the two groups are one and the same with Vatsonga. Actually, when
these spirits possess someone, they do indicate that they were friends of the forefathers
of the person they are possessing and that they are coming to get shelter (and protect the
person) from the person. The Tsonga-speaking person who is possessed by either Ngoni or
Ndau spirits or both, tend to be also possessed by Vatsende spirits which spoke Tsonga.
When one compares the Ngoni language used by Ngoni spirits and Tsonga language used
by Vatsende spirits, one gets a clear evidence that Tsonga and Ngoni (Shangaan) have
historically been separate languages.

The drawing of the border between the Portuguese and Z.A.R in 1891 was¬ neither
negotiated with the rightful authorities nor recognized by (them).
¬ There was no SA, Mozambique and KNP
Due to the destabilizing effect of the¬ 1895 colonial war against the Portuguese ….. the
Shangaans ….. succumbed to the effect of divide and rule (and) the Boers refused to
recognize them as one kingdom.
(The erection of Nghunghunyani’s statue) by the Limpopo Provincial¬ Government is the
recognition of the statue and international significance of the Soshangana dynasty (and)
confirms that the democratic government of RSA is at pains to restore its subjects’
heritage. To argue that Tsonga traditional leaders in Bushbuckridge, Tzaneen, Phalaborwa
and Giyani objected strongly last year when the Limpopo government erected this
R250000-00 statue is misleading. An estimated crowd of over 30000 descended to bless
the occasion.
In the¬ heat of divide and rule, which culminated in the policy of apartheid, the
descendents of Soshangana’s subjects confirmed their loyalty to their kingdom by naming
their Territorial Authority the Amashangana Territorial Authority.

When in 1969, the homeland system granted some form of¬ self-rule, even those who
collaborated with the apartheid regime could not resist naming their territory
“Gazankulu” (Greater Gaza) in memory of the Gaza Empire of old. This point was
legalized by Gazankulu Homeland Act of 1973.
The naming of a Tsonga homeland as Gazankulu was never a reconstitution of the old
Gaza empire in South African soil. This is evidenced by the fact the Nxumalo Royal family
who participated in the formation of this homeland was never given the kingship of the
homeland. As a political compromise, the leadership of this homeland did present the
people of the homeland as Vatsonga-Machangana, because they wanted to accommodate
into the homeland people who were Tsonga speaking but had pride in calling themselves
Shangaans because their Ngoni-Shangaan origins. The Shangaan name here was merely
accepted as an ethnic label not a linguistic one. This is evidenced by the fact that in all
Gazankulu and South African schools the language that was taught was never called
Shangaan but Xitsonga. Even the radio station for Vatsonga was called Radio Tsonga not
Tsonga- Shangaan or Shangaan.

The inhabitants of¬ the area being claimed are all Shangaans, but the written form of
their language is commonly called Xitsonga. Whether you say Mutsonga or Muchangana,
you are therefore referring to the descendents of Soshangana by birth, acculturation or
conquest.

In their public speeches, both former President Mandela¬ and President Mbeki, never
forget to acknowledge the significant role played by Nghunghunyani and other traditional
rulers. This recognition is a further justification for this claim.
There is no other traditional leader in¬ South Africa, who can submit a case stronger
than this one with a view to claim the throne of the kingdom of the people referred to as
Machangana. No other king ruled over the territory claimed in its entirety.

The Traditional Leadership and Governance Act does not force any traditional community
to have a king at all cost.

The Shangaan/Vatsonga chiefs and tribes are not¬ properly coordinated and do not have
a common focus and approach in the preservation of their culture and heritage. Unity can
only be engendered by strong credible leadership (which) Eric Nxumalo aims at promoting
once on the throne.

This argument seems to imply that when people do not have one king they are
automatically politically backward. We have shown in this document that Vatsonga have
been historically a decentralized society with cultural and linguistic unity. A kingship in
itself would not necessarily promote nation building as Hosi Mpisane claims. There could
be other forums that Vatsonga could have to promote cultural and linguistic unity, rather
than insist on political unity at all cost.
There are those who hope against hope that it may be¬ their opportunity to snatch the
kingship of their tribal clusters, however small.
The electronic and print media have been identified as useful means¬ to garner public
opinion for or against other potential claimants (of the Tsonga kingship).
If the Ndwandwe family is viewed as unsuitable claimants to the¬ throne of the
Machangana kingship, which family then is suitable? Who else has submitted a claim in
this regard?
The Traditional Leadership and Governance Act does not force any traditional community
to have a king at all cost. Vatsonga have a right if they so wish to organize their society in
line with the boundaries of a decentralized society which existed prior to Soshangane’s
adventures?

(African –American historian) Joseph E. Harris (1972) in Africans and Their History, deals
with the issue of decentralized societies as those although with shared cultures,
traditions and customs, did not have a single traditional leader, yet they lived in harmony
with each other
The arrival of Soshangane cannot be seen as the only term of reference that the Tsonga
should look into when they revisit their memory of the past? The existence of strong
Tsonga communities in South East Africa as part of a decentralized society three hundred
years before Soshangane was even born is proof enough that he never founded them?

No credible¬ Muchangana should hold the view that all other Black communities are
deserving of monarchies, but that the Machangana will do with tribal chiefs forever.
As Vatsonga we would prefer to do things because they have intrinsic value and can
contribute positively to our lives rather than that other traditional communities are doing
them.
Hosi SDW Nxumalo performed the coronation¬ ceremony in the installation of Hosi
Majeje in recognition of his status as a Nxumalo.

IMPLICATIONS IN REGARD TO PROVISIONS OF THE TRADITIONAL LEADERSHIP FRAMEWORK

ACT AND THE MANDATE OF THE COMMISSION

TERRITORIAL IMPLICATIONS

We submit that the issue that we are presenting to the Commission has profound legal
implications as the ground for the Nxumalo claim is based on events that took place in
Mozambique. In 1963 the OAU (now AU) took a decision to accept the colonial boundaries
(see attached declaration marked Annexure?). This means that today each government on
the continent has a responsibility to redress events that took place within its borders. As
there was never a Nxumalo King of the Tsonga people in South Africa, there is no need for
this issue to be entertained for that matter. [The capital cities of the Nxumalo Kingdom
were based in Musapa, Chayimithi, Bileni and Mandlhakazi in Mozambique]. The Nxumalos
did, however, have a kingdom among the Nguni in the northern Natal, which
disintegrated with the defeat of Zwide to whom Soshangane was subject and commander
of the army. The collapse of this kingdom was reaffirmed by the appointment of
Mankulumani, Zwide’s grandson, as the traditional prime minister of Zulu king Dinizulu.

A CASE FOR A TSONGA KING?

In our reading of the Act, we understand that the restoration of Kingdoms is not an
electioneering issue where people canvass to be voted, hence we do not think that there
is anyone who qualifies as a king of all the Tsonga. However, individual communities,
including the Nxumalo, should have a right to make claims that specifically affect them
and not to generalize on behalf of all the Tsonga people. We do not believe for once that
the Tsonga should have one King simply because there are ethnic groups that have theirs.
We also do not support the distortion of Tsonga history in the name of what Hosi Nxumalo
refers to as nation-building.

Since Nxumalo’s forefathers failed to culturally and linguistically subjugate Vatsonga,

what guarantee do we have that if he as a Mungoni-Shangaan (or his descendants) that if
given the Tsonga kingship he will not annihilate Tsonga cultural institutions, like
Vukhomba, Musevetho, Ngoma and others which have historically not been part of the
Gaza-Nguni cultural set-up? The bottom line is that Tsonga communities would prefer to
have cultural and linguistic autonomy which would allow us to transform them without
being commanded by somebody like Hosi Nxumalo who has very little, if any, regard for
our history and heritage.

Since the contact between Gaza and Tsonga communities outside the Mabuyundlela was
sporadic and superficial, by awarding Nxumalo the kingship of Vatsonga, the commission
will be giving Nxumalo the powers that his forefathers did not have

AFRICAN RENAISSANCE CHALLENGES

Hosi Nxumalo claims the restoration of the Soshangana kingdom is also given impetus by
President Thabo Mbeki’s call for the revitalization of the African Rennaissance. While we
think that there is a relationship between the restoration of the pride and value of
traditional leadership and the vision of the African Renaissance, we should stay clear of
tendencies which have potential to further divide Africans. The rejuvenation of this
important institution should enable rather than disable the unity of the people. In other
words, African Renaissance should be developmental in that it should not be limited to
political institutions, but should include the relentless engagement with African
knowledge in all areas of human endeavours, be it science or astronomy, etc. Until the
institutions of traditional leadership engage with the aforementioned challenges, their
value will continue to be challenged even if they are recognized by government.

Whereas the outcome of the Renaissance will depend on our dexterity to discern the past
and present fabrications, restoring the memory of Africa to its place must go beyond the
reach of contemporary exigencies. At best, this is the essence of decolonization. We
should not be silent when Africans are as guilty of deconolising themselves by colonizing
their brothers and sisters.

RECOMMENDATIONS

We therefore recommend the following to the Commission:

That the Tsonga community should be recognized as one♣ ethnic group without a single
King;
Different communities should be♣ recognized separately with their individual traditional
leaders at whatever level as the Commission may decide based on presentations from the
different communities;

The claim by Eric Nxumalo to be the king of all the Tsonga♣ people should be dismissed/
rejected by the Commission

Bibliography

Parsons N (1995) Prelude to Difaqane in the Interior of Southern Africac.1600-c.1822, in

Hamilton, C (ed) The Mfecane Aftermath, Reconstructive Debates in Southern African
History, Wits university Press, Johannesburg and Natal University Press, Pietermaritzburg

Contact details: renaissanceaction@webmail.co.za

Posted by TSONGA HISTORY BLOG at 2:11 PM 0 comments

TSONGA HISTORY DISCOURSE

Welcome to the Tsonga History discussion blog, a simple platform for researching the
history of the Tsonga people as part of efforts to rediscover the true history of Africa's
people. We have to do this as a necessity to understand what the past was, in order to
shape a future that is totally free of colonial distortions, a future whose tenure will mark
the total freedom of Africa's people from the yoke of neo-colonialism.

Please feel free to contribute your thoughs, or whatever information that will help this
blog achieve its mission.To kickstart the discussion on the history of the Tsonga people,
we start with the publication of a document on the issue of Tsonga kingship, which is an
abridged version of a submission to the Nhlapo Commission, opposing the claim by Eric
Nxumalo that he be enthroned as a King of the Tsonga (and Shangaan people).

Given the complexity of the debate and the issues at hand, we think that this blog will
allow us to have a responsible debate, with everyone exercising their rights to make their
views known. We are of the view that there is no need for current generations to settle
the unfinished business of yesteryear; rather our challenge is to engage in a collective
journey to locate our distant past in order to build a shared, prosporous future.

Participants are encouraged to be responsible by exercising the necessary restraint,

avoiding at all costs the use of offensive langauge. It is possible to grow from our current
differences around the current efforts to resurrect the 18th century Gaza Kingdom.