Kinship Relations, Colonialism and Agricultural Production Among The Kaguru, 1890S-1960

KINSHIP RELATIONS, COLONIALISM AND AGRICULTURAL
PRODUCTION AMONG THE KAGURU, 1890s-1960
Imani Yaredi Majenda
MA (History) Dissertation
University of Dar es Salaam
July, 2020
KINSHIP RELATIONS, COLONIALISM AND AGRICULTURAL
PRODUCTION AMONG THE KAGURU, 1890s-1960
By
Imani Yaredi Majenda
A Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the

Degree of Master of Arts (History) of the University of Dar es Salaam.
University of Dar es Salaam

July, 2020
i
CERTIFICATION
The undersigned certifies that he has read and hereby recommends for acceptance by the
University of Dar es Salaam a dissertation titled: “Kinship Relations, Colonialism and
Agricultural Production among the Kaguru, 1890s-1960”, in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts (History) of the University of Dar es Salaam.
……………………….…………
Dr. Iddy R. Magoti
(Supervisor)
Date………………….………….
ii
DECLARATION
AND
COPYRIGHT
I, Imani Yaredi Majenda, declare that this dissertation is my own original work and that it has
not been presented and will not be presented to any other University for a similar or any other
degree award.
Signature: ......................................
This dissertation is a copyright material protected under the Berne Convention, the
Copyright Act of 1999 and other international and national enactments, in that behalf, on
intellectual property. It may not be produced by any means, in full or in part, except for
short extracts in fair dealings for research or private study, critical scholarly review or
research or discourse with an acknowledgement, without prior written permission of the
Directorate of Postgraduate Studies, on behalf of both, the author and the University of
Dar es Salaam.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First and foremost I would like to thank the Almighty God for giving me breath and
good health for the whole period of my study. My sincere and deepest appreciation goes
to my supervisor, Dr. Iddy R. Magoti, for his guidance, support and encouragement as
well as for being always available to read my chapters with critical eyes. Without his
persistent help, this dissertation would not have been possible. I also extend my sincere
gratitude to Prof. Yusufu Q. Lawi for his assistance during the initial stage of this study.
Similarly, I would like to thank members of the academic staff in the Department of
History of the University of Dar es Salaam for their academic and moral support. They
include Prof. Frederick Kaijage, Dr. Oswald Masebo, Dr. Gasiano Sumbai, Dr. Musa
Sadock and Dr. Salvatory Nyanto.
I would like to show my appreciation to the management of the Institute of Development

Studies (IDS) for academic advice, encouragement and support. Special mention goes to
the Associate Director Dr. Ronald Ndesanjo, Prof. Stephen Maluka, former Director of
the IDS and Acting Principal at the Dar es Salaam University College of Education
(DUCE) and Mr. Vedasto Hamza, the former IDS Chief Coordinator for Undergraduate
Studies. I also thank other IDS members of staff, in particular, Prof. Hasa Mlawa, Prof.
Bertha Koda, Prof. Esther Dungumaro, Prof. Benedict Mongula, Prof. Elliot Niboye, Dr.
Juma Kiduanga, Dr. Colman Msoka, Dr. Shukrani Mbirigenda, Dr. Hezron Makundi,
Dr. Lilian Mutasingwa, Dr. Leonia Raphael, Mr. Patrick Mlinga, Mr. Ibrahim Maage,
Mr. Philbert Katto, Mr. Chediel Nyirenda, Ms. Wivina Msebeni and Mr. Omary Thabiti.
They always motivated me to work hard and accomplish studies.
Special thanks go to the staff of the Tanzania National Archives (TNA) and librarians at
the University of Dar es Salaam for their cooperation. I would also like to express my
gratitude to the Higher Education Students’ Loans Board (HESLB) for financial support.
I am also indebted to my employer, University of Dar es Salaam Mwalimu J. K. Nyerere
Mlimani Campus for acting as my guarantor to HESLB. I extend my gratitude to the
iv
Administrative Secretaries of Morogoro Region and of Kilosa and Gairo Districts for
allowing me to research their administrative areas. Along similar lines, I thank the Ward
and Village Executive Officers of Rubeho, Magubike and Mamboya Wards.
A word of thanks also goes to my M. A. History classmates namely Ms. Anjuli Webster,
Mr. Bahati Ligate, Mr. Chotimbao Tinda, Mr. Massanja Ng’umbu, Mr. Moses John and
Ms. Stephania Ngonyani for sharing knowledge, experience and leisure time. I also
thank Horace Masika, Mohamed Semkamba, Cecilia Mgombere and Veronica Silayo for
their assistance during data collection at Magubike, Berega and Mamboya villages. I am
also indebted to Valerian Mkambala for offering me unlimited transport using his
motorcycle. Special thanks go to my informants in Rubeho, Berega, Magubike and
Mamboya villages for their willingness to participate in this study. I have greatly
benefitted from their local experiences about past events.
Most importantly, my heartfelt appreciation goes to my parents, my father Yaredi

Majenda and my mother Eliana Majenda, for their love, support, and good wishes; to my
brothers and sisters Azaria Masika, Martha Sangala, Edmond Majenda, Emmanuel
Majenda, Emmanuel Yaredi, Modester Majenda, Amoni Majenda, Dorisi Majenda,
Irene Majenda and Brian Majenda. Their love, prayer and good wishes encouraged me,
especially during research and dissertation writing.
v
DEDICATION
This dissertation is dedicated to my father Yaredi Lebwanga Majenda and my mother
Eliana Masika Majenda.
vi
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
CMS Church Missionary Society
DOAG Deutsch-Oastafrikanische Gesellschaft
DUCE Dar es Salaam University College of Education
HESLB Higher Education Students’ Loans Board
IDS Institute of Development Studies
KNA Kaguru Native Authority
KNC Kilosa Native Council
NA Native Authorities
TNA Tanzania National Archives
UDSM University of Dar es Salaam

vii
ABSTRACT
This study examines the relationship between kinship relations and agricultural
production among the Kaguru in the pre-colonial period and the impacts of colonialism
on kinship relations and agricultural production. The objectives of the study were first,
to examine the relationship that existed in the pre-colonial period between kinship
relations and agricultural production. Second, to examine the impacts of colonialism on
the Kaguru kinship relations and, third, to assess the way agricultural production was
affected. The study was conducted in Ukaguru, the area where the Kaguru ethnic group
lives and was informed by secondary and primary sources both written and oral sources.
Written sources used include books, journal articles, reports, archival sources and
various reports. In terms of oral sources, the study employed interviews as a method of
collecting oral information whereby nineteen respondents were interviewed. The study
found out that kinship relations among the Kaguru were organized around matrilineal
clans. The Kaguru had more than one hundred matrilineal clans which formed a social,
political and economic basis. The livelihood of the Kaguru depended chiefly on
agricultural production. Availability of land and labour were among the prerequisite for
agricultural production among the Kaguru. Kinship was the strongest mobilizing force
for land allocation and labour mobilisation. The onset of colonialism weakened the
power structure of clans which in turn affected the clans’ organization of agricultural
production. The study concluded that despite the effort of colonial governments to
modernize social, political and economic aspects, their effects on kinship relations
among the Kaguru created a sense of individualism which made it impossible for clans’
allocation of land and mobilisation of labour. Such a change adversely affected
agricultural production.
viii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Certification ........................................................................................................................ i
Declaration and Copyright .................................................................................................ii
Acknowledgements ...........................................................................................................iii
Dedication .......................................................................................................................... v
List of Abbreviations and Acronyms ................................................................................ vi
Abstract ............................................................................................................................vii
Table of Contents ............................................................................................................viii
List of Tables .................................................................................................................... xi
List of Figures ..................................................................................................................xii
CHAPTER ONE: GENERAL INTRODUCTION ........................................................... 1
1.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 1
1.2 Background to the Study .............................................................................................. 1
1.3 Statement of the Problem ............................................................................................. 6
1.4 Objectives of the Study ................................................................................................ 6
1.5 Research Questions ...................................................................................................... 6
1.6 Significance of the Study ............................................................................................. 7
1.7 Scope and Area of the Study ........................................................................................ 7
1.8 Literature Review ......................................................................................................... 8
1.9 Theoretical Framework .............................................................................................. 12
1.10 Research Methodology and Limitation of the Study ............................................... 14
1.11 Data Analysis ........................................................................................................... 17

ix
1.12 Organization of the Dissertation .............................................................................. 17
CHAPTER TWO: GEOGRAPHY, ECONOMIES AND KINSHIP RELATIONS IN

PRE-COLONIAL UKAGURU........................................................................................ 18
2.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................ 18
2.2 Geography of Ukaguru............................................................................................... 18
2.2.1 Location of Ukaguru ............................................................................................... 18
2.2.2 Landscape, Soil, Vegetation and Climate of Ukaguru ............................................ 23
2.3 Peopling of Ukaguru .................................................................................................. 27
2.4 Kinship Relations in Pre-colonial Ukaguru ............................................................... 31
2.5 The role of marriage in the formation of kinship ties ................................................ 37
2.6 Economic Activities in Ukaguru ................................................................................ 39
2.6 Conclusion ................................................................................................................. 42
CHAPTER THREE: KINSHIP RELATIONS AND AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION

IN PRE-COLONIAL UKAGURU .................................................................................. 44
3.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................ 44
3.3 Land ownership, Uses and Kinship relation in Ukaguru ........................................... 44
3.3: Organization of Labour in the Kaguru Lineages ...................................................... 51
3.5 Distribution of the Products of Labour among the Lineage Members ...................... 55
3.6 Conclusion ................................................................................................................. 56
CHAPTER FOUR: COLONIALISM, KINSHIP RELATIONS AND AGRICULTURAL

PRODUCTION IN UKAGURU...................................................................................... 57
x
4.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................ 57
4.2 Penetration of Arabs in Ukaguru ............................................................................... 57
4.3 The Penetration of Missionaries in Ukaguru ............................................................. 59
4.4 The CMS and the Kaguru kinship relations ............................................................... 61
4.5 The Colonial Rule in Ukaguru .................................................................................. 63
4.7 Impact of Colonialism on Kinship Relations and Agricultural Production in Ukaguru

.......................................................................................................................................... 66
4.8 Conclusion ................................................................................................................. 70
CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION .................................................. 71
BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................................................................................ 75
xi
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Some of Kaguru Matriclans with 'Welekwa' Names for Males and
Females..............................................................................................................34
xii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: A Map Showing Geographical Location of Ukaguru……...….…………..….20

Figure 2: The Location of Ukaguru in the Pre-colonial Trade Routes………………….22
1
CHAPTER ONE
GENERAL INTRODUCTION
1.1 Introduction
This study focused on kinship relations, colonialism and agricultural production. The
study aimed at analyzing the relationship between kinship relations and agricultural
production and the way colonialism transformed that connection. The study was
influenced by kinship studies which showed that production in some decentralized pre-
colonial African societies was attributed to kinship relations. Kinship relations were
considered as the strongest social mechanism which bounded people together and made
it possible for them to perform various activities including agricultural production.
1.2 Background to the Study

Robin Fox defines kinship as the relations between kin, that is, persons related by real
blood, putative or fictive consanguinity1. Kinship includes relationships through the
blood which is referred to as consanguinity and relationships through marriage referred
to as affinity. According to Fox, kinship relations can be looked at two levels, societal
and individual levels2. At a societal level, we look at the total society and ask how it
forms its kinship groups and how they function. At the individual level, Fox asserts that
individuals are bound to kinship groups. These groups are created by considering
members of groups who are related to each other by common descent which can be
traced back to a common ancestor or ancestress in either the male line (patrilineal) or the
female line (matrilineal) or through both sexes3. In patrilineal societies, a person belongs
to the descent group of the father, and in the matrilineal societies, a person belongs to
the descent group of the mother.
1
Robin Fox, Kinship and Marriage: An Anthropological Perspective (Australia: Penguin Books, 1967),
p.33.
2
Ibid. p. 22.
3
Ibid. p. 49.
2
Scientific studies of kinship began with the publication of Lewis Henry Morgan’s work
titled Systems of Consanguinity and Affinity of the Human Family. Morgan indicated that
family relationships, modes of descent, rules of marriage and gender roles constituted
the main elements of the Kinship relations.4 Morgan also viewed kinship as a social
relationship created by genealogical connection where consanguinity and affinity were
necessary components for the construction of genealogy.5 He found out that biological
factor was an important component in the creation of kinship bonds and hence he placed
blood ties, marriage and genetic relationship to the centre.6 Morgan was criticized by
other scholars like Schneider and Malinowski who argued that kinship relations could
not only be created by biological factors rather they could also be created by cultural
systems.7 According to Schneider and Malinowski, there are cases like adoption where
cultural ties become strong and override the biological ones. Malinowski emphasized
that cultural ties are the ones which “reinforce, re-determine and re-mould” the
biological ties.8 According to Godelier, understanding the nature and operation of
kinship relations is connected with the way the relations are conceived and experienced
by individuals. Godelier’s view differed from that of Morgan, Schneider and
Malinowski as he maintained that the understanding of kinship relations had to do with
both cultural and biological factors.9
Phoebe Ottenberg identified three basic kinship relations which are descent, filiation and
marriage. The first two are closely related and are commonly termed as consanguinity or
blood ties.10 They denote a relationship of a group of persons to a common ancestor or
4
Lewis Henry Morgan, Systems of Consanguinity and Affinity of the Human Family (Washington:
Smithsonian Institution, 1871), p. 10. See also Thomas R. Trautmann, Lewis Henry Morgan and the
Invention of Kinship (Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1987), p.3.
5
Morgan (1871), Op.cit.
6
Ibid., p.10.
7
David M. Schneider, A Critique of the Study of Kinship (Michigan: The University of Michigan Press,
1984), p.171; B. Malinowski, “Parenthood: The Basis of Social Structure.” In V. Calverton and S. D.
Schmalhausen (eds.), The New Generation (New York: Macaulay, 1930), p. 26.
8
Ibid.
9
Maurice Godelier, The Metamorphoses of Kinship (Paris: Fayard, 2004), p.127.
10
Phoebe Ottenberg, Cultures and Societies of Africa (New York: Random House, 1966), p. 26.
3
ancestors through a number of generations. Filiation, for example, denotes the relation
between parent and child and is a fundamental process upon which descent is based. The
third type of relationship is that by marriage, namely between a husband and wife, and
between a person and his spouse’s family. This is referred to as affinity. 11 Phoebe also
accepted the fact that there are many forms of consanguinity and affinity within African
societies. Unilineal descent is common and it consists of three important types which are
patrilineal, in which descent is reckoned through male’s or father’s side, matrilineal in
which it is reckoned through female’s or the mother’s side and double descent which
incorporates both matrilineal and patrilineal descent groups.12 Phoebe’s and Morgan’s
analysis of kinship considered relationship through blood as fundamental as far as
kinship relations are concerned.
Generally, many scholars agree that kinship has been one of the strongest forces in
African life.13 According to Maurice Godelier, kinship relations influenced “relations of
production” in African societies. It also regulated the rights of groups and individuals
concerning ownership of the means of production and access to products of their
labour.14 According to Juhani Koponen, kinship relations in Africa played a great role
in social organization.15 Kinship relations were reckoned as the foundation of social
organization in most African societies. Clan heads, in this case, had control over
political, economic and social matters in the society.16 In other societies, such as the
Nyamwezi, Sukuma and Kimbu, clans were not unilineal in a mutually exclusive
manner. In those societies, the succession of highest political office was matrilineal
11
Ibid. p. 29.
12
Ibid., p.24.
13
Kanu Ikechukwu Anthony, “Kinship in African Philosophy and the Issue of Development”
,International Journal of Humanities, Social Sciences and Education (IJHSSE) VoL. 1, No. 9, ( 2014) p.1;
Maurice Godelier, “Modes of Production, Kinship and Demographic Structure” in Bloch, M. (ed.),
Marxist Analysis and Social Anthropology (New York: Wiley, 1975), p.14; Juhani Koponen. People and
Production in Late Pre-colonial Tanzania: History and Structures (Finland: Gummerus Kirjapaino,
1988), p.211.
14
Godelier (2004), Op. cit.,p.14.
15
Koponen (1988), Op. cit., p.211.
16
Ibid.
4
while other institutions remained patrilineal.17 In both systems, descent groups were very
important in production, including agricultural production.
Agriculture, the practice of cultivating crops and livestock keeping, in Africa constituted
the basic economic activity from which people obtained their subsistence. By 1000 A.D.
many African societies were engaging in the domestication of crops and animals.18
Organisation of agricultural activities varied depending on the society concerned.19
Some African societies organised agricultural activities on a kinship basis20 hence
kinship relations were significant as they influenced economic activities which were
vital for the survival of the people. Kinship was a primary social institution and was
also at the core of labour organisation. It was kinship which determined the allocation of
resources among members of a particular clan.
Colonial conquest and occupation which began in the last quarter of the 19th century
transformed kinship relations in Africa. For example, French colonial rule in West
Africa introduced new practices and norms in terms of family, marriage, parenthood and
childhood. Economically, the organisation of agricultural production and distribution of
agricultural products were altered drastically.21 The French colonial state distracted
customary land laws and broke the power of the local rulers called warlords. The new
administration set also divided people and hence labour mobilisation for agricultural
activities became difficult.22
17
Ibid., p. 216
18
Christopher Ehret, ‘The East African Interior’, in M. Elfasl And I. Hrbek (eds.), General History of
Africa Vol. III: Africa From the Seventh to the Eleventh Century (Heinemann: Heinemann Educational
Publishers, 1995), p. 631; Paul Uche Mbakwe, ‘The impact of colonial rule on the agricultural economy of
Mbaise, Imo State, 1500-1960’, African Journal of History and Culture Vol. 7, No. 6 (2015).
19
John Iliffe, A Modern History of Tanganyika (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979), pp.14-34
20
Koponen (1988), Op. cit. p. 216.
21
Erdmute Albert, Tabea Häberlein and Jeannett Martin, “Changing Webs of Kinship: Spotlights on West
Africa”, Africa Spectrum Vol. 3. (2010) p.48.
22
Ibid.
5
In Tanzania, the Germans introduced their colonial rule among the Kaguru community
in 189123. Since that time, the Kaguru were integrated into the colonial economy which
had implications for their kinship relations and traditional agricultural systems in
general. In 1919 the British took over the colony. Administratively, the British used the
indirect rule system which altered political organization among the Kaguru people.
British also introduced colonial economy in Tanganyika. Since kinship relations were
very crucial in a societal organisation, the introduction of colonial administration and
colonial economy constrained the processes by which kinship relations and cultural
values were being practiced and transmitted through generations. Thomas Beidelman
asserts that the colonial government did not recognise all Kaguru clans rather few clans
were recognised with the intention of using them for selecting leaders for a local Native
Authority.24
Studies on kinship relations have been very essential for understanding societies’
economic, political or religious aspects.25 However, the existing literature on the Kaguru
focused on their cultures and social organisation without linking them to colonialism and
resulting impact on agricultural production26. The literature acknowledges that kinship
relations played a major role in the organisation of agricultural production and that the
coming of colonialism brought changes in traditional kinship relations.27 However,
23
Thomas O. Beidelman, Culture of Colonialism: The Cultural Subjection of Ukaguru (Bloomington:
Indiana University Press, 2012), p.48
24
John Middleton and E. H. Winter (eds.), Witchcraft and Sorcery in East Africa (London: Routledge,
1963), p.59
25
A. R. Radcliffe-Brown and Daryll Forde (eds.), African Systems of Kinship and Marriage, (New York:
Oxford University Press, 1950), p.1
26
Thomas O. Beidelman, The Matrilineal Peoples of Eastern Tanzania (Zaramo, Luguru, Kaguru, Ngulu
etc) (London: International African Institute, 1967), p.39; Thomas O. Beidelman, “The Kaguru Descent
Groups (East-Central Tanzania)”, Anthropos, Bd. 66, H. 3./4,1971), p.378
27
D. A. Redd, “The Hadza and Kaguru of Tanzania: Gender Roles and Privileges at Two Subsistence
Levels”, Lambda Alpha Journal, V.28, (1998); Beidelman (1971), Op.cit; Beidelman (1967), Op.cit. p.39;
Thomas O. Beidelman, Moral Imagination in Kaguru Modes of Thought (Bloomington: Indiana
University Press, 1986), pp. 69-70; Raphael Mwita Akiri, The Growth of Christianity in Ugogo and
Ukaguru (Central Tanzania): A Socio-Historical Analysis of the Role of Indigenous Agents 1876-
1933(PhD Thesis, University of Edinburgh, 1999), p. 21, Thomas O. Beidelman, The Kaguru: A
Matrilineal People of East Africa, (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1971) Beidelman (2012),
Op.cit, p. 103.
6
reviewed studies do not show clearly how colonialism impacted on kinship relations and
thereafter affected agricultural production.
1.3 Statement of the Problem

Many studies conducted on kinship in Ukaguru identified forms of kinship relations that
existed among the Kaguru in pre-colonial times and how they influenced agricultural
production, both crop cultivation and animal husbandry28. However, there was a paucity
of knowledge regarding the link between kinship relations, colonialism and agricultural
production. This study aimed at investigating how colonialism influenced kinship
relations among the Kaguru and how the encounter between Kaguru kinship relations
and colonialism affected agricultural production in that society.
1.4 Objectives of the Study

The main objective of this study was to examine the relationship between kinship
relations and agricultural production among the Kaguru and to unveil the impact of
colonialism on the pre-existing ties between kinship relations and agricultural
production. The specific objectives were: first, to examine the relationship between
kinship relations and agricultural production among the Kaguru in the late 19th century;
second, to examine how colonialism impacted upon the Kaguru kinship relations; and
third, to assess the impact of the colonial transformation of Kaguru kinship relations on
agricultural production.
1.5 Research Questions

This study was guided by three questions which were formulated based on the above
specific objectives. The research questions were: What were the relationships between
kinship relations and agricultural production among the Kaguru in the late 19th century?
28
Redd (1998), Op. cit; Beidelman (1971), Op.cit; Beidelman (1967), Op.cit. p.39; Beidelman (1986), Op.
cit. pp. 69-70; Akiri (1999), Op. cit. p. 21, Beidelman (1971); Beidelman (2012), Op.cit. p. 103.
7
How did colonialism transform kinship relations among the Kaguru? How did the
colonial transformation of Kaguru kinship relations influence agricultural production?
1.6 Significance of the Study

This study shows the significance of kinship relations on economic production,
specifically agricultural production among the Kaguru people. The study also provides a
clear understanding of how social structures and production interacted with ideological
and political power in the context of African societies during the colonial period. The
findings of this study help to understand the interface between kinship relations,
colonialism and agricultural production.
1.7 Scope and Area of the Study

This study focused on the influence of kinship relations on agricultural production and
the resulting impact of colonial intervention on the relationship between kinship and
agriculture. The study covered the period from the onset of colonialism in the 1890s up
to 1960. The year 1890s was selected as the beginning of German colonial rule in East
Africa, but at that time pre-colonial social and economic conditions were still dominant
in the region. The year 1960 was selected as the time when colonialism ended in
Tanzania. This timeframe enabled the researcher to study the relationship between
kinship relations and agriculture in the whole period of colonialism in Tanzania.
However, pre-colonial developments have been covered in the study starting from 1860s
in order to observe continuity and changes as far as kinship relations among the Kaguru
are concerned. During the colonial period, the Kaguru lived in several areas that today
constitute Gairo district, northern Kilosa district, northeastern Mpwapwa, eastern
Kongwa district, southern Kilindi and western Mvomero district. This study
concentrated on Kilosa and Gairo districts. Specifically, the study was conducted in
three wards namely Mamboya and Magubike wards in Kilosa district and Rubeho ward
in Gairo district. The three wards were selected purposively because they were affected
by colonialism. It was also in these wards where the early contact between Kaguru and
8
Arabs as well as missionaries was witnessed. Field research in those wards helped the
researcher to obtain plenty of historical information on kinship relations, colonialism
and agricultural production.
1.8 Literature Review

Kinship studies began to attract many scholars after Lewis Henry Morgan’s publication
of Systems of Consanguinity and Affinity of the Human Family where he examined
cultures of American Indians in an attempt to discover the centrality of kinship relations
in socio-economic systems.29 Maurice Godelier established that kinship relations
determined the place occupied by individuals in production, their rights to land and
goods, their obligations in respect of work and gifts. Kinship relations also functioned as
production relations, just as in the case of political and religious relations.30 Godelier’s
analysis showed that kinship relations not only facilitated economic activities but also
dominated the social life.31 Along similar lines, Claude Meillassoux viewed kinship
relations as an important factor upon which relations of production are built. These
relations are associated with cooperation and were essential for agricultural production.32
Both Godelier and Meillassoux analysed the role of kinship relations in the pre-capitalist
agricultural societies. Their analysis paid little attention to dynamics and transformations
of kinship relations under colonialism.
In the African context, scholars studied functions of kinship in many pre-colonial

societies. They also published extensively on African understanding of kinship relations
and their role in society.33 Their studies showed that in most African societies, kinship
29
Trautmann (1987), Op. cit. p. 3.
30
Godelier (1972), Op. cit. p. 93.
31
Ibid.
32
Claude Meillassoux, ‘From Reproduction to Production: A Marxist Approach to Economic
Anthropology’, Economy and Society, Vol. 1. Issue 1 (1972)
33
George Dalton, ‘The Development of Subsistence and Peasant Economies in Africa’ in G. Dalton (ed.),
Tribal and Peasant Economies: Readings in Economic Anthropology (New York: The National History
Press, 1967), p.157; Ottenberg (1966), Op. cit. p. 26; David Seddon (ed.), Relations of Production:
Marxist Approaches to Economic Anthropology (New York: Frank and Cass Company, 1978), p.37; E. E.
9
relations were very important for social, political and economic institutions. Dalton
viewed that social and economic organizations were determined by kinship obligations,
tribal affiliation and religious and moral duty.34 He further observed that with the
development of Western technology and the introduction of money economy in West
Africa market forces overrode kinship relations in influencing production. The influence
of kinship relations on African agricultural societies was also manifest in livestock
keeping. According to Ottenberg, in pastoral societies herds were not only regarded as
means of subsistence but also as forms of wealth and they were primarily owned by
groups of kinsmen rather than individuals.35 Evans-Pritchard shows that among the Nuer
where livestock keeping overpowered cultivation, cattle was considered an important
social asset which was directly related to cultural practices like folklore, marriage,
religious ceremonies and relations with neighbour.36 Although Evans-Pritchard
inadequately explained economic relations among the Nuer,37 his study shows that
despite lacking clearly defined laws and leaders, the kinship maintained social order
among the Nuer. Although these scholars acknowledged the significance of kinship
relations in African societies, they did not adequately discuss the impact of colonialism
on African kinship relations and its consequences on agricultural production. Dalton, for
instance, inadequately elaborated the way agents of modernisation, such as technology,
affected kinship relations in West African societies.
In Tanzania, several studies exist which show the relationship between kinship relations
and agricultural production.38 Juhani Koponen, for example, asserts that economic
Evans-Pritchard, The Nuer: A Description of the Modes of Livelihood and Political Institutions of a
Nilotic People, (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1940); Rodney Needham (ed), Rethinking Kinship and
Marriage (London: Routledge, 1971); A. R. Radcliffe-Brown and Daryll Forde (eds.), African Systems of
Kinship and Marriage (New York: Oxford University Press, 1950); Maurice Godelier, Rationality and
Irrationality in Economics (New York: Monthly Review Press, 1972), p.93.
34
Dalton (1966), Op. cit. p.157.
35
Ottenberg (1966), Op. cit. p.25.
36
Evans-Pritchard (1940), Op. cit. pp. 17-19.
37
Ibid. p. 92.
38
Koponen (1988), Op. cit. p.216.; Peter Rigby, Cattle and Kinship among the Gogo: A Semi-pastoral
Society of Central Tanzania (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1969); Monica Wilson, Rituals of Kinship
among the Nyakyusa (London: Oxford University Press, 1957); Monica Wilson, Communal Rituals of the
10
activities in African societies were traditionally organised in many different ways. Some
activities were organised along clans where kinship relations played a great role in
regulating access to the most vital means of production and reproduction, namely
marriage, land use, transfer of property as well as maintaining order in the society. 39
Along similar lines, a study by Monica Wilson on the Nyakyusa concluded that the
relations within and between kinship groups enhanced cooperation in cultivation and
many other activities which required collective labour.40
A study by Gulliver concluded that economic, political and neighbourly relations among
the Ndendeuli were explained in the idiom of kinship. Gulliver showed that kinship
established both practical and moral relationships between people which justified the
rights and obligations, privileges and responsibilities among the Ndendeuli kinsmen.41
As far as livestock keeping is concerned, Rigby in his Cattle and Kinship among the
Gogo explained that rights and obligations over livestock and their exchange provided
the most important index of effective kinship relationships in Gogo society. 42 All studies
by Koponen, Wilson, Gulliver and Rigby shed light on the importance and functions of
kinship relations on agricultural production. However, the studies did not investigate the
dynamics of kinship relations as a result of either internal forces or external forces or
both.
Other scholars recognised the fact that external and internal influences on kinship
relations of a particular society resulted in changes in the organisation of the economy.
New political and economic systems brought new forms of division of labour and land
distribution which in turn influenced changes in kinship relations. In the European
Nyakyusa (London: Oxford University Press, 1959); Monica Wilson, ‘Nyakyusa Kinship’, in A. R.
Radcliffe-Brown and Daryll Forde (1950), Op. cit.; P. H. Gulliver, Neighbours and the Networks: The
Idiom of Kinship in Social Action among the Ndendeuli of Tanzania (Los Angeles: University of
California Press, 1971); Beidelman (1967), Op. cit.; Beidelman (1971), Op. cit.
39
40
Wilson (1950), Op. cit. p.116
41
Gulliver (1971), Op. cit. p. 351.
42
Rigby (1969), Op. cit. p.24.
11
context, forces of modernity were responsible for causing changes on kinship relations.
A study by Naomi Tadmor concluded that, economic growth, industrialisation, urban
growth, growing individualism, and social and geographical mobility were among the
main forces that influenced changes in the scope and force of kinship in England.43
In Africa changes in kinship relations were witnessed during contact with Asians and
Europeans. Concerning Ukaguru, the existing number of ethnographic studies by
anthropologists Thomas Beidelman, D. A. Redd, Jeffery Meeker, Dominique Meekers
and Nadra Franklin focused much on the cultural setting of the Kaguru including their
kinship relations and economic activities and gender roles.44 Starting from the 1880s,
many societal transformations occurred in Ukaguru because of the encroachment of
European imperial powers.45 The encounter between the Kaguru and the external world
is traced back to the period of caravan trade where the central route stretching from the
Port of Zanzibar, Bagamoyo and Saadani to the Great Lakes regions passed through
Ukaguru.46 Because of that, large groups of outsiders and inland people passed through
Ukaguru. According to Beidelman, the area also became a resting spot due to its good
supply of water and food.47 This made Ukaguru attractive to the caravan trade,
particularly in the central route. The contact between the Kaguru and outsiders
influenced changes in kinship relations that had an impact on agricultural production.
Studies in Ukaguru show that the Kaguru were agriculturalists. They cultivated local
crops such as sorghum, finger millet, maize, beans, yams, plantains, groundnuts, castor,
43
Naomi Tadmor, ‘Early Modern English Kinship in the Long run: Reflections on Continuity and
Change’, Continuity and Change. Vol. 25 No. 1 (2010). p.17.
44
Beidelman (1971), Op. cit.; Jeffrey Meeker and Dominique Meekers, “The Precarious Socio-Economic
Position of Women in Rural Africa: The Case of the Kaguru of Tanzania”, African Studies Review, Vol.
40. No. 1 (1997); Dominique Meekers and Nadra Franklin, ‘Women’s Perception of Polygyny among the
Kaguru of Tanzania’, Working Paper No. 263, August 1997.
45
A. Adu Boahen, ‘Africa and the Colonial Challenge’, in A. A. Boahen (Ed.) General History of Africa
Vol. VII: Africa under Colonial domination 1880-1935 (Heinemann: Heinemann Educational Books, Ltd,
1985), p.1.
46
Beidelman (2012), Op. cit. p. 39.
47
Ibid. p. 42.
12
tobacco, manioc and tomatoes. With the influence of Arabs, coastal crops such as palms,
and sugar cane were also planted in Ukaguru.48 The Kaguru also kept cattle, donkeys,
depending on the geographical zone.49 Most Kaguru depended on cultivation and cattle
holdings not only for their food but for their cash incomes as well. Kinship was the basis
for the ownership of the means of production which included land, livestock and labour.
Beidelman asserts that political and economic power in Ukaguru was held by clans
which were responsible for certain rights to land.50 Beidelman did not adequately discuss
the way agricultural production, which was the main economic activity organised at
kinship level, was affected by the colonial intervention.
Overall, the reviewed literature affords an understanding of the concept of kinship

relations and production. Scholars have acknowledged the fact that kinship relations
were very important as far as production, particularly agricultural production, was
concerned. They also acknowledged that colonialism was very influential in bringing
about changes in social organisation embodied in the aspect of kinship relations.
Ukaguru is among the areas in which kinship relations were tied up with the
organisation of political and economic matters of the society. Although the existing
literature analyses the interface between kinship and production in pre-colonial African
societies, it leaves an important knowledge gap on how colonialism impacted upon
kinship and thereby influenced agricultural production. This study aimed to bridge that
gap.
1.9 Theoretical Framework

This study used two theories which are alliance and political economy theories. Alliance
theory was used to analyse kinship relations while the political economy theory was
used to analyse the link between colonial policies and economic production. Alliance
48
Ibid.
49
50
Thomas O. Beidelman, “Beer Drinking and Cattle Theft in Ukaguru: Intertribal Relations in a
Tanganyika Chiefdom”, American Anthropologist, New Series, Vol. 63. No.3. (1961). p. 536.
13
theory has been used by many anthropologists51 in studying African societies, especially
which had a kinship-based organisation. The theory stresses the importance of marriage
in the formation of kinship relations and strengthening solidarity among kin members.
This theory was propounded by Claude Levi-Strauss in 1949 and was further developed
by scholars like Radcliffe-Brown and Evans-Pritchard who in their studies52 exemplified
the role of marriage in the creation of kinship ties. According to Rivers, alliance theory
is most appropriate when the community is divided into distinct social groups, and this
distinctiveness is most pronounced in clan organisation in which the practice of
exogamy separates the social groups called clans clearly from one another. The theory
was useful in studying the Kaguru society which had social, political and economic
aspects organised on a clan basis. The theory provided a framework for understanding
the nature and functions of kinship groups and their significance in agricultural
production.
Political economy theory, on the other hand, provided insights on the inextricable
linkage between colonial state policies and their influence on economic activities. This
approach, as demystified by Gary Browning and Andrew Kilmister, necessitates seeing
the economy as an important part of a social whole and requires tracing in detail the
links between economic, political and social development.53The theory focused on the
way political institutions and economic systems influence each other. The theory also
explained the essential role of colonial state policies in determining economic
production and outcomes.
51
Louis Dumont, An Introduction of Two Theories of Social Anthropology: Descent groups and Marriage
Alliance (New York: Berghahn Books, 2006), p.30.
52
W. H. R. River, Kinship and Social Organization (London: The Athlone Press, 1968); Louis Dumont,
An Introduction of Two Theories of Social Anthropology: Descent groups and Marriage Alliance (New
York: Berghahn Books, 2006); Radcliffe-Brown and Forde (1950), Op. cit.; E. E. Evans-Pritchard, The
Nuer: A Description of the Modes of Livelihood and Political Institutions of a Nilotic People, (Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1940)
53
Gary Browning and Andrew Kilmister, Critical and Post-Critical Political Economy (New York:
Palgrave Macmillan, 2006), p .2.
14
In Tanzania, as elsewhere in colonial Africa, German and later the British colonial states
institutionalised political control and colonial structures of production54. Various
policies ranging from social, political to economic aspects were formulated. The policies
determined the direction and application of colonial rule.55 The economic policies
formulated aimed at creating and strengthening colonial economic activities where
production of cash crops was given more attention. The introduction of the cash
economy as well as taxation drew many people to work on the colonial plantations.56
Therefore this study established that the formulation and implementation of colonial
policies affected kinship relations and agricultural production among the Kaguru. The
two theories, that is, alliance theory and political economy, guided the researcher to
study kinship relations, the impact of colonialism on kinship relations and their
consequences in agricultural production among the Kaguru
1.10 Research Methodology and Limitation of the Study

The study used primary and secondary sources. Secondary sources were obtained from
the University of Dar es Salaam (UDSM) Main Library including its East Africana
Section. The sources included electronic and non-electronic books and book chapters,
journal articles, unpublished dissertations and theses. The sources provided information
which helped the researcher to develop a research agenda based on the gap seen in
previous studies about Kaguru kinship relations. Additionally, other secondary sources
were obtained online in sites subscribed by the University of Dar es Salaam via the
UDSM Virtual Library. From this site books and journal articles were either read online
or downloaded. Online search engines such as JStor, Emerald, Free-Ebooks were
consulted where books rich in kinship concepts and theories were read.
54
Walter Rodney, ‘The Political Economy of Colonial Tanganyika 1890-1930’ in M. H. Y. Kaniki (ed.)
Tanzania under Colonial Rule (Longman, 1979), p. 161.
55
Stephen Neal, A Colonial Dilemma: British Policy and the Colonial Economy of Tanganyika 1918-
1938 (Unpublished M.A. Thesis, Australian National University, 1981), p. 2.
56
Ibid. p.233
15
The study used a wide range of primary sources, including written and oral testimonies.
Written sources were obtained from the East Africana Section in the UDSM Main
Library and the Tanzania National Archives (TNA). In the University library, the
researcher obtained information on the political, economic and social set up of the
Kaguru. The information was found from the annual reports written during the British
colonial rule. The researcher also benefitted from many anthropological studies which
provided information on the Kaguru people, their cultural values and production in
general especially agricultural production.
In the TNA the researcher obtained a range of primary sources, including annual
agricultural reports, livestock and cattle market reports, customary laws governing land
tenure, administrative reports of Ukaguru, to mention few. Most of those reports were
written during the colonial period. Notwithstanding, the information obtained from the
archives equipped the researcher with historical knowledge about the people, their
administration, kinship relations, religious practices and mode of production before and
during colonialism.
The study also relied on oral testimonies which were collected in the area of study. The
researcher had no fixed number of respondents beforehand. He gathered as sufficient
information as possible to cutter for the objectives of the research. After interviewing 19
respondents, the researcher had obtained oral testimonies that sufficiently supplemented
written information and responded to the research questions raised in the study.
Therefore, as far as oral interview is concerned, this study used nineteen respondents.
Oral interviews gave the respondents chances of explaining experiences on the subject
matter. The interviews were conducted in Swahili and Kaguru. The researcher used
unstructured interviews with an interview guide consisting of open-ended questions to
allow personal narratives, probing for details and accuracy.
16
Purposive selection of informants was employed whereby the researcher selected

respondents deliberately based on their potentiality in providing historical information.
Key informants included elderly men and women as well as youths who were able to
recall and elaborate some relevant historical information on the main theme of the
research in the respective areas. The interviews were recorded on a notebook and digital
audio tape recorder. The information was also transcribed daily so that the researcher
had the opportunity to identify gaps during the interview period.
Before undertaking fieldwork, the researcher obtained research permits from the Vice-
Chancellor of the University of Dar es Salaam. During the actual fieldwork, consent of
the respondents was sought where the researcher constantly informed the respondents
about the objectives of the study and sought verbal consent from individual informants
so as their narratives could be recorded in digital recorders.
During conducting research, several challenges were encountered. Some of the

challenges included scarcity of archival sources about Ukaguru and its people. The
researcher tried hard to use the available sources which also gave him guidance on the
kind of information to be sought in the field to make effective complement. Some of the
informants wanted to be paid for their participation in the interview. When the
researcher explained that the purpose of the research was mainly academic rather than
commercial it was difficult for them to understand. The researcher used the introductory
letters from the University to prove that he was a student conducting research mainly for
partial fulfillment of his master’s degree. Eventually, they understood though with
disappointment. Another challenge which is worth mentioning here was the question of
the landscape of Ukaguru. The geography of Ukaguru, which is mountainous in other
areas, made it difficult for the researcher to travel within the study area. It was thanks to
a motorcyclist (bodaboda) who simplified transportation within the study area.
17
1.11 Data Analysis

Both primary and secondary data, written and oral were analysed to answer the research
questions of this study. The researcher combined written and oral data to arrive at the
main research themes. A thorough synthesis of both primary and secondary information
was done throughout the research period. This included cross-checking oral and written
information to test the validity of the data collected. The results obtained were clustered
under major themes that relate to the specific research objectives. The final product is
this Master of Arts dissertation which consists of five chapters.
1.12 Organisation of the Dissertation

This dissertation is organised into five chapters. Chapter one presents aspects such as
objectives of the study, theoretical framework and methodology. The second chapter
analyses the geography, economies and kinship relations of the Kaguru. The chapter also
discusses the pre-colonial political administration of the Kaguru. Chapter three examines
the relationship between Kaguru kinship relations and agricultural production during the
pre-colonial period. The chapter analyses the influence of kinship relations on the means
of production such as land, hoes and human labour before the advent of colonialism.
Chapter four examines how colonialism transformed Kaguru kinship relations and
agricultural production. The fifth chapter is about the general summary and conclusion
of the study. It critically summarises the arguments of the preceding chapters,
highlighting potential aspects which might be of interest for further studies.
18
CHAPTER TWO
GEOGRAPHY, ECONOMIES AND KINSHIP RELATIONS IN PRE-
COLONIAL UKAGURU
2.1 Introduction
This chapter explores the geography, peopling, administration and economic aspects of
Ukaguru during the pre-colonial period. It sets the ground for understanding the nature
of the area inhabited by the Kaguru and their socio-cultural, political and economic
activities. The chapter traces the historical origin of the Kaguru and the formation of
clans which are important as far as kinship relations and agricultural production are
concerned. The chapter, therefore, provides a background for the subsequent chapters.
2.2 Geography of Ukaguru

2.2.1 Location of Ukaguru
Ukaguru refers to “Kaguru land” meaning the land where the Kaguru ethnic group lives.
It lies roughly between latitude 596 and 672 South; and between longitude 3645
and 3735 East. Ukaguru consists of many areas that have substantial ecological
variations. Of all those parts, Itumba Mountainous region is regarded as the central and
most important part of Ukaguru.1 From the mountainous areas, Ukaguru extends
southward to Mukondowa River Valley and its swamp area found at the foot of Itumba
Mountains2. This river valley divides the Kaguru people from their southern neighbours,
the Sagara, Vidunda and Luguru ethnic groups. In the northern part from the
mountainous areas, Ukaguru extends further to the northeastern rivers of Mukundi and
1
D. A. Redd, “The Hadza and Kaguru of Tanzania: Gender Roles and Privileges at Two Subsistence
Levels”, Lambda Alpha Journal, v.28, (1998), p.49.
2
In other travelers’ accounts the term ‘Kaguru Mountains’ was used to refer to ‘Itumba Mountains’.
Nowadays the term Rubeho Mountains overrides Kaguru Mountains and Itumba Mountains which are no
longer in use.
19
Chogoali which divide Ukaguru from the land of Nguru.3 Moreover, Ukaguru is
bordered by Uluguru to the East and Ugogo to the West.
In the late 19th century, Ukaguru occupied an area of about 3600 square miles equivalent
to 91,324 square kilometres4 with a population estimated to be less than 50,000.5
According to Beidelman, up until the early 1960s the Kaguru were more than 87, 000.6
Ukaguru covered the present-day districts of Gairo and northern Kilosa in Morogoro
Region; and parts of eastern Kongwa district and northeastern Mpwapwa district in
Dodoma Region, southern Kilindi district in Tanga Region and southern Kiteto District
in Manyara Region. During the German colonial rule, Ukaguru areas were divided into
two government districts, one being Dodoma and the other one Morogoro. The former
had its administrative centre first located at Mpwapwa and later on, was moved to
Dodoma before the World War I.7 Notwithstanding the division into two districts, the
Kaguru ethnic group formed the majority of the inhabitants of Ukaguru. The expansion
of the Gogo to Mpwapwa and Kongwa district in the 19th century reduced the size of
Ukaguru. It was for this reason that the late pre-colonial Mpwapwa and Dodoma
districts were inhabited by the Gogo with very few Kaguru.
3
Thomas O. Beidelman, The Kaguru: A Matrilineal People of East Africa (New York: Holt, Rinehart and
Winston, 1971), p. 6.
4
T. O. Beidelman, ‘Chiefship in Ukaguru: The Invention of Ethnicity and Tradition in Kaguru Colonial
History’ The International Journal of African Historical Studies, Vol. 11, No. 2 (1978), p. 227.
5
Interview with James Mmassa, Rubeho village, 22nd April 2018
6
Beidelman, ‘Beer Drinking and Cattle Theft in Ukaguru: Intertribal Relations in a Tanganyika
Chiefdom’ in American Anthropologist, New Series, Vol. 63, No. 3 pp. 534-549 (Jun., 1961),p.535.
7
TNA, ACC. No. 61 1/C/1/ , N. A. Kilosa – History of Ukaguru,1942. p.33.
20
Figure 1: A Map Showing Geographical Location of Ukaguru
Source: Adopted and modified by the author in collaboration with Cartographer,

University of Dar es Salaam Cartographic Unit, from Beidelman (2012) Op. cit.
p. xxii.
21
The central caravan routes that ran from Saadani and Bagamoyo to Ujiji passed through
Ukaguru. According to Beidelman, this route had two branches: one passed south-west
from Kitete through lowland Ukaguru to Kilosa where it joined another route that passed
through Mukondowa Valley to Mpwapwa. This branch passed through present-day
Msowero, Mvumi and Rudewa.8 The other branch passed through the heart of the
Kaguru plateau area. This route roughly followed north-west into the mountains passing
through Kife, Magubike, Kitange, Rubeho, Mlali to Mpwapwa.9
8
TNA, ACC. No. 61 1/C/1/, N. A. Kilosa – History of Ukaguru, 1942. p.13
9
Ibid.
22
Figure 2: The Location of Ukaguru in the Pre-colonial Trade Routes
Source: Adopted and modified by the author in collaboration with Cartographer of

University of Dar es Salaam Cartographic Unit, from Koponen (1988), Op. cit.
p. 82.
23
2.2.2 Landscape, Soil, Vegetation and Climate of Ukaguru

Physically, the pre-colonial Ukaguru was featured by mountains, plateau and lowland
areas with fertile soils suitable for agricultural production. The mountainous region was
known as Itumba Mountains and that region formed the centre of Ukaguru. The highest
point in this region was 2200 metres above sea level.10 It was a highland region that
consisted of several mountains separated from one another by various river valleys
heading to the Indian Ocean.11 The area was covered by natural forest and woodlands
associated with underground grasslands. The soil was fertile with rocky soil in some
parts. The ridges and slopes of the Itumba Mountains had relatively shallow soils and
gravely soil textures.12
In the north-western part of Ukaguru, there was a plateau which extended from Itumba
Mountains downward to Mpwapwa. This plateau formed one-fifth of the whole Ukaguru
lowlands and was characterised by savanna, rolling wooded hills, richly fertilized river
valleys, scrub bush and woodlands.13 The eastern part of Ukaguru was the lowlands with
extensive plains stretching north-west and west.14 It was a flat, grassy plain with
scattered scrub. The valleys in the lowlands were watered by numerous rivers flowing
from the Itumba Mountains making the areas desirable for agriculture.
The pre-colonial Ukaguru had two main seasons which portrayed clear demarcation
between them. The first season was called isika and the second one ibahu. The isika was
a wet season in which crop cultivation took place.15 It began roughly from November or
10
Henry Morton Stanley, Through the Dark Continent or the Sources of the Nile around the Great Lakes
of Equatorial Africa and Down the Livingstone River to the Atlantic Ocean (New York: Harper &
Brothers Publishers, 1879), p.91; Akiri (1999), Op. cit. p. 20.
11
12
Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock Development: Tanzania, Soil Fertility Appraisal of Kisangata
Farm, Kilosa District, Tanzania 1990, Mlingano Agricultural Research Institute (Tanga, 1990), p. 3.
13
14
Stanley (1879), Op. cit. p. 92; Penina Mlama, Music in Tanzanian Traditional Theater: The Kaguru as a
Case Study (Unpublished M.A. Dissertation, University of Dar es Salaam, 1973), p. 5.
15
Interview with James Mmassa, Rubeho village, 22nd April 2018; Interview with Enock Mgella,
Mamboya village, 26 September 2018; See also Thomas O. Beidelman, The Matrilineal Peoples of
24
December and extended to June. The beginning of the wet rainy season was indicated by
the lighting and thunderstorms. With these indications, hoeing of fields began. The
season consisted of a series of successive rains which made it easier for the Kaguru to
plant and weed their fields. The first phase of rains was called mhinga. These were
unpredicted rains which fell in December signaling the time for planting staple cereals.16
By January, the second phase of rains which was called mhili (literary meaning
‘second’) had begun. Heavy and regular rains sometimes accompanied by spectacular
thunder, lightning and hail fell during this phase.17 The rains in these two phases were
important for planting.
From late January to mid-February there was a short dry spell which the Kaguru called
chipalangulu. Practically no rain fell in this dry spell. However, this regular periodic dry
spell was needed to allow cultivators to weed their crops and clean more land for
planting18 though it posed problems when it prolonged for a quite long time. Sometimes
this drought started in February and continued up to roughly about 20th March when the
third phase of rains called chifuka began. The fourth phase of rains was called sangila
which began in April. The heaviest rains fell during this period and the Kaguru planted a
second set of crops including beans, peas, tomatoes, potatoes and groundnuts.19
Sometimes the intensity of rainfall varied depending on altitude and vegetation.20 The
highest parts of Ukaguru, Itumba Mountains, received annual rainfall between 1500 mm
– 2500mm.21 In the plateau, rainfall ranged from 700mm to 1000mm and in the
Eastern Tanzania (Zaramo, Luguru, Kaguru, Ngulu etc) (London: International African Institute, 1967),
p. 36.
16
Interview with James Mmassa, Rubeho village, 22nd April 2018; Interview with Enock Mgella,
Mamboya village, 26 September 2018; See also Thomas O. Beidelman, ‘Kaguru Time Reckoning: An
Aspect of the Cosmology of an East African People’ Southwestern Journal of Anthropology, Vol. 19, No.
1 , (1963) p.16.
17
Interview with Simon Mbena Mchanjale, Rubeho Village, 24th April 2018; interview with Kapulwa
Lesudai, Rubeho village, 22nd April 2018.
18
TNA Acc. No. 2 4/9 1940-1953 Agriculture Reports Rainfall and Crops Prospects: Official Telegram
31/3/1943 9/111/108 Kilosa Crop Report p. 36.
19
Ibid. p.51.
20
Interview with Gerishomu Petro Lumambo, Magubike Village, 27th April, 2018.
21
Beidelman (1971), Op.cit. p. 7.
25
lowlands from 650mm to 750mm. In May the intensity of rains began to decrease to
allow crops to ripe and dry-up ready for harvest. The rains ceased in June and that
marked the end of the wet season.
The second season was the dry season ibahu which began in June and ended in
November.22 With exceptions of the mountainous areas, in the dry season, there was no
rain in Ukaguru. Sometimes light rains occurred during July or August which harmed
the ripened crop. Mountainous areas continued to receive rains even in September and
October. The season was important for harvest and a range of activities which required
large stocks of food.23 Marriages, initiation and ritual ceremonies were performed
during this season.24 Towards the end of the dry season, specifically in late October,
preparation of fields began. This was done by clearing and burning of the fields.25
The pre-colonial climate of Ukaguru was cool with varying temperatures depending on
the altitude and season. In the plateau, the temperature ranged from 21C to 35C during
the wet season. During the dry season, the temperature dropped to about 10C. The
lowlands had a temperature between 15C and 37C. The Itumba Mountains were the
coolest of all with temperatures ranging from 5C to 30C26. This climatic condition
determined the kind of crops to be planted. In Itumba Mountains, for example, long
rainy season and cool climate limited cultivation of finger millet and sorghum.27
During the colonial period, slight changes occurred in the aspects of vegetation, rainfall
and climatic condition. The increased human activities such as farming and pastoralism
affected the vegetation.28 In the plateau and lowland Ukaguru, extensive agricultural
22
23
Beidelman (1963), Op. cit. p.17.
24
Interview with Petro Chadibwa Magubike Village, 25th April 2018; Interview with Saidi Bakari,
Magubike Village, 25th April 2018; Beidelman (1963), Op. cit. p. 17.
25
Redd (1998), Op. cit. p. 50.
26
27
Ibid.
28
Interview with Simon Mbena Mchanjale, Rubeho village, 24th April 2018.
26
production took place where people cleared land for settlement and farming.29 This
brought changes in the climate of Ukaguru which was manifest in rainfall and
temperature. The rainfall, in the Mountainous areas, ranged from 1000mm to 1800mm30,
in the plateau 650mm to 900mm and in the lowlands 600mm to 700mm. The beginning
of wet season delayed as in some years no rain fell until mid-December.31 The high
rainfall for the whole Ukaguru was April, during the fourth phase of rains called sangila
where the second set of crops were planted.32 However, the intensity of rains during this
phase decreased early. In years with drought, people harvested too little to make them
survive during the wet season. This resulted in famine. After the Maji Maji uprising of
1905-1907, there occurred a drought which resulted in famine in Ukaguru.33
Notwithstanding, other years received high rainfall from early October which resulted in
a good harvest and people had plenty of crops for subsistence and trade. According to
Rolando V. Garcia and Pierre Spitz, the good harvest in Ukaguru in 1944 and 1945 was
attributed to short rains which began prematurely and enabled the people to plant their
crops earlier than usual.34
The climate of Ukaguru during colonial period was good and supported agricultural
production and other social economic activities. The temperature was not the same
throughout Ukaguru because of variation of altitude and season. Mean annual
temperatures varied from a maximum of 25°C in December to a minimum of 20°C in
July at lower altitudes.35 Temperatures fell significantly below this at higher altitudes,
especially in the mountainous areas. On the eve of the dry season particularly in June
29
30
J. J. Kashaigili, ‘Rapid Environmental Flow Assessment for the Ruvu River’, Global Water for
Sustainability Program (A Consultancy Report submitted to iWASH, 2011), p. 4; Nike Doggart, Andrew
Perkin, Jacob Kiure, Jon Fjeldsa, John Poynton and Neil Burgess, ‘Changing Places: How the Results of
New Field Work in the Rubeho Mountains influence Conservation Priorities in the Eastern Arc Mountains
of Tanzania’, in African Journal of Ecology, No. 44 (2006), p. 136.
31
Interview with James Mmassa, Rubeho village, 22nd April 2018; Beidelman (1971), Op. cit. p.8.
32
33
34
Rolando V. Garcia, Pierre Spitz, The Roots of Catastrophe: The 1972 Case History, (New York:
Pergamon Press, 1986), p.124
35
Doggart et al (2006), Op. cit. p. 136.
27
and July, the whole Ukaguru became extremely cold where the temperature dropped to
10°C.36 The temperature during these months was significant in cultivation as it enabled
crops to ripe and dry up ready for harvest.
2.3 Peopling of Ukaguru

Ukaguru was inhabited by five ethnic groups the majority being the Bantu Kaguru. The
minority ethnic groups included the Nguru, Kamba, Gogo, and the Baraguyu (Kwavi). 37
The main reasons behind their existence in Ukaguru were warfare, famine and slave
trade38. The Kamba and the Kwavi resided in the north-western part of the Itumba
Mountains in the villages of Ndogomi, Nguyami and Kitaita.39 In the north-eastern parts
of the Itumba Mountains resided the Nguru and their immediate neighbours, the Zigua.
These ethnic groups co-existed with the Kaguru and claimed no land as theirs since they
arrived in the area when the Kaguru had already settled.
The Kaguru were a matrilineal Bantu community who first migrated from Congo and
inhabited the area called Ukaguru. Today, they inhabit Gairo and northern Kilosa district
in Morogoro Region; and parts of eastern Kongwa district and northeastern Mpwapwa
district in Dodoma Region, southern Kilindi district in Tanga Region and southern
Kiteto District in Manyara Region.40 They speak Kaguru language. The Kaguru
themselves call their language Chikagulu41. Early accounts by European travelers
36
37
Beidelman (1961), Op.cit. p.535.
38
TNA Acc. 61 1/C/1 1941 Native Affairs in Kilosa – History of Ukaguru; Beidelman (1961), Op. cit. p.
535; Akiri (1999), Op. cit. p. 21.
39
40
Beidelman (1963), Op. cit., p. 9; Meredeth Turshen, The Political Ecology of Disease in Tanzania (New
Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1984), p. 96.
41
The Kaguru rarely use R-sound in their utterances. This is the reason why they call themselves
‘Wakagulu’ instead of ‘Wakaguru’. However since the term ‘Wakaguru’ owes its origin from non-Kaguru
people, it is therefore certain that Kaguru is appropriate term to describe their ethnic group. For more
details about the Kaguru language, see Malin Petzell, Three Kaguru Stories: Annotations, Analysis and
World Lists, Studia Orientalia Electronica, Vol. 3 (University of Gothenburg, 2015); Malin Petzell, The
Kaguru Language of Tanzania: Grammar, Texts and Vocabulary (Koln: Rudiger Koppe Verlag, 2008)
p.23.
28
described the Kaguru as Sagara, Megi, Tumba or Solwa42. In other reports, the Kaguru
were described as a sub-tribe of the Sagara.43 This was partly because the land stretching
from Nguru to Ugogo was termed as Usagara hence any ethnic group found in between
was described as either Sagara or small group within the Sagara ethnic group.
There were also many assertions about the origin of the term Kaguru. According to J. T.
Last, Kaguru was derived from the name of the Kaguru Mountains which most Kaguru
inhabited.44 Beidelman maintained that the name Kaguru was derived from the root –
gulu meaning steep, hilly, tall.45 Kaguru oral traditions hold a view that the name
Kaguru was coined from two indigenous terms Wekala-ngulu which meant “people
residing in the Nguru Mountains.” As the term became frequently used by the
neighboring societies it lost its originality though the meaning remained the same. Later
on, it became Wakaanguru46 and as years passed by the name Wakaguru became widely
used and the Kaguru identified themselves as Wakaguru (the plural form of Mkaguru, a
Kaguru person) which meant ‘mountain or hill people.47 Therefore the term Kaguru is
associated with the mountains where the Kaguru lives. Before living in the mountains
the Kaguru were known as Jang’anja meaning “very tall people.”48 In literature, the
word Wakaguru was published for the first time in 1860 by Richard Burton.49
Linguistic classification of peoples of East Africa places the Kaguru in the central Bantu
ethnic groups which include the Gogo, Iramba, Isanzi, Lambi, Nyaturu and Mbugwe,
42
43
Richard Burton, The Lake Regions of Central Africa: A Picture of Exploration (New York: Harper &
Brothers, Publisher, 1860), p. 129.
44
Last, The Church Missionary Intelligencer, A Monthly Journal of Missionary Information Vol. III New
Series (London: Church Missionary House, 1878), p. 645.
45
46
The prefix ‘Wa-‘ in words like Wakala-ngulu, Wakaanguru, Wakaguru is a noun class prefix which
means ‘People’. This prefix has been widely used in clan names to refer to people/members of clans.
47
Interview with James Mmassa in Rubeho village, 22nd April 2018; Beidelman (2012), Op. cit. p. 43.
48
Interview with James Mmassa, Rubeho village, 22nd April 2018.
49
Burton (1860), Op. cit. p. 129; Beidelman (2012), Op. cit. p. 43
29
whose place of origin is believed to be Niger-Congo.50 Most of the Kaguru believe that
their ancestors trekked to a place where they are residing today from the southern part of
Africa51 where they then migrated to Congo before arriving in Burundi and Rwanda.52
However, there is no record regarding the path of migration from the southern part of
Africa to Congo. Both written records and oral accounts pointed Congo as the point for
the Kaguru migration before arriving in Tanzania. This suggests that Niger-Congo is the
place of origin for the Kaguru.
After arriving in Burundi and Rwanda, the Kaguru migrated to western central Tanzania
where the Nyamwezi and Sukuma who had settled there earlier welcomed them.53 The
warm welcome they got from the Nyamwezi and Sukuma is reflected in the existing
utani (joke) relationship between them. The Kaguru settled for a while in Unyamwezi at
a place called Ikonongo. Later on, they migrated further east to present-day Dodoma
region particularly in Kondoa district, a place where most Kaguru traced their origin.
From Kondoa they trekked to the Itumba Mountains which is the central part of
Ukaguru.
According to oral tradition, the main factor for Kaguru migration to the Itumba
Mountains was security.54 The Kaguru feared pigmies, fimbwiji, who were very
aggressive and hostile. The Kaguru moved to mountainous areas which were seen not
convenient for the “pigmies” to live. According to James Mmassa, the “pigmies” resided
in Kondoa. However, there is no record to support this claim. Kapulwa Lesudai held the
50
J. E. G. Sutton, ‘The Settlement of East Africa’ in B. A. Ogot and J. A. Kieran (eds.) Zamani: A Survey
of East African History (Nairobi: East African Publishing House, 1968), p. 82.
51
52
Interview with Kapulwa Lesudai, Rubeho village, 22nd April 2018; Interview Daudi Famiki Chitungo,
Berega Village, 27th April 2018.
53
54
Interview with James Mmassa, Rubeho village, 22nd April 2018; Interview with Kapulwa Lesudai,
Rubeho village, 22nd April 2018; Interview with Horace William Chabonga, Berega Village, 27th April
2018; John Stanley Mhina, Berega Village, 27th April 2018; Daudi Faniki Chitungo, Berega Village, 27th
April 2018; Interview with Lugendo Livingstone Msele, Magubike Village, 25th April 2018; Petro
Chadibwa, Magubike Village, 25th April 2018; Saidi Bakari, Magubike Village, 25th April 2018; Johnson
Chilongola, Magubike Village, 25th April 2018.
30
view that the “pygmies” inhabited in the rain forests of Congo. Their cruelty forced the
Kaguru to migrate from Congo to Itumba Mountains.55 Their long stay in Kondoa made
many Kaguru believe that Kondoa was the starting point as far as migration to Itumba
Mountains was concerned. Despite of lack of records about the demographic size and
periodisation, most of respondents estimated that about 10,000 Kaguru migrated from
Kondoa to Itumba Mountains where they split into numerous clans56. They further
spread to lowland and plateau areas east and north-west of Itumba Mountains
respectively.57
The Kaguru were classified based on geographical locations into four subgroups namely
Wetumba, those who lived in the whole mountainous areas stretching from Njungwa to
Nongwe villages and southwards to the foothills near Mukondowa valleys; Wanyika,
those who lived in the lowlands from Kisitwi, Rubeho, Gairo, eastern Mpwapwa to
northwards in Kiteto district in Manyara region; Wamangehele, those who lived between
Dumila, the northern part of Ukaguru, northwards to Tunguli in Kilindi district Tanga
region; and Warumbiji, who resided in Rumbiji areas of Itumba Mountains.58 These four
groups display slight differences in language in terms of tones, vocabulary and
utterances due to the influence of neighbouring ethnic groups.
There were also some Nyamwezi who came to be absorbed by the Kaguru. Their
existence in Ukaguru was traced to the caravan trade.59 They settled in the Mamboya
valley and established their village with their own chief. They were called Wendiyesi,
55
Interview with Kapulwa Lesudai, Rubeho Village, 22nd April 2018.
56
Interview with Kapulwa Lesudai, Rubeho Village, 22nd April 2018
57
Interview with Lugendo Livingstone Msele, Magubike Village, 26th April 2018; Said Bakari, Magubike
Village, 26th April 2018; Johnson Chilolo, Magubike Village, 26th April 2018; Petro Chadibwa, Magubike
Village, 26th April 2018
58
Interview with Lugendo Livingstone Msele, Magubike Village, 26th April 2018; Said Bakari, Magubike
Village, 26th April 2018; Johnson Chilolo, Magubike Village, 26th April 2018; Petro Chadibwa, Magubike
Village, 26th April 2018; See also Beidelman (1971), Op. cit.; Beidelman (1967); Mlama (1973), Op. cit.
59
Beidelman (2012), p. 46; Interview with Horace William Chabonga, Berega village, 27th April 2018.
31
meaning dissemblers or Wandubu, meaning garblers.60 The former was the name given
to Nyamwezi who spoke fluent Kaguru. They were referred to as “dissemblers” to mean
people disguising themselves as true Kaguru by accepting Kaguru ways while they had
hidden beliefs and loyalties that could harm or threaten the Kaguru stability. Wandubu
was a name given to Nyamwezi who could not speak Kaguru.61 In the 1870s most of the
Wendiyesi and Wandubu began to identify themselves as Kaguru. Their number was
estimated to be more than 100 with many men compared to women.62 Since most of
them were men, they married Kaguru women and hence their descendants had proper
clans and were easily incorporated within Kaguru matrilineage. From the 1900s to 1960s
63
this ethnic group was absorbed by the Kaguru completely. Therefore during the
colonial period, the identity of Wendiyesi and Wandubu could not be realised as they
were the same as Kaguru.
2.4 Kinship Relations in Pre-colonial Ukaguru

For the Kaguru, as it is for other ethnic groups, family formed the most immediate and
basic social institution where members derived their identity. Kinship relations were
rooted in the extended family where members from different families traced their ties to
one another. Kaguru had more than one hundred clans which formed an essential
component of the unilineal descent traced through the mother’s line.64 Some of these
clans were Njeja, Mbigo, Kwama, Njuki, Ganasa, Baya, Gomba, Jumbe, Songo, Hanga,
Hako, Humba, Kami, Legu, Limbo, Lulenga, Mamba, Nyagatwa, Ng’humbi, Nyafula,
60
T. O. Beidelman, Moral Imagination in Kaguru Modes of Thought (Bloomington: Indiana University
Press, 1986), pp. 69-70. See also Akiri, (1999), Op.cit. p. 21.
61
Akiri (1999), Op. cit. p. 21.
62
Interview with Horace William Chabonga, Berega village, 27th April 2018.
63
Interview with Horace William Chabonga, Berega village, 27th April 2018; Interview with James
Mmassa, Rubeho village, 22nd April 2018.
64
Interview with James Mmassa, Rubeho village, 22nd April 2018; Beidelman (1971), Op. cit. p.51;
Beidelman (1967), Op. cit. p.41; Beidelman (1978), Op. cit. p.320; Thomas O. Beidelman, “The Kaguru
Descent Groups (East-Central Tanzania)” Anthropos, Vol. 66. No.3 (1971), p. 374; Thomas O. Beidelman,
‘Right and Left Hand among the Kaguru: A Note on Symbolic Classification’, Journal of the
International African Institute, Vol. 31. No.3. (1961), p. 251.
32
to mention few. The clans formed the most important base for Kaguru kinship relations.
The common local term used to refer to these clans was ikungugo, pl. makungugo.65
The Kaguru claimed that they were once “people of one clan”.66 The division into many
clans was caused by various events and clan names were a representation of such
events.67 The events which resulted in the creation of different clans happened during
their trek particularly from Kondoa to Itumba Mountains in the early 19th century. There
are numerous oral traditions which explain those events. James Mmassa explained one
of the events which led to the formation of two matrilineal clans:
Two girls travelling with their uncle failed to cross the Ruaha River because of
over flooding. The river was covered with foam as a result of the motion of water
frothing up. As they waited for the water to decrease in order to cross, the elder
sister called her younger sister to take bath beside the river. The younger sister
refused as she said she could not swim in the ‘meji gakubiga’ (literary meaning
‘water that froths up’). The word, kubiga, literary means ‘to froth up’. Hence the
elder sister was nicknamed M’biga, a word which later became ‘Mbigo’.
Meanwhile, the younger sister sat under a tree called mnjeja. She was then
nicknamed Mnjeja. The former became the ancestress of the Mbigo clan and the
latter was the ancestress of the Njeja clan. When the water decreased they
crossed the river and continued with their travel and arrived in a place called
Rudewa.68
This narration shows the way two clans were formed based on the two girls who were
siblings. The ancestress of the Mbigo clan made a permanent settlement in Rudewa. The
ancestress of the Njeja clan migrated further west from Rudewa to a place called Nghili.
Hence Rudewa became a country of the Mbigo clan and Nghili became a country of the
Njeja clan.
65
Interview with Simon Mbena Mchanjale, Rubeho village, 24th April 2018; See also Beidelman (1971),
Op. cit. p.374.
66
Beidelman (1971), Op. cit. p. 374; Interview with James Mmassa, Rubeho village, 22nd April 2018.
67
Interview with Lugendo Livingstone Msele, Magubike village, 23rd April 2018.
68
33
Another event which resulted in the formation of a clan was narrated by Horace William
Chabonga as follows:
One old woman named Mdala Haba was seeking bee-honey to heal her chronic
wound. She went to a place called Njoge where she met the honey-collectors,
members of the Njuki clan. Wanjuki told Mdala Haba that honey was found in a
place where people could not go as they feared a lion which attacked people and
cattle. Mdala Haba wanted to be of help in the process of killing the lion. The
Wanjuki prepared a trap and Mdala Haba was bait. When the lion came, it
wanted to kill Mdala Haba who was the bait. The lion was entrapped and killed
by the people. Mdala Haba then refused to come out of the trap unless she was
paid for helping the Wanjuki to kill the lion. People explained her act of refusing
to come out of the trap as kukwama (a Kaguru term for ‘sticking’). From there
she became the ancestress of a new clan called the Kwama clan.69
The event resulted in the creation of Kwama clan. The Kaguru clan names were
reflected in the names given to children born by a male member of the clan. Those
names were called welekwa (sing. and pl.) from the word kwelekwa meaning ‘to be
born’. Welekwa names were derived from one’s father’s matriclan and it distinguished a
Kaguru and his paternal siblings from other members within the same matriclan70. It also
suggested the origin of one’s father’s clan. The table below shows a list of some of
Kaguru clans with welekwa names for both male and female members.
69
Interview with Horace William Chabonga, Berega village, 27th April 2018; James Mmassa, Rubeho
village, 22nd April 2018.
70
Thomas. O. Beidelman, ‘Kaguru Names and Naming’, Journal of Anthropological Research, Vol. 30,
No. 4 (1974), p. 283, See also Beidelman, (1971), p. 379
34
Table 2: Some of Kaguru Matriclans with 'Welekwa' Names for Males and
Females
Welekwa name
S/N Clan name (Kungugo) Male Female
1 Njeja, Mnjeja Mamnjeja
2 Kwama Mkwama Manjoge
3 Ganasa Chadibwa Madikuli
4 Njelu Mnjelu Mamnjelu
5 Humba Muhumba/Mwedimage Mabene
6 Limbo Mlimbo Mamlimbo
7 Gomba Chibali Manhembo
8 Jumbe Mwijumbe Mamwijumbe
9 Nyafula/Nhonya Munhonya Mamnhonja
10 Lulenga Mululenga Mamlulenga
11 Nyagatwa Mwanakadudu Madisemo
12 Madoloma Mwifunde Mamwifunde
13 Tumba Mwitumba Mamwitumba
14 Njuki Chamlile Manduwa
15 Mhene Difulata Mambusi
16 Nyau Mnyau Mamnyau
17 Nyandwa Mnyandwa Mamnyandwa
18 Chayungu Diyungu Madiyungu
19 Chigenge Mwigema Madigema
20 Chanjale Muchanjale Machanjale
Source: Beidelman (1971), Op.cit, pp. 380-383.

35
The meaning attached to each clan name is similar to that of the welekwa.71 Some have a
regular form where the welekwa name for male and female resembles with a slight
difference in the prefix ma- added before the root of the welekwa name specifically for
female. A good example here is the Njeja clan (from mnjeja, a type of tree) where the
welekwa for males is Mnjeja and for females is Mamnjeja. The totem of Njeja clan is a
tree called mnjeja. Various rituals were performed under such a tree.72
Other welekwa names have irregular form and yet they convey the same meaning
attached to the welekwa names for male, female and the general meaning of the clan
name. A Good example was the Ganasa clan where the welekwa name for a male is
chadibwa (from dibwa, a Kaguru word for dog) while for a female is madikuli (meaning
‘dog’ in Nguru language). The totem for this clan is ‘black dog with spots over eyes’.73
Another example is from the Kwama clan where the male member of this clan is called
Mkwama and the female member Manjoge. The name Manjoge derives its origin from
the place name ‘Njoge’ where Mdala Haba went to search for bee-honey. Although the
Kaguru had many clans, their traditional practices governing matrilineage and the roles
of the clans in agricultural production remained the same all over the ethnic group.
Political administration in pre-colonial Ukaguru was mainly decentralised and organised

mainly on a clan basis. Each clan formed its political unit ruled by a clan head.74
Depending on the number of Kaguru clans, it was reported that there were more than
one hundred petty polities in Ukaguru as each clan formed its socio-political
organisation. Mamboya, a village north of Itumba Mountains, was among the pre-
colonial petty polity which was under Tangwe, the dominant clan that had the sole
mandate of ruling. The head of the Tangwe clan called Chibakwa was the first ruler of
71
Interview with Lugendo Livingstone Msele, Magubike village, 27th April 2018.
72
73
Beidelman, (1971), Op. cit. pp. 380-383; Interview with Saimon Mbena Mchanjale in Rubeho Village,
24th April 2018.
74
Interview with Philipo Masingisa, Mamboya village, 26th September 2018; Beidelman (1978), Op. cit.
p. 234. See also Arne Perras, Carl Peters and German Imperialism 1856‒1918: A Political Biography
(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2004), p. 60.
36
Mamboya.75 In 1879 the clan name of Tangwe changed to ‘Jumbe’, a Swahili term for a
headman or local official. According to Beidelman, the clan name Jumbe was believed
to make sense in case the members of the clan wanted to claim some sort of leadership
that would appeal to the Swahili-speaking Arabs and Nyamwezi.76 Another cluster of the
same clan settled and ruled Gairo, another subchiefdom found in the plateau northeast of
Itumba Mountains. In the northern foothill of Itumba Mountains, Rubeho was a petty
polity dominated by the Gomba clan. Other pre-colonial petty polities existed in Berega,
Idibo, Msowero, Kibedya, Nongwe, Lukando, Rudewa, Kitange and Chishambo.77
Later on, several hamlets found in the same area merged to form a village which became
a chiefdom ruled by a chief, mundewa (pl. wandewa) who was supported by local clan
leaders78. Those sub-chiefs were the heads of clans which firstly settled in those areas.
They exhibited great ritual and military strength to prove their primacy in the places
under their respective jurisdiction. The throne in the Kaguru sub-chiefdoms was
hereditary with the right of succession following the matrilineal line.79
In the early 1880s, Mamboya emerged as strong chieftainship which exercised political
control beyond its respective clan area.80 This was influenced by the caravan trade and
the Arab presence in Ukaguru which resulted in the growing political power of the ruler
of Mamboya called Senyagwa Chimola.81 The European missionaries and later, the
German colonialists arrived in Ukaguru when Chimola’s influential power had already
expanded beyond Mamboya. During the colonial period political organisation became
centralised where the ruler of Mamboya, Senyagwa Chimola, was the paramount chief
75
Interview with John Stanley Mhina, Berega village, 27th April 2018; Interview with Enock Mgella,
Mamboya village, 28th April 2018; Interview with Philipo Masingisa, Mamboya village, 28th April 2018.
76
77
Interview with Kapulwa Lesudai, Rubeho village, 24th April 2018.
78
Akiri (1999), Op. cit. p. 24.
79
UDSM Tanganyika: Annual Report of the Provincial Commissioners for the Year 1947 (Dar es Salaam:
Government Printer, 1948), p. 27.
80
Interview with James Mmassa, Rubeho village, 23rd September 2018; Beidelman (1978), Op. cit. p. 232.
81
Beidelman (1978), Op. cit. p. 232; See also Perras (2004), Op. cit. p. 60.
37
of the whole Ukaguru.82 When the Germans arrived in Ukaguru in 1885 they were
welcomed by Chimola who introduced himself as the ruler of the whole Kaguru land.
Chimola signed a treaty with the Germans. The Germans recognised him as the ruler of
Ukaguru. They also increased his influential power over other sub-chiefs.83 Therefore,
other subchiefdoms which included Idibo, Lukando, Gairo, Nongwe, Kibedya and
Msowero implemented orders from the chief of Mamboya.84
2.5 The role of marriage in the formation of kinship ties

Marriage among the Kaguru was not just an event. It was a process which took a long
period before actual marriage rituals and ceremonies were performed. Both bride and
groom were supposed to have undergone initiation rites. Marriages were planned by
parents.85 The parents, especially of the son, had criteria which they observed before
selecting a spouse for their son. They observed aspects of generosity and hardworking.86
When they noticed that a certain clan was generous, hardworking, does not have
inherited diseases and they were not witches, the parents approached the daughter’s
parents to discuss marriage issues87. When the request was accepted, parents of both
sides informed their children that they should get married.88 This was followed by the
transfer of bride price from the parents of the groom to the parents of the bride and
marriage ceremonies were prepared thereafter.
The bridewealth that a husband paid gave him exclusive sexual rights over his wife and
authority over the children born. It also gave the husband rights over the wife’s
household labour as well as responsibility for providing bridewealth for sons’ marriage
and a right over the bridewealth received for her daughters.89 In the pre-colonial period
82
Interview with Daudi Faniki Chitungo, Berega village, 27th April 2018.
83
For more detailed information see Chapter Four.
84
TNA Acc. 2 12/3 1938-1942 Reports: Kilosa District Annual Reports, p. 5.
85
86
87
Interview with Philipo Masingisa, Mamboya village, 30th April, 2018; Beidelman (1971), Op. cit. p.74.
88
Interview with John Stanley Mhina, Berega village, 27th April 2018.
89
Beidelman (1967), Op.cit, p. 45.
38
matrilocal residence pattern was common whereby the husband was obliged to reside in
his wife’s home to provide bride-services.90 However, this pattern was not permanent as
later on the husband was allowed to move with his wife especially after the bride-service
was completed. Patrilocal residence pattern was common where the married couple lived
near the relative of the husband’s father, especially when a husband originated from a
strong family economically and he managed to pay all required bride prices.91 Marriage
formed kinship relations between the clans which had intermarried as it converted a non-
kin into affine.92 In that form, the people who were related either by blood or by affinity
to the bride became kin to the groom. Therefore marriage extended the network of
kinship relations.
Members of one clan were forbidden to marry each other.93 Brothers of the same clan
were prohibited to either marry or have sexual relations with sisters of the same clan. As
Beidelman noted, the Kaguru forbade “more than one marriage at a time between
persons of the same generation within two clans”.94 That was so especially when the
brides were from the same family as it was not prohibited to marry cross cousins, that is,
daughter of the maternal uncle. They claimed that, since the maternal uncle’s children belonged
to their mother’s matriclan, marrying them was considered as exogamy.95 Also, marriage and
sexual relations between persons whose fathers had the same matriclan were
prohibited.96 Such persons, though not of the same clan, were related by having the same
welekwa names. Marriage between them was believed to result in sterility and illness
among their close relatives.
90
John Middleton and E. H. Winter, (eds.), Witchcraft and Sorcery in East Africa (London: Routledge,
1963), p. 58; Akiri (1999), Op. cit. p. 33.
91
Akiri (1999), Ibid.
92
See for instance Radcliffe-Brown and Forde (1950), Op. cit. p. 6.
93
94
Thomas O. Beidelman, ‘Some Kaguru Notions about Incest and other Sexual Prohibitions’ in Rodney
Needham (Ed) Rethinking Kinship and Marriage (London: Routledge, 1971), p. 186.
95
Interview with James Mmassa, Rubeho village, 22nd April 2018, For details on the rule of ‘exogamy’
see for instance Radcliffe-Brown and Forde (1950), Op. cit. p. 67.
96
Interview with James Mmassa, Rubeho village, 22nd April 2018; Interview with Horace William
Chabonga, BeregavVillage, 27th April 2018.
39
2.6 Economic Activities in Ukaguru

The main economic activity in Ukaguru was agriculture. The Kaguru depended heavily
on farming for both subsistence and exchange.97 The main food crops were finger millet,
sorghum, maize, beans, cassava and bananas. Depending on the geographical zones in
Ukaguru, some crops were more cultivated in plateau and lowlands than in the
mountains. Sorghum and finger millet, for example, were grown more in the plateau and
lowlands than in the mountains with heavy and longer rains as well as cooler climate98.
Cultivation of cash crops began with the introduction of colonial economy where such
crops were introduced in Ukaguru. The main cash crops which Kaguru cultivated were
castor seeds, cotton, tobacco and sugar canes.99 It was only later that people cultivated
these crops as their main cash crops.
Crop cultivation in Ukaguru was influenced by the availability of fertile land and heavy
rains.100 The area had plenty of water flowing as crystal from numerous sources.101 As
noted by Last, the land of Ukaguru was good for agricultural production. However, in
some years the Wakaguru cultivated little because of the continuous raids by pastoralist
Humba and Maasai.102 Agricultural activities were organized on a clan basis.103 Aspects
of land tenure, labour and rain-making rituals, especially when drought occurred, were
all managed at clan level. The clan heads were principal custodians of the rights of land
holdings in their respective clans.
The Kaguru used hoe as the major tool of agricultural production. Before the
development of iron smelting in Ukaguru, they depended on wooden digging sticks.
Later on, they started to use iron hoes made by Kaguru smiths. During the beginning of
97
98
Ibid. p. 39.
99
UDSM Tanganyika: Annual Report (1948), Op. cit. p.16
100
Redd (1998), Op. cit. p. 50.
101
Stanley (1879), Op. cit. p. 91.
102
J. T. Last, A Journey into the Nguru Country from Mamboia, East Central Africa, Proceedings of
Royal Geographical (1882). p. 149.
103
Detailed information about the relationship between kinship relations and agricultural production in
Ukaguru is found in the following chapter (Chapter Three)
40
colonial rule in the 1890s, the Kaguru iron products were replaced by the cheap
imported metal goods104 although iron working activities continued to be conducted.
Livestock keeping was another aspect of Kaguru agricultural economy. The Kaguru kept
chicken and ducks. This was especially when they had not secured a permanent
settlement. As time went on and due to the increased interaction with neighboring ethnic
groups, the Kaguru started to keep other types of animals. These included cattle, goats
and sheep.105 In the mountainous areas, cattle were more preferred than smaller stock.
With exception of chicken, animal husbandry was not successful in the Itumba
Mountains unlike in the western and northern plateau and lowlands where people kept
herds of cattle which made them prone to enemy attacks.106 The presence of mountain
ranges with gorges consisting of beautiful streams of water was conducive for
considerable flocks of herds in the Kaguruland. In 1876 it was observed that the area
combined both pastoral and agricultural advantages.107
The Kaguru also engaged in iron smelting activities in the pre-colonial period.108
Ironworks were confined in the Itumba Mountains and they were controlled by local
Kaguru leaders.109 They smelted iron from the ores called mtala wa chuma, which was
extracted on the eastern side of the Itumba Mountains in a place located on the western
side of Mamboya known as Ndete.110 In the western part of Ukaguru iron smelting took
place in a village called Kisitwi.111 The mechanism of smelting iron involved putting the
ores in and setting a fire inside the traditional furnace. Iron smelting, as noted by Betram
Mapunda, was vulnerable to many accidents ranging from minor ones such as spark
104
105
Interview with Adison Amoni Chisengo, Berega village, 27th April 2018.
106
Akiri (1999), Op. cit. p.20.
107
James Sample, The Life and Explorations of David Livingstone, LL.D, Careful Compiled from
Reliable Sources (1951), p. 946.
108
109
Beidelman (1961), Op. cit. p. 538; Andrew Reid and Rachel MacLean, ‘Symbolism and the Social
Contexts of Iron Production in Karagwe’, World Archaeology, Vol. 27, No. 1, (1995), p. 152.
110
Interview with Horace William Chabonga, Berega Village, 27th April 2018.
111
Interview with Kapulwa Lesudai, Rubeho Village, 22nd April 2018.
41
burns, collapse of tuyeres, and tearing of bellow skins to major ones such as skin burns,
furnace collapses, and miscarriages (the bloom failing to form).112 Since the ore melted
at very high temperature, a special pipe used to blow called mufa or mdapo were used to
blow air into the furnace.113 The Kaguru iron smiths did this while singing. They
stopped together to blow the air when the ore melted. If one delayed to stop, the fire
would have burned him severely.114 Then came the smith with shovel-like device and
took the melted ore. He pounded it a little and then the ore solidified into iron which was
called ‘chibonge’.115 That chibonge was used in the trade where people bartered it with
other commodities including cattle. It was also used as a bride price in marriage matters.
According to Beidelman, trade in iron fostered peaceful ties with the warlike Baraguyu
and Maasai who did not develop iron working in the region.116 When people purchased
chibonge they used it to make iron hoes, chisili, a traditional hoe which replaced digging
stick and stone hoes.117 Chibonge was also used to make spears, arrows, knives and
other iron products.118 Iron smelting activities were organised by clan heads and few
clans had developed iron smelting technology.
The Kaguru also engaged in trade activities among themselves and with other
neighbouring ethnic groups. The main trade items were agricultural products which
included the surplus food staples and cash crops, livestock as well as iron products. Food
staples such as maize, beans, peas, potatoes or yams, groundnuts, millet, sorghum and
sesame were traded locally in the market. With the influx of foreigners particularly
Arabs, the Germans and British other crops were introduced, some of them being cash
112
Bertram Mapunda ‘Jack of Two Trades, Master of Both: Smelting and Healing in Ufipa, Southwestern
Tanzania’ The African Archaeological Review, Vol. 28, No. 3 (September 2011 Springer), p. 166.
113
Peter Schmidt and Donald H. Avery, ‘Complex Iron Smelting and Prehistoric Culture in Tanzania’,
Science, Vol. 201, No. 4361 (1978), p. 1085.
114
Interview with Philipo Masingisa, Mamboya village, 28th April 2018; see also Mapunda (2011), Op.
cit. p. 166.
115
Interview with Kapulwa Lesudai, Rubeho village, 22nd April 2018; Interview with Horace William
Chabonga, Berega village, 27th April 2018.
116
117
118
Interview with Kapulwa Lesudai, Rubeho village, 22nd April 2018; Interview with Philipo Masingisa,
Mamboya village, 28th April 2018.
42
crops which include cotton, castor seeds and sunflower. This facilitated trade activities.
Cotton, castor seeds and sunflowers were sold at government-organised markets.119
Despite having fairly good prices, the Kaguru were cautious in cultivating some of these
crops like cotton and castor seeds as they were not used by themselves, a situation which
brought fear in case there was no reliable market.120
Other crops like sugarcane and tobacco were cultivated regularly with no fear since
some of them were locally consumed. Baraguyu and Kamba were regular customers of
these crops. This facilitated trade relations between the Kaguru and the non-Kaguru
people.121 Also, iron items which were produced in Ukaguru were bartered with
agricultural products such as maize, millet, sorghum, sugarcane as well as livestock. Iron
items were then used to manufacture hoes which transformed agriculture in Ukaguru. 122
Transport networks facilitated exchange relations. Stretching from the plateau of eastern
Ukaguru to the lowlands of the west was a path that was used during the caravan trade
that people used for trade purposes. With the coming of missionaries and later the
colonial agents more weather roads were created. In 1948 the colonial government used
two hundred pounds to improve the Kidete – Kisitwi road with derivations and bridges.
Native Authorities constructed 16 miles of motorable track into the heart of Ukaguru
Hills.123 These roads simplified trading activities in Ukaguru.
2.6 Conclusion
This chapter has dealt with the general overview of Ukaguru and the people residing in
that geographical area. Specific attention was paid to the physical features of Ukaguru
particularly the location and the landscape of the area. Attention also has been paid on
the inhabitants of Ukaguru, their social-cultural systems, political administration as well
119
120
Ibid.
121
Ibid.
122
Interview with Philipo Masingisa, Mamboya village, 28th April 2018.
123
TNA Acc. 2 12/3 1938-1942 Reports: Kilosa District Annual Reports 1948, p. 8.
43
as economic activities. The chapter has given insight into the origins of the Kaguru and
their clans. As a result of the nature of the Kaguru clans as well as of soils, landscapes
and variations of rain across different areas of Ukaguru, the chapter has established that
clan occupation of a certain area and the geographical location of such area were vital
determinants for a particular kind of economic activities. The chapter also provides
significant information for the subsequent chapters.
44
CHAPTER THREE
KINSHIP RELATIONS AND AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION IN PRE-
COLONIAL UKAGURU
3.1 Introduction
This chapter examines the relationship between kinship relations and agricultural
production during the pre-colonial period. It analyses the link between chiefs, headmen,
clan heads and kin members in the family on one hand and the means of production
including instruments of labour and the objects of labour such as land on the other hand
before the onset of colonialism in Ukaguru. The chapter establishes that kinship relations
were very much connected with the organisation of economic activities with clans being
the basis of Kaguru agricultural production. Kinship relations played a significant role in
determining the allocation of rights such as those of residence, land for cultivation and
settlement, group membership, succession in the political administration and inheritance
of property.
3.3 Land ownership, Uses and Kinship relation in Ukaguru

During the pre-colonial period, all land belonged to various ethnic groups. The general
characteristics of landholding were based on the culture of each respective ethnic group.1
Ukaguru was no exception where ownership of land was based on a traditional clan
structure. Members of the clan were allowed to cultivate and to feed cattle on pieces of
land whose distribution and allocation was done by their respective clan heads.2 Kaguru
ownership of land can be explained at two levels namely clan level and individual level.
At the clan level, each Kaguru clan assumed ownership and control over land which it
1
Romanus Titus Sanga, Assessing the Impact of Customary Land Rights Registration on Credit Access by
Farmers in Tanzania: A Case of Mbozi District (Unpublished M.A. Thesis, International Institute for Geo-
Information Science and Earth Observation – The Netherlands, 2009), p.7.
2
Interview with James Mmassa, Rubeho village, 22nd April 2018; Gregor Haussener, ‘Land Tenure
Policy Implications in Tanzania (EA) on Small Scale Investors’, (Unpublished M.A. Thesis, University of
Bern, 2014), p.5.
45
established as a settlement. The second one, namely individual level, describes land
tenure within the clan.
Clans’ occupation and ownership of land was of two forms. The first form was
ownership of an area in which the clan first occupied and settled. From the 1860s this
was the dominant form of clan’s occupation of land.3 It was during this period when
Kaguru clans started to migrate to the lowland in search of arable land for farming after
they had stayed for some time in the Itumba Mountains. Through this process, every
Kaguru clan gained control of land not only in the Itumba Mountains but also in the
lowlands and the plateau. Each clan established a village in its area of control. The
Jumbe clan, for example, claimed Mamboya and Gairo to be their countries because they
were the first to settle there.4 The same form of clan’s occupation and control over land
was used by the Songo clan in Berega village,5 Gomba clan in Rubeho village, Ganasa
clan in Idibo village, Mbigo clan in Rudewa village, and the Njeja clan in Nghili
village6, to mention few. Each clan had the responsibility of controlling an area not only
administratively but also concerning economic and cultural aspects including ritual
matters.
The second form of clan’s control of land was by reward. The dominant clan rewarded
land to another clan which rendered service to the dominant clan. This made some clans
to occupy land even though they were not the first to settle in it. This form of land
control was dominant in the 1870s after many clans had already settled in the plateau
and lowland areas.7 The Kwama clan, for instance, occupied and owned the country of
Njoge not because they were the first to settle in the area. The first clan to settle there
3
Beidelman (1971) Op. cit. p. 385; Interview with James Mmassa in Rubeho village, 22nd April 2018; E.
E. Evans-Pritchard, The Nuer: A Description of the Modes of Livelihood and Political Institutions of a
Nilotic People, (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1940), p. 203.
4
Interview with Philipo Masingisa, Mamboya village, 28th April 2018.
5
Interview with Julius Paulo Sungula, Berega village, 27th April 2018.
6
7
46
was the Njuki clan. The situation which made the Kwama claim the land of Njoge as
theirs was narrated as follows:
Njoge was a country of the Njuki clan only. But when Mdala Haba assisted the
Wanjuki to kill the lion which attacked the people and their cattle, she asked to
be rewarded land. The Wanjuki gave her their country of Njoge as a reward.
From there Mdala Haba became the ancestress of the Kwama clan which claimed
Njoge as their country.8
Many clans secured their territories as a reward given to them by the dominant clans.
Other clans were welcomed by those which had previously established control over a
territory. The clans which were welcomed later established themselves in those areas but
had no ritual and political power. According to informants, this was because the
newcomers were not recognised by the ancestral spirits of the area. The Baya clan, for
example, was welcomed by the Ganasa clan in Idibo. Because of this situation, they first
established themselves in a portion of land called Kikunde (Locally known as
‘Chikunde’). Later they claimed that Kikunde was their own country. However, the Baya
clan still had no power of performing any ritual activities in the newly secured portion of
land. Only the earlier occupants were able to do so9.
The land in which the clan occupied and controlled was significant for agricultural
production. It was utilised by clan members for cultivation and livestock keeping. The
processes by which arriving clans secured territories in Ukaguru had direct implications
for the division of land. They formed the basis for customary principles governing land
tenure in Ukaguru with clans being custodians of the lands.
8
Interview with James Mmassa, Rubeho village 22nd April 2018.
9
Interview with John Stanley Mhina, Berega village, 27th April 2018; John Middleton and E. H. Winter,
(eds), Witchcraft and Sorcery in East Africa, (London: Routledge, 1963). p. 58 See also T. O. Beidelman,
‘Right and Left Hand among the Kaguru: A Note on Symbolic Classification’, in Journal of the
International African Institute, Vol. 31. No.3 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, July 1961), p. 252.
47
The second level of land ownership, the individual level, entails land tenure among the
members of the clan. The concept ‘land tenure’ as used here refers to how people
obtained rights to possess and use land. In pre-colonial Ukaguru land was communally
owned by the whole clan. But to ensure beneficial and effective utilisation of land, clan
members had to be given the rights to possess portions of land. Clan heads had the
responsibility to ensure that all adult members in their respective clans owned land for
agricultural production.10 In areas of low population density, the clan head had a lesser
role to play as he was not involved in the actual division of land among the members.11
In this case, clan members grabbed the available land and used it for agriculture.
Since the clan usually controlled a big area, individual householders were often allocated
land almost half a kilometre away from the clan head’s land in different directions. The
clan head’s nephews and nieces were also given priority in land allocation soon after
they became adults. Although clan heads were more influential in their clans, they were
not as influential to their own children since they belonged to other matriclans and had
their maternal uncles being influential to them.12
Apart from efforts to have vast land, the household heads also tried hard to increase the
number of people under their control by marrying many wives and having many children
who were also a source of labour power.13 In a family where a husband had more than
one wife, the wives competed for husband’s resources because each wife and her
children belonged to different matrilineage.14 Children were not given land until when
10
T. O. Beidelman, “Beer Drinking and Cattle Theft in Ukaguru: Intertribal Relations in a Tanganyika
Chiefdom”, American Anthropologist, New Series, Vol. 63, No. 3 (1961), p. 536.
11
Interview with Adison Amon Chisengo, Berega village, 27th April 2018.
12
Interview with Johnson Chilolo, Magubike village, 28th April 2018, interview with Petro Chadibwa,
Magubike village, 26th April 2018.
13
Dominique Meekers and Nadra Franklin, ‘Women's Perceptions of Polygyny among the Kaguru of
Tanzania’, Working Paper No. 263 August 1997.
14
Jeffrey Meeker and Dominique Meekers, ‘The Precarious Socio-Economic Position of Women in Rural
Africa: The Case of the Kaguru of Tanzania’, African Studies Review, Vol. 40, No.1 (Cambridge at the
University Press, 1997) p. 36.
48
they became adults. They assisted their parents in cultivation and livestock keeping.15
When they became adults they were allocated portions of land by their parents.
When disputes over land occurred, the clan heads resolved them. Conflicts over land in
Ukaguru were of three types. First, conflicts involving people of the same clan and
started to occur from when the Kaguru were divided into clans in the early 19th century.
In most cases, this resulted from the inheritance of movable and immovable property.
Normally when the husband died, his property was supposed to be inherited by members
of his clan. These included his brothers, sisters and nephews or nieces. Conflicts
occurred when the children of the deceased claimed to have the rights to inherit their
father’s land.16 This kind of conflict was settled at the household level where the siblings
of the deceased informed his children on the customary laws governing land inheritance
and that the children had the right to inherit whatever was left by their maternal uncle(s),
not by their father(s). If the nephews of the deceased were still young land was left in the
hands of the clan head until when his nephews/nieces grew up.17
The second type of conflict over land was between two or more different clans. Though
each clan had its own country (land which the clan claimed to own) there were
incidences in which two or more clans lived in the same area. This happened when the
dominant clan in an area welcomed another clan which was wandering seeking a good
area for settlement. The conflict was mainly over land for cultivation. Conflicts between
two different clans could not be settled at household levels. Such cases were taken to the
clan head of the dominant clan.18 The clan head and his council of elders surveyed the
area and provided solutions on what had to be done. Whenever there was dissatisfaction
15
Interview with Adison Amon Chisengo, Berega village, 27th April 2018.
16
17
18
Interview with Simon Mbena Mchanjale, Rubeho village, 24th April 2018; see also Penina Mlama,
Music in Tanzanian Traditional Theater: The Kaguru as a Case Study (Unpublished M.A. Dissertation,
University of Dar es Salaam, 1973), p. 5.
49
with the decision of the clan head and the council of elders, clan heads from
neighbouring clans were consulted.19
The third type of conflict was between the Kaguru clan(s) and people from other ethnic
groups such as the Nguru, Baraguyu, Kamba and Gogo. 20 This kind of land conflict
predominated Ukaguru from the 1860s due to the presence of people from other ethnic
groups as a result of famine, caravan trade and search for pasture land. The Kaguru were
reluctant to accommodate such ethnic groups. This was for security reasons. Yet it
should be noted that the pre-colonial Ukaguru, as noted by Beidelman, was a scene of
intertribal cattle raiding with the Kaguru being the disadvantaged group because of their
divisions into matriclans and hence disunity among them.21 In the 1900s the Baraguyu
were regarded by the Kaguru as cattle thieves, they were in constant conflict over cattle
theft, control of pasture land and water.22 For that reason, the question of being
welcomed and provided with the land was not easy as the Kaguru thought that their few
cattle would be in danger. Also, they considered the conflicts that could arise as a result
of livestock trespass. During the dry season, the Baraguyu used to drive their herds
down into the river valleys for watering. The herds trampled the Kaguru farms and
crops.23 Besides that, competition for pasture worsened Kaguru-Baraguyu relations. The
pre-colonial land conflicts under this category were settled by the heads of the concerned
clans
Besides conflicts, the Baraguyu, Kamba, Gogo and Nguru had trade relations with the
Kaguru which were mutually beneficial to both groups. When members of these ethnic
groups wanted to reside in Ukaguru, the decision was made by the dominant clan in the
area. Members of the aforementioned ethnic groups were allocated land especially after
19
Interview with Lugendo Livingstone Msele, Magubike village, 24th September, 2018.
20
21
22
J. R. Mlahagwa ‘The Headman: Chilongola Jenga’ in John Iliffe (ed.), Modern Tanzanians: A Volume
of Biographies, (Nairobi: East African Publishing House, 1973), p. 145.
23
Interview with Said Bakari, Magubike village, 26th April 2018; Interview with Lugendo Livingstone
Msele, Magubike village, 24th September, 2018.
50
they fulfilled some conditions made by the clan leaders. These conditions included
providing cattle to the dominant clan and to form an alliance which was beneficial to
both ethnic groups.24
Land conflicts were inevitable in Ukaguru during the late 19th century following
increasing interaction among Kaguru clans and between Kaguru clans and other ethnic
groups residing in Ukaguru. The role played by clan heads in addressing the conflicts
had positive contributions in agricultural production among the Kaguru. It improved
kinship relations and created a friendly neighbourhood among people of different clans
living in the same village. This resulted in increased cooperation in agricultural
activities.
In Ukaguru, four terminologies were used to refer to the land used for cultivation:
mululu, migunda, ihaka and miteme25. Mululu were house gardens where vegetables and
tobacco were grown. They were mostly taken care of by wives and children. Husbands
only cared for the tobacco crop. These plots were found around the households.26
Migunda (sing. mugunda) were ordinary farms found throughout Ukaguru. According to
Lugendo Livingstone Msele migunda were of two categories: mugunda wa ilolo were
fields located alongside river valleys. This location made the fields moist throughout the
year. They were mostly used to grow bananas and plantains.
Another category was mugunda wa itongo, being normal fields commonly found in the
lowlands and the plateaus. They were common in dry areas with no streams flowing
throughout the year.27 The migunda type of farms was common in the Itumba Mountains
and across the plateau areas in the east and central Ukaguru where many rivers flowed
24
25
Interview with Enock Mgella in Mamboya village, 28th April 2018; See also Thomas. O. Beidelman,
The Matrilineal Peoples of Eastern Tanzania (Zaramo, Luguru, Kaguru, Ngulu etc.) (London:
International African Institute, 1967). p. 39.
26
Ibid.
27
Interview with Lugendo Livingstone Msele, Magubike village, 24th September 2018.
51
making the land suitable for gardens and cultivating some crops even during the dry
season. The fields in the valleys were of one-half to two-thirds of an acre.28 Migunda
varied in size from 80 square metres to 3 or 4 acres.29
Ihaka (pl. mahaka) was a term used to refer to a large estate owned by the chiefs and
clan heads. Mahaka were common in the 1890s to 1900s when in Ukaguru there were
the emergence of sub-chiefdoms each ruled by a sub-chief. The Chief Senyagwa
Chimola of Mamboya owned Ihaka in Mamboya. This kind of farm needed a huge
labour force. However, the chiefs did not worry about labourers as there was a practice
of common people going to provide labour for their leaders. Miteme were cleared bushes
which were not regularly cultivated. The Miteme depended heavily on the proportion of
rain and required heavy labour. When rainfall was scarce nothing was harvested from
miteme.30
3.3: Organisation of Labour in the Kaguru Lineages

Labour was the most important input in cultivation and grazing in Ukaguru. Among the
Kaguru in the pre-colonial period, there were four categories of labour: individual or
household labour; collective labour among the neighbours or kinsmen, ulimi/chiwili;
collective labour to the leaders, mukwila; and waged labour, ulimisilo. The individual or
household labour was the primary unit of labour. It was performed by members of the
family and they worked on their fields. Although husband and wife had separate farms,
they cooperated during cultivation. Where they had children they were supported by
their children in various farming activities. Hence as the head of the family and father,
the husband controlled labour from his wife as well as her children. 31 When the planting
season began the husband tilled the soil while his wife sowed seeds. They also
cooperated in weeding and crop harvesting.
28
Thomas O. Beidelman, The Kaguru: A Matrilineal People of East Africa (New York: Holt, Rinehart
and Winston, 1971). p. 19.
29
Ibid.
30
Ibid. p.39.
31
52
A wealthy and successful man held his sisters and their children, forcing those who
married them to come and live with him. In that way, he preserved the continuity of
solidarity of his matrilineage. To strengthen and solidify his household, he also held on
his children, forcing their spouses to reside with him. Such a man, therefore, increased
warriors and the number of labourers by holding both consanguineal and affinal kins.32
People cultivated their own fields. Apart from that, the wife had also a farm to cultivate.
In case the husband was polygamous he ensured that each wife had a farm.
As far as livestock keeping was concerned, at the household level, the father controlled
all activities including ensuring that cattle were fed and watered. His sons especially the
youths grazed the cattle by driving the herds to the pastures and to watering points.
Calves were left home grazing in the mululu and they were taken care of by women and
children.33 When there were no male children in the family, household heads sent their
cattle to other kin members who had sons and also owned livestock. Alternatively, he
could take one male child from another member of the clan to look after the livestock.
Girls helped their mothers in milking the cattle, but milking was not only done by
women, as the father/elders also did it.34
The second form of labour was collective labour among the neighbours or kinsmen,
ulimi/chiwili. Ulimi was a form of collective labour performed by the Kaguru neighbours
or kinsmen. As far as cultivation was concerned, ulimi was done by rotating from the
fields of the first member to the last one. This kind of labour was necessary especially
when a man had a big farm that needed more labour power. He expected to obtain
assistance from kinsmen of neighbours.35 The member whose farm was cultivated
32
Ibid. 53.
33
Interview with Danyesi Eliudi Mbala, Magubike village, 30th April 2018; interview with Emmy Laurian
Malekela, Magubike village, 30th April 2018.
34
Interview with Danyesi Eliudi Mbala, Magubike village, 30th April 2018.
35
See for instance P. H. Gulliver, Neighbours and the Networks: The Idiom of Kinship in Social Action
among the Ndendeuli of Tanzania, (Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1971). p. 217.
53
prepared food and brewed local beer for the labourers.36 This cooperation in farm labour
strengthened social relations among the participants and shortened the weeding period.
This influenced a good harvest since delayed weeding had negative effects on crops.
Ulimi also involved kinsmen and women who were not neighbours.37 The number of people
who participated in ulimi made it possible to weed one member’s farm in a day, and the
next day they would move to the second member until when all members had their fields
weeded.
The Kaguru who kept livestock also used ulimi for activities which required substantial
labour inputs. These included building big cowsheds for large herds of cattle. The same
was done for building paddocks for sheep or goats. After completing such activities the
participants were served with local beer and meat.38 Feeding the labourers with meat
was an indication that collective labour on livestock matters was not free. The meat was
a form of payment. In most cases when a man had sick cattle he slaughtered them and
divided the meat among the neighbours or the kinsmen telling them that he would have
collective labour.39 The meat provided acted as an advance reward for anticipated
cooperation in a task ahead. Sometimes this kind of collective labour happened even
when there were no sick cattle. Many people who participated in such tasks were those
who also kept livestock since they knew that at some time they would need similar
cooperation from other members.40
The Kaguru participated in ulimi for two main reasons. First, to reciprocate the
assistance received from neighbours and, second, to secure support from the
36
Interview with Kapulwa Lesudai, Rubeho village, 22nd April, 2018.
37
Interview with James Mmassa, Rubeho village, 22nd April, 2018.
38
Interview with James Mmassa, Rubeho village, 22nd April, 2018; Interview with Kapulwa Lesudai,
Rubeho village, 22nd April, 2018; Interview with Horace William Chabonga, Berega village, 27th April
2018; Interview with Daudi Faniki Chitungo, Berega village, 27th April 2018; Interview with Adison
Amoni Chisengo, Berega village, 27th April 2018; Interview with Julius Paulo Sungula, Berega village,
27th April 2018; Interview with John Stanley Mhina, Berega village, 27th April 2018.
39
Lugendo Livingstone Msele, Magubike village, 24th September, 2018.
40
Lugendo Livingstone Msele, Magubike village, 24th September, 2018.
54
neighbours.41 Neighbours who were not participating in other people’s collective labour
received little attention and low turn up when they called for collective labour in their
fields.
The third form of labour organization involved offering labour to senior leaders in the
local community. The practice was called mukwila.42 The mukwila was performed at
three levels. At the first level, members of the family performed mukwila to the senior
householder in his agricultural field called igane.43 At that level, mukwila was performed
by wives and children. A husband with many wives and more children managed to
secure plenty of labour power. At the household level, the product of mukwila was
controlled by the father.44 As noted earlier, the husband had the task of ensuring that
there was sufficient food for his family. It was the responsibility of the husband to
supply food when his wife/wives had deficits. When an acute food shortage occurred the
husband sold some cattle to buy food.45 This supported his wife/wives and children and
motivated them to offer labour during the next farming season.
In the second level of mukwila, collective labour was performed for clan heads. The clan
heads also had their fields, called ihaka which demanded collective labour from clan
members. The last level of collective labour was provided to the chief. During
cultivation, information was passed by the chief through clan heads demanding people to
go to work in the chief’s fields.46
41
See for instance Gulliver (1971), Op. cit. p. 225.
42
Interview with Kapulwa Lesudai, Rubeho village, 22nd April 2018; see also Beidelman (1967), Op. cit.
p. 41.
43
Interview with Daudi Faniki Chitungo, Berega village, 27th April 2018; Interview with Horace William
Chabonga, Berega village, 27th April 2018; Adison Amoni Chisengo, Berega village, 27th April 2018.
44
45
Chabonga, Berega village, 27th April 2018; Interview with Adison Amoni Chisengo, Berega village, 27th
April 2018.
46
Interview with John Stanley Mhina, Berega village, 27th April 2018; Interview with Kapulwa Lesudai,
Rubeho Village, 22nd April 2018.
55
Collective labour was also performed during harvesting. Family members began to
harvest their fields, that is, mothers’ plots and then continued with fathers’ fields. When
the farms were too big to be covered using family labour, neighbours or kinsmen and
women were invited and they worked collectively.47 In that way, they managed to
harvest a farm of one participant in a day or two and then proceeded with harvesting
farms of other members until they were all done.
3.5 Distribution of the Products of Labour among the Lineage Members

Products of labour were not communally shared. Each household had its own products
from farming and animal husbandry. The head of the household, the husband, had
authority over the products of labour in the family. They preserved a reasonable amount
of the product in the granaries to be used during the rainy season. They also kept seeds
to be sown during the next rainy season. The products were also used to help clan
members of both husband and wife when they experienced food shortages.48
Surplus products were used for exchange with salt, iron from salt making and iron
smelting societies respectively. The Kaguru also used surplus products to buy cattle in
order to increase their herds of cattle, to pay bride price and for rituals and ceremonies
which were conducted during the dry season.49 During initiation rites, particularly
circumcision, surplus products were used to pay the circumcisers as well as to facilitate
the ceremonies performed during circumcision. Fathers managed the sales in their
families as they had authority over labour and all property.
Produce from the field of the clan head was preserved in the granary. There was also a
practice of sending to the clan head some portions of the agricultural products to be
47
Interview with James Mmassa, Rubeho village, 22nd April 2018; Interview with Lugendo Livingstone
Msele, Magubike village, 27th April 2018.
48
49
56
preserved.50 The products were dried peas, beans, maize, millet and sorghum. In case a
clan member faced famine, he/she informed the clan head and was given rescue food.
Sometimes the clan head gave them food under the condition that youths from the clan
affected by famine should clear a certain portion of land, or should help the clan head to
graze his cattle or women of that family should help in grinding maize, millet or
sorghum. They did all those tasks while staying to their clan head until when the famine
was over. The clan head could also inform other kin members who had plenty of food to
accommodate their kin who experienced famine.51
3.6 Conclusion
This chapter has discussed the relationship between kinship relations and agricultural
production in Ukaguru during the pre-colonial period. It has shown that kinship relations
determined the management of various agricultural related activities at family and clan
levels. The chapter established that the management of agricultural production began
with the presence of the means of production, specifically land and labour. Means of
production were managed by senior members of the lineage who were normally clan
heads selected based on their wisdom and influence in performing crucial roles for the
betterment of the whole descent group.
Organisation of labour depended on the level at which activities took place. At the
family level the senior member of the household, the father, controlled labour process
independently of his own clan and the clan of his children. At the clan level, the clan
head controlled labour processes. The chapter is very important as it gives a picture of
the existence of linkage between kinship relations and economic activities in Ukaguru
before the onset of colonialism. The next chapter is expected to present a discussion on
the impact of colonial rule on kinship relations and the resulting influence on
agricultural production among the Kaguru.
50
Interview with Enock Mgella, Mamboya village, 28th April 2018.
51
57
CHAPTER FOUR
COLONIALISM, KINSHIP RELATIONS AND AGRICULTURAL
PRODUCTION IN UKAGURU
4.1 Introduction
This chapter examines the way colonialism transformed kinship relations among the
Kaguru and how such transformation influenced agricultural production. The chapter
begins with a brief discussion on the influx of foreigners and their social-cultural and
economic influence on the Kaguru. The chapter reveals that colonialism introduced laws
and regulations which reduced the role of clans and clan heads in the management of the
means of production. Other laws had a direct impact on labour organisation among the
kinsmen. The chapter assesses those impacts and how local people responded to those
changes.
4.2 Penetration of Arabs in Ukaguru

As for the Arabs, though they were not colonizers, their influence on political
administration in Ukaguru was remarkable. Before the coming of the Europeans, the
Arabs had contacts with coastal people and other people found further inland. The
contact was in terms of trade between East Africa and the Red Sea. The demand for
ivory in India and slaves in clove plantations of Zanzibar resulted in the East African
caravan trade where the Arabs began to advance inland in search of the aforementioned
items.1 The caravan trade in the 19th century marked the first encounter between the
Kaguru and the Arabs and later came the missionaries. The caravan which passed
through Ukaguru used the central route which began from the ports of Zanzibar to
Bagamoyo, Sadani and extended further inland.
As trade in ivory flourished along the coast of East Africa and Zanzibar in the 19th
century, Ukaguru became very important as it constituted an area where caravans on the
1
Andrew Coulson, Tanzania: A Political Economy, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013), pp. 44-45
58
way to the west in search of slaves and ivory passed.2 The Arabs did not enslave the
Kaguru rather they made Ukaguru a resting point for their passing caravan. 3 This was
because Ukaguru was too mountainous and sparsely inhabited in such a way that it was
not attractive for extensive slaving.4 Ukaguru was significant to the Arabs as it had the
ability to supply food and water to the arid plains and the coastal savannah. According to
Henry Morton Stanley, there was abundant water in Ukaguru which flowed as crystal
from numerous sources in 1874.5 Most of the sources of rivers originated from the
Itumba Mountains.6 The availability of water was important for cultivation especially in
the gardens as well as watering livestock.
In Ukaguru, Arabs were welcomed by the Chief Senyagwa Chimola. They rested and
slept in the chief’s home before going inland for trade in slaves and ivory.7 The Arabs
traded textiles, arms and other luxury goods to local leaders.8 They made friendship with
the leader of Mamboya in order to win political influence for their caravan to pass safely
in Ukaguru.9 The Arabs also built a fort at Mamboya in 1880 to protect their caravan.
The fort was built under the advice of British Consul John Kirk and Sultan Bargash of
Zanzibar.10 With contact between Ukaguru and Arabs, local rulers realized the
commercial value of ivory and slaves.
2
TNA ACC. 61 1/C/1/ 1942 N. A. Kilosa – History of Ukaguru, p.13
3
Thomas O. Beidelman, Culture of Colonialism: The Cultural Subjection of Ukaguru, (Bloomington:
Indiana University Press, 2012), p. 42.
4
Ibid.
5
Henry Morton Stanley, Through the Dark Continent or the Sources of the Nile around the Great Lakes of
Equatorial Africa and Down the Livingstone River to the Atlantic Ocean, (New York: Harper & Brothers
Publishers, 1879), p. 91.
6
TNA ACC. 61 1/C/1/ 1942 N. A. Kilosa – History of Ukaguru, p.11.
7
Interview with Horace William Chabonga, Berega Village, 27th April 2018.
8
TNA ACC. 61 1/C/1/ 1942 N. A. Kilosa – History of Ukaguru, p.11; see also Coulson (2013), Op. cit.
p.51; Derek R. Peterson, ‘Morality Plays: Marriage, Church Courts and Colonial Agency in Central
Tanganyika, ca. 1876-1928’, The American Historical Review, Vol. 111, No. 4 (2006), p.991.
9
TNA ACC. 61 1/C/1/ 1942 N. A. Kilosa – History of Ukaguru, p.17; Coulson (2013), Op. cit. p.51;
Thomas O. Beidelman, The Kaguru: A Matrilineal People of East Africa, (New York: Holt, Rinehart and
Winston, 1971), p. 11.
10
Beidelman (2012), Op. cit. p. 44; T. O. Beidelman, ‘Chiefship in Ukaguru: The Invention of Ethnicity
and Tradition in Kaguru Colonial History’ in The International Journal of African Historical Studies, Vol.
11, No. 2. pp. 227-246 (Boston University African Studies Center, 1978), p.234.
59
The pre-colonial societies of east-central Tanzania were fragmented in terms of political

administration with each clan forming its central political unit.11 However, long-distance
trade strengthened the power of certain chiefs within their ethnic group. The pre-colonial
Kaguru was no exception. The caravan trade and the Arab presence in Ukaguru
influenced the political power of Senyagwa Chimola by recognising him as a ruler of the
whole Kaguru land.12 The Arabs also encouraged the cultivation of food and even some
coastal luxuries such as sugar-cane, palms and castor seeds.13
4.3 The Penetration of Missionaries in Ukaguru

Until the mid-19th century, European had little knowledge about East Africa.14 In the
mid-19th century, there was a proliferation of European travelers’ expeditions to East
Africa. Their accounts “when published back in Europe generated tremendous interest in
support of Christian missions, fighting the slave trade, and even led some European
countries to think of colonizing the East African interior”15. The first European travelers
to pass through the vicinity of Ukaguru were Richard Burton and John Speke in 185716
and James Grant in 1860.17 These were the first Europeans to come into contact with the
Kaguru. They used the central route while heading to the interior to spread Christianity.
11
Arne Perras, Carl Peters and German Imperialism 1856‒1918: A Political Biography (Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 2004), p. 60.
12
Beidelman (1978), Op. cit. pp. 233-234, see also Perras (2004), Op. cit. p. 60.
13
TNA ACC. 61 1/C/1/ 1942 N. A. Kilosa – History of Ukaguru, p. 15.
14
Isaria N. Kimambo, Gregory H. Maddox & Salvatory S. Nyanto, A New History of Tanzania, (Dar es
Salaam: Mkuki Na Nyota, 2017), p. 104.
15
Ibid, p. 105
16
TNA ACC. 61 1/C/1/ 1942 N. A. Kilosa – History of Ukaguru, p.12.
17
Raphael Mwita Akiri, The Growth of Christianity in Ugogo and Ukaguru (Central Tanzania): A Socio-
Historical Analysis of the Role of Indigenous Agents 1876-1933(PhD Thesis, University of Edinburgh,
1999), p.20. For detailed account of each traveler’s expedition in Ukaguru, see Richard Burton, The Lake
Regions of Central Africa: A Picture of Exploration, (New York: Harper & Brothers, Publisher, 1860), pp.
123-171, James Augustus Grant, A Walk Across Africa, or Domestic Scenes from my Nile Journal,
(Edinburgh: William Blackwood and Sons, 1864), pp. 24-26; John Hanning Speke, Journal of the
Discovery of the Source of the Nile, (Edinburgh: William Blackwood and Sons, 1864), pp. 33-55.
60
The expedition of early travelers resulted in the establishment of Church Missionary

Society (CMS) missions.18 These European travelers arrived in Ukaguru in 1876 and
within four years they had established a station at Mpwapwa in 1878. In 1879 the
missionaries built a church at Mamboya. The following year in 1880 they established the
second missionary station in Ukaguru at Mamboya.19 However, in 1900 the church
collapsed following heavy rain that killed worshipers.20 The missionaries then moved to
Berega and built a dispensary and church in 1900. They also built schools at Berega and
Mamboya.21 The activities of the missionaries, especially before the actual colonization
of the area, made the missionaries to be considered the most ambitious pervasive of all
colonialists as they sought to change the ways of work and politics and the innermost
beliefs, feelings and the deepest held values of the native peoples. 22 They exercised
extensive legal powers over their converts’ life.23
The missionaries were against the slave trade and other abuses done by the Arabs. Since
the Arabs gave Chimola some presents, he made sure that the Arabs and missionaries
did not meet in Mamboya. Whenever Chimola heard that missionaries were coming to
Mamboya, he took the Arabs to Maluwe hill located further west from Mamboya.24 He
then left them there promising that he would come to take them at sunset. This shows
that Chimola was aware of the contrasting interests of the Arabs on one hand and the
missionaries on the other hand. The missionaries interfered with slave caravans and at
18
19
Ibid. 46.
20
Chabonga, Berega village, 27th April 2018; Interview with John Stanley Mhina, Berega village, 27th April
2018; Interview with Julius Paulo Sungula, Berega village, 27th April 2018; Interview with Adison Amon
Chisengo, Berega village, 27th April 2018.
21
22
Thomas Beidelman, ‘Contradictions between the Sacred and the Secular Life: The Church Missionary
Society in Ukaguru, Tanzania, East Africa, 1876-1914’, in Comparative Studies in Society and History,
Vol. 23, No. 1 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981), p. 74.
23
Peterson (2006), Op.cit, p. 988.
24
Interview with Horace William Chabonga, Berega village, 27th April 2018; Interview with Daudi Faniki
Chitungo, Berega village, 27th April 2018.
61
times they redeemed some slaves.25 According Beidelman some of the Kaguru in
Mamboya and Berega descended from slaves whom the missionaries took from the
Arabs”.26 They were later on absorbed completely by the Kaguru.
4.4 The CMS and the Kaguru Kinship Relations

The missionaries were against Kaguru rituals as they claimed that doing rituals was a
manifestation of paganism. To the Kaguru, rituals were significant for the appeasement
of gods. It was a sense of identity that every clan had which differentiated one clan from
the other.27 The missionaries labelled Kaguru cultural practices as barbaric. The
missionaries built churches and converted many Kaguru into the Christian religion. The
Kaguru Christian converts were then required to abandon other cultural practices that
seemed to be barbaric in the eyes of the missionaries and other CMS agents. Therefore,
the prominent clans for rainmaking were forbidden to continue with rain rituals. In such
cases wherever rains became scarce no rituals were performed. The respondent Enock
Mgella narrated the role of rainmaker:
When rain was scarce the elders gathered to the clan head and negotiated to find
a rain maker, ‘mutungula fula’, who used his magical power to make rain fall.
Sometimes the rain maker used rituals to hunt the bad people who used their
magic to prevent rain. Those people who prevented rain were called ‘wagonesi’
or ‘wakola fula’. When the wagonesi were detected they were compelled to undo
the magic in order to let rain fall. The shortage of rain was also attributed to
anger of god. Rituals were required to calm that anger and to make rain fall.28
Discouraging rituals had a negative impact on agricultural production. Cultivation

became very difficult since irrigation technology was not developed in Ukaguru. Only
25
26
Ibid.
27
Interview with James Mmassa, Rubeho village, 22nd April 2018; Interview with Emmy Laurian
Malekela, Magubike village, 30th April 2018.
28
62
people with fields in the Malolo were able to cultivate in the absence of rain as the soil
in the river valleys was always moist.
The missionaries limited the role of maternal uncles to their nephews and nieces.
Missionaries argued that “the bond between husband and wife took precedence over all
other relationships”.29 They reduced the power of wives’ relatives and defended
Christian husbands’ rights over their wives and children. Missionaries were committed
to patriarchal values.30 For the Christians, the husband was the head of household with
authority not contended by other men including his brother(s) in law who headed clans
and matrilineage. This eroded kinship relations among the Kaguru since matrilineage
were responsible for bringing cohesion among the members of the same clans. This
distanced families’ affinal kins and created disunity in agricultural activities. The clan
head no longer had influential power over the children of his sisters. The missionaries
preached about monogamy. They insisted that a Christian marrying more than one wife
should be excommunicated from the church. This practice, as remarked by Derek R.
Paterson, “limited the role that mothers, uncles, fathers, brothers, patrons, or lovers
played in husbands’ wives’ lives”.31
The most remarkable change in kinship relations was the introduction of Christianity.
Many things which matrilineal clans dealt with were embodied within the culture and
traditions of Kaguru ethnic groups. The prohibitions of rituals, traditional rainmaking on
the one hand, and promoting patrilineal inheritance of property and clanship control had
adverse impacts on the Kaguru matriclan which in turn affected practices of agriculture
in Ukaguru.
29
Peterson (2006), Op. cit. p. 998.
30
31
Ibid, p.104.
63
4.5 The Colonial Rule in Ukaguru

German colonisation of Tanzania was preceded with twelve treaties in which Karl Peters
signed with African local chiefs. In those treaties, local rulers surrendered their territory
and rights to the Gesellschaft fur Deutsche Kolonisation, (Society for German
Colonization) which was formed by Karl Peters in 188432. The organization was granted
a Royal Charter by German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck to govern the territory which
Karl Peters had claimed by treaty. In 1887 Peters reorganised his society “to become the
German East Africa Company (Deutsch-Oastafrikanische Gesellschaft, DOAG) which
ruled what became known as German East Africa until 1905 in the name of the German
Crown”.33
The German arrived in Ukaguru in Mamboya in 1885. This was when the leader of the
DOAG toured the area asking Africans to sign over the allegiance to him. Peters was
welcomed by Senyagwa Chimola who became the ruler of the whole Ukaguru due to the
influence of Arabs, especially during the caravan trade.34 The Germans were very brutal
and had many volatile and aggressive things which they did to create fear among the
Kaguru. Their actions of burning villages, shooting and hanging some Kaguru who did
not support them horrified the people in the region.35 Their intimidation aimed to
prevent African rebellions.36 The missionaries made it clear that they were not related in
any way to the Germans.37 The German thought to end the Arab dominance in Ukaguru.
Unrealising this, Senyagwa Chimola thought that Peters was another alien whom he
could establish an alliance for protection against warlike neighbouring tribes of
32
Coulson (2013), Op. cit. p. 62. See also Perras (2004), Op. cit. p. 58; G. C. K. Gwassa, ‘The German
Intervention and African Resistance in Tanzania’ in Isaria N. Kimambo & Arnold J. Temu, (eds.), A
History of Tanzania, (Nairobi: East African Publishing House, 1969), p. 100; Kimambo, Maddox &
Nyanto (2017), Op. cit. p.108; Juhan Koponen, Development for Exploitation: German Colonial Policies
in Mainland Tanzania, 1884-1914, (Helsink/Hamburg, 1994), p.72.
33
Kimambo, Maddox & Nyanto (2017), Op. cit. pp. 118-121.
34
35
Ibid.
36
Ibid, p. 48.
37
Peterson (2006), Op. cit. p. 995.
64
Baraguyu and Hehe. As it was with the Arabs, Chimola expected to get more guns and
other luxury goods.38
The German colonial administration intended to reinforce centralisation and

bureaucracy. They, therefore, created a cadre of African subordinate administrators,
akidas. These were a group of educated men that played an intermediary role between
the Germans and the Africans.39 The German administrative structure became centrally
organised using these akidas.40
Before the German invasion, the term ‘akida’ denoted a chosen war-leader, recognised
by the Sultan of Zanzibar whose function was “keeping order and controlling public
festivities”.41 The Germans adopted the terminology but changed akida’s functions.
Akidas became the official representatives of the Germans. They enforced and
implemented orders directly from the Germans. The orders included collecting taxes,
mobilising labour and porters whenever needed.42 In Ukaguru, the Germans imposed
this coastal structure of the Sultanate that involved administering the local population
using Akidas and Jumbes”43. The akidas were superior to the headmen, ‘jumbes’. The
headmen, therefore, were to implement orders from their immediate superiors, the
Akidas. Collective labour mobilisation at family and clan levels was adversely affected
by this hierarchical structure as the headmen’s influence in their respective clans was
diminishing.
Following the defeat of Germans and her allies in the First World War 1914-1918, the
victorious allies were given mandate to administer German colonies on behalf of the
38
39
John Iliffe, Tanganyika under German Rule 1905-1912 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1969), p. 167.
40
Mahmood Mamdani, Citizen and Subject: Contemporary Africa and the Legacy of Late Colonialism
(New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1996), p.80.
41
Iliffe (1969), Op. cit. p. 180.
42
Kimambo, Maddox & Nyanto (2017) Op. cit. p.143.
43
Ibid. p.143.
65
League of Nations to prepare the indigenous people for self-governance.44 The mandate
demanded social progress of the indigenous45 and discouraged the coming of Europeans
to the colony unless they were employed by the government.46 After the First World
War (1914-1918), Tanganyika Territory became a trust territory of the United Nations.47
That marked the end of German colonial rule in Tanzania and the beginning of British
colonial rule.
The British colonial government under Governor Sir Donald Cameron introduced the
Native Authority Ordinance in 192648 which allowed administration and decision
making by local leaders. Four Native Authorities (NA) were introduced in Kilosa. These
were Ukaguru, Usagara, Usagara South and Uvidunda.49 The headquarter of Ukaguru
was located at Mamboya. The Kaguru Native Authority (KNA) was organised in
hierarchical administration consisting of one paramount chief, four sub chiefdoms and
fifty four headmen.50 Having fifty four headmen in Ukaguru which had more than one
hundred matrilineal clans implied that more than fifty clans were placed under other
clans’ administration. The Kwavi were subjected to the chief of Ukaguru,51 hence they
were sub chiefdom within the chieftainship of Ukaguru.
Five courts were established in Ukaguru which served as both administrative and
judicial centres. Of the five courts, four were headed by sub-chiefs. These included the
courts of Idibo, Gairo, Nongwe and Msowero. The fifth one was that of Mamboya
44
M. Crowder, ‘The First World War and its Consequences’ in A. Adu Boahen (Ed.), General History of
Africa Vol. VII: Africa under Colonial Domination, (California: University of California Press, 1985), p.
308, see also John Iliffe, A Modern History of Tanganyika, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1979), p.423; Coulson (2013), Op. cit. p. 74.
45
Coulson (2013), Op. cit. p.74.
46
Iliffe (1979), Op. cit. p. 423.
47
48
Peterson (2006), Op.cit, p. 18; Beidelman (2012), Op. cit. p. 64; Beidelman (1967), Op. cit. p. 85.
49
UDSM Tanganyika: Annual Report of the Provincial Commissioners for the Year 1935-1940: Eastern
Province 1939 (Dar es Salaam: Government Printer, 1941), p. 20.
50
51
Province 1939 (Dar es Salaam: Government Printer, 1941), p.20
66
headed by the paramount chief.52 The headman worked under the court and the head of
the court was his immediate supervisor. The courts heard cases, fined and punished the
offenders in terms of corporal punishment or imprisonment. They enforced laws of the
territory and the headmen worked on the directives from the courts. Also, the courts kept
records; they were inspected by the administrative staff.53 The courts enforced
judgments on land disputes, divorce, and repayment of debts, theft and other disputes.
Hearing of those cases started at the level of headmen, to sub-chief and eventually to the
paramount chief.54 Although they used local rulers all clans could not have
representatives in the native authorities. This system of hierarchy aimed at facilitating
the political administration and native authority courts which were responsible to settle
disputes in the lower levels. Therefore other clans were subjected to headmen who were
members of different clans.55 For example, the headman of Berega from the Songo clan
ruled over other neighbouring clans of Nyau, Bela and Gweno.56 Along similar lines, the
Gomba clan was recognised as the rulers in villages of Ndogomi, Iyogwe, Chogoali,
Chilama, Rubeho, Mtumbatu and Maundike I.57 As a result of this clan head lost control
of their clan members as they were no longer important in land allocation to their clan
members.58
4.7 Impact of Colonialism on Kinship Relations and Agricultural Production in

Ukaguru
The colonialists governed using laws. As far as land tenure is concerned, the colonial
government introduced the 1923 Land Ordinance which guided land occupancy in the
52
Ibid. p. 119, 143; Interview with Enock Mgella, Mamboya village, 28th April 2018; Interview with
Kapulwa Lesudai, Rubeho village, 22nd April 2018.
53
Province 1929 (Dar es Salaam: Government Printer, 1935), p.7 see also Beidelman, “Beer Drinking and
Cattle Theft in Ukaguru: Intertribal Relations in a Tanganyika Chiefdom”, in American Anthropologist,
New Series, Vol. 63, No. 3 (1961), p. 539.
54
Interview with Tenja Njalika, Magubike village, 25th September 2018; Interview with Johnson
Chilongola, Magubike village, 25th April 2018.
55
Beidelman (1971). Op. cit. p. 86.
56
Interview with Horace William Chabonga, Magubike village, 30th September 2018.
57
58
67
territory. The Land Ordinance of 1923 declared that all lands were public under the
control of Governor where people continued to use customary land laws to get right of
occupancy.59 The Ordinance was amended in 1928 to redefine the term of occupancy to
“title of a native community lawfully using or occupying land under customary law”.60
Functionally, this amendment made state laws which were implemented through Native
Authorities superior to customary rights to land. Native Authorities had the mandate to
manage land tenure.61 In Ukaguru although local leaders were used in the colonial
government, clan heads’ authority over land distribution to their respective clans was
weakened. New members in the clan by birth or marriage acquired land by following
government procedures. In most cases land was commercialized whereby a wealthy
person secured more land while others could not.62
Although the Native Courts supported the position of leadership to follow the traditional
practice of choosing a leader within the matrilineal clan, the courts were also delicately
corroding the matrilineal values which laid the basis of all customary laws. As noted by
Beidelman:
Kaguru courts partially enforced matrilineal order but also subverted it. Even the
eldest court officials, however much they valued tradition, saw courts as a means
to support the power of men and crush insubordinate women. In doing so they
subverted matrilineal values that depended on marital instability, divorce, and
women ties to their children63
59
Gregor Haussener, ‘Land Tenure Policy Implications in Tanzania (EA) on Small Scale Investors’,
(M.A. Thesis, University of Bern, 2014), p. 5.
60
Ibid; Peter Veit, ‘The Precarious Position of Tanzania’s Village Land’, World Resources Institute, 2010,
p. 2.
61
TNA, Acc. No. 61 29/C/I 1927-1937 Rights of Occupancy in Kilosa; Beidelman, ‘Intertribal Tensions
in Some Local Government Courts in Colonial Tanganyika’, in Journal of African Law, Vol. 10, No. 2 pp.
118-130 (School of Oriental and African Studies, 1966), p.120; Bernard Anthony Mtwale, Conflicts
between Pastoralists and Farmers over Land Use: A Case Study of Kilosa District (M. A. Dissertation,
UDSM 2002) p.63
62
Interview with Johnson Chilongola, Magubike village, 25th April 2018; Veit (2010), Op. cit.
63
68
This practice of weakening the Kaguru kinship relations, in turn, affected agricultural
production.
The early schools by missionaries and colonial government put emphasis on agriculture
and simple trade.64 Besides that, the colonial economy emphasized the exportation of
raw materials. Hence, the kind of agriculture emphasised in colonial schools was cash
crops production. As noted by Meredeth Turshen, there was a dramatic increase in cash
crops production and frequent failures of food crops in Kilosa district in 1937.65 This
resulted in famine as it affected agricultural production directly. Also with the
establishment of sisal and cotton plantations in Kilosa, many people sought residence in
Ukaguru in places of Rudewa, Msowero, Mvumi, Magole, Kimamba, Dumila and
Magubike. Since land matters were managed by Kilosa Native Council (KNC)66 and
that land became a commodity, many non-Kaguru people secured land easily leaving
many Kaguru with a shortage of arable land for cultivation. For example, in 1957
Ukaguru contained 12,188 African outsiders who worked on the sisal plantations at
Kimamba and Kilosa.67
Agricultural production was limited by a lack of labour.68 Collective labour was hardly
practiced due to three main factors: first, kinship ties were loose as each village
consisted not only people of one clan but also Kaguru from other clans as well as non-
Kaguru people who secured land through permission by the headman. With this, the
organisation of labour for agricultural production at the clan level became difficult.
Members of households no longer participated in the collective labour in the clan partly
because clan authority was weakened and in other areas where the headman was a
64
Ibid. p. 71.
65
Turshen, The Political Ecology of Disease in Tanzania, (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press,
1984), p. 97, also see for instance Paul Uche Mbakwe, ‘The impact of colonial rule on the agricultural
economy of Mbaise, Imo State, 1500-1960’, in African Journal of History and Culture Vol. 7(6), pp. 133-
140, June, 2015.
66
TNA, Acc. No. 61 29/C/I 1927-1937 Rights of Occupancy in Kilosa.
67
68
69
different person other than clan head, the clan head’s authority and power were not
exercised.
The second reason was the cash economy. European colonisation of Africa triggered the
need for economic development. That being the case, colonial governments established a
colonial economy immediately after they had acquired total political and military
control. Economic development, as asserted by Koponen, “required the exploitation of
African labour”69. Creating cash economy was among the subtle strategy of forcing
Africans to provide labour in the colonial plantations. With the increasing demands for
cash, everyone was busy working for his/her cash for paying taxes and other
necessities.70 The Germans imposed different kinds of tax which included hut tax.
Initially the indigenous were allowed to pay in livestock and foodstuffs but later the
government demanded taxes in cash.71 One respondent said:
People went to work to colonial plantations in order to get money to pay taxes and
to have cash for other uses at home. When they left home, the households
remained with elders whose labour productivity was low compared to the youths
who went to colonial plantations. This had negative impacts on decision making
in the clans as well as on the collective labour which simplified cultivation within
the clan72
As people left for plantation works, mobilisation of labour for economic activities
became difficult. Collective labour was hardly performed and many Kaguru reduced the
size of farms because of a labour shortage. This disturbed the cohesion of kinship
relations which manifested in labour organisation. Every household focused on its
family matters and hence the significance of the clan over households became minimal.
These changes, in turn, affected agricultural production.
69
70
71
Interview with Philipo Masingisa, Mamboya village, 30th April, 2018; Turshen (1984), Op. cit. p. 97.
72
Stephen Lumambo, Magubike village, 25th September, 2018.
70
4.8 Conclusion
This chapter discussed the impacts of colonialism on Kaguru kinship relations and
agriculture in general. The chapter established that efforts made by the colonial
government to modernise production did not take into consideration Kaguru aspects of
production. The Kaguru’s agricultural economy depended on the land. The land was
distributed based on customary land laws where each clan administered its own area.
British colonial rule disrupted this practice by establishing Native Authorities which
eroded the power of clan heads. Although other clan heads became headmen in the
Native Authorities, their number was smaller compared to that of Kaguru petty polities.
These Native authorities undermined practices of Kaguru descent groups which include
land distribution among the clan members.
Along similar lines, undermining Kaguru kinship relations jeopardised organisation of

labour which was the most important aspect for agricultural production. Creation of the
colonial economy went hand in hand with the introduction of a cash economy which
compelled many people to provide labour in the colonial plantations. This negatively
affected the collective labour which the Kaguru practiced during the pre-colonial period.
The chapter, therefore, established that modernising Africans did not take into
consideration African cultural values.
71
CHAPTER FIVE
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
This dissertation has attempted to examine the relationship between kinship relations,
colonialism and agricultural production among the Kaguru from the 1890s to 1960. The
study used secondary sources, first to find the research gaps and then to supplement the
oral and archival sources. Two theories have been used namely alliance and political
economy theories. These theories have contributed to the understanding of kinship
relations and their perpetuation in Ukaguru and the influence of colonial economic
activities to the kinship and agricultural production among the Kaguru.
Kinship relations among the Kaguru was understood as relations that bound people who
descended from a common ancestress into a particular clan. Those relations were
perpetuated through marriage. The clans held power that propelled development in
society. The clans also maintained orders and made decisions that positively affected the
whole clan. Each clan also had its ritual and political power which were important in the
rain-making and political development and allocation of land for cultivation and grazing
in the respective polities. The findings show that the Kaguru ethnic group was composed
of more than one hundred matrilineal clans which formed the basis for social, political
and economic organisation in the pre-colonial period. The social cohesion bound kins
together and made it possible for the mobilisation of labour and ensured the product of
labour was distributed appropriately.
From the 1860s Arabs and European missionaries arrived in Ukaguru. The reasons
behind their presence in Ukaguru differed as the former was concerned with trade in
ivory and slave while the latter embarked on spreading the Christianity religion. The
presence of Arabs in Ukaguru influenced political change. The study found out that
although the pre-colonial Ukaguru was politically decentralised, economically all clans
had the same social organisation. The study also presented that decentralised political
72
system in Ukaguru started to diminish with the influx of Arabs and missionaries who
strengthened the power of the chief of Mamboya who later became the paramount chief
of Ukaguru. The colonial-centralised Ukaguru was more beneficial to the colonial
government as it simplified the colonial administrative systems while at the same time it
weakened kinship relations of the Kaguru.
The missionaries since their arrival in 1867 ventured to Christianise and modernise the
indigenous. However, they did not consider the cultural structures of the Kaguru. The
missionaries were against rituals and they put more emphasis on patrilineal values which
were against the practices of Kaguru who were matrilineal. One of the key observations
made by this study was that missionaries’ activities greatly weakened the power of clan
heads which in turn affected the cohesion among the members of the clan.
The study also demonstrated that colonial governments passed various policies and laws
which undermined Kaguru customary laws which were implemented through kinship
relations. These include laws governing land tenure in Ukaguru. The introduction and
implementations of Native Authority affairs in Ukaguru resulted in the
commercialisation of land since the allocation and distribution of land was not based on
the clan authorities rather the headmen did. Additionally, other policies on the colonial
economy such as the introduction of cash crops, monetisation and taxation adversely
affected the form of collective labour which was dominant during the pre-colonial
Ukaguru.
This study has shown the importance of kinship relations to the decentralised and
centralised societies. This is because it is apparent that kinship relations played the same
role in Ukaguru before and after the arrival of Arabs and Missionaries in Ukaguru who
influenced the centralisation of political systems in Ukaguru. The only difference is the
extent to which kinship relations were the basis of agricultural production before and
after the introduction of colonial rule in Ukaguru. The fact that colonialism disrupted
73
and weakened the power of kinship institutions suggests that during the colonial period
kinship relations had a lesser role in agricultural production compared to the pre-colonial
period.
The study has also demonstrated that centralised politics was not the only factor for
economic development. The Kaguru had been engaging in trade and agricultural
activities during the pre-colonial period where they had no unified political system. The
external forces which played a role in the centralisation of political systems in Ukaguru
were the ones which, while bringing new political structure affected the agricultural
production. Colonialism also divided Ukaguru into two administrative districts and
hence dividing the people of the same ethnic group.
It was also observed in the study that the legacy of some aspects which came as a result
of the CMS and colonialism are important even today. These include education and
health centre. In Berega village the health centre which serves many people is a result of
missionary activities in the 1900s. Although schools were built to train Africans who
could facilitate the implementation of colonial orders, the few Kaguru who got that
education benefited out of it. They managed to secure decent jobs which brought
prosperity to their families. Despite that, the sense of individualism which emerged after
colonial education weakened the unity which existed in pre-colonial Ukaguru which
facilitated cultivation. The study found out that in the late colonial period the Kaguru
coped well with some changes which resulted from colonialism. Although they
remained matrilineal, in most cases matters related to the inheritance of property slightly
changed in compliance with the laws of the colonial state which were implemented
through KNA.
Generally, agricultural production in Africa and Ukaguru, in particular, was not

introduced by the colonial state. Although the colonial state adopted many approaches to
improve agricultural production in Ukaguru, their little consideration of kinship relations
74
brought changes to the way agriculture was practiced. These changes did not necessarily
result in production drop-down, but they were remarkable as they forced the Kaguru to
comply with colonial perspectives of modernity thereby abandoning their traditional
agricultural practices. The study has shown the usefulness of the alliance theory to the
understanding of the significance of African kinship relations to the organisation of
agricultural production and other economic activities.
75
BIBLIOGRAPHY
A: Oral Interviews
Adison Amoni Chisengo (Age: 70), Berega Village, 27th April, 2018.
Danyesi Eliudi Mbala (Age: 51), Magubike Village, 30th April 2018.
Daudi Faniki Chitungo (Age: 63), Berega Village, 27th April, 2018.
Emmy Laurian Malekela (Age: 67), Magubike Village, 30th April, 2018.
Enock Mgella (Age: 78), Mamboya Village, 26 September 2018.
Gerishomu Petro Lumambo (Age: 61), Magubike Village. 27th April & 25th September,
2018.
Horace William Chabonga (Age: 64), Berega Village, 27th April, 2018.
James Mmassa (Age: 50), Rubeho village, 22nd April, 2018.
John Stanley Mhina (Age: 49), Berega Village, 27th April, 2018.
Johnson Chilolo (Age: 69), Magubike Village, 25th April, 2018.
Johnson Chilongola (Age: 53), Magubike Village, 28th April, 2018.
Julius Paulo Sungula (Age: 59), Berega Village, 27th April, 2018.
Kapulwa Lesudai (Age: 86), Rubeho Village, 22nd April 2018.
Lugendo Livingstone Msele (Age: 74), Magubike Village, 24th September, 2018.
Petro Chadibwa (Age: 76), Magubike Village, 26th April, 2018.
Philipo Masingisa (Age: 69), Mamboya Village, 30th April, 2018.
Said Bakari (Age: 46), Magubike Village, 26th April 2018.
Simon Mbena Mchanjale (Age: 78), Rubeho Village, 24th April, 2018.
Tenja Njalika (Age: 58), Mamboya village, 25th September, 2018.
B: Archival and Documentary Sources

Tanzania National Archives (TNA), Acc. No. 2 12/3, Kilosa District Annual Reports,
1938-1942.
TNA, Acc. No. 2 4/9, Agriculture Reports Rainfall and Crops Prospects: Official
Telegram 31/3/1943 9/111/108 Kilosa Crop Report, 1940-1953
76
TNA, Acc. No. 61 1/C/1, Native Authority Kilosa – History of Ukaguru, 1942.
TNA, Acc. No. 61 29/C/I 1927-1937 Rights of Occupancy in Kilosa
University of Dar es Salaam (UDSM). Tanganyika: Annual Report of the Provincial

Commissioners for the Year 1947. Dar es Salaam: Government Printer, 1948.
UDSM. Tanganyika: Annual Report of the Provincial Commissioners for the Year 1935-
1940: Eastern Province 1939 (Dar es Salaam: Government Printer, 1941.
UDSM. Tanganyika: Annual Report of the Provincial Commissioners for the Year 1929-
1934: Eastern Province 1929 (Dar es Salaam: Government Printer, 1935.
C: Secondary Source
Akiri, R. M. (1999). The Growth of Christianity in Ugogo and Ukaguru (Central
Tanzania): A Socio-Historical Analysis of the Role of Indigenous Agents
1876-1933. Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of Edinburgh.
Albert, E., T. Häberlein and J. Martin, (2010). Changing Webs of Kinship: Spotlights on
West Africa, Africa Spectrum 3/2010: 43-67.
Anthony, K. I. (2014). “Kinship in African Philosophy and the Issue of Development”,

International Journal of Humanities Social Sciences and Education (IJHSSE)
Volume 1, No.9, pp. 1-6.
Beidelman, T. O. (1978). “Chiefship in Ukaguru: The Invention of Ethnicity and

Tradition in Kaguru Colonial History”, The International Journal of African
Historical Studies, Vol. 11, No. 2, pp.227-246.
77
Beidelman, T. O. (1961) “Right and Left Hand among the Kaguru: A Note on Symbolic
Classification”, Journal of the International African Institute, Vol. 31. No.3
pp.250-257.
________. (1961). “Beer Drinking and Cattle Theft in Ukaguru: Intertribal Relations in
a Tanganyika Chiefdom”, American Anthropologist, New Series, Vol. 63, No.
3 pp. 534-549.
________. (1963). “The Kaguru Time Reckoning: An Aspect of the Cosmology of an

East African People”, Southwest Journal of Anthropology, Vol. 19, NO.1, pp.
9-20.
________. (1966). “Intertribal Tensions in Some Local Government Courts in Colonial

Tanganyika”, Journal of African Law, Vol. 10, No. 2, pp. 118-130.
________. (1967). The Matrilineal Peoples of Eastern Tanzania (Zaramo, Luguru,

Kaguru, Ngulu, etc.). London: International African Institute.
________. (1971). “Some Kaguru Notions about Incest and other Sexual Prohibitions”
in Rodney Needham (Ed), Rethinking Kinship and Marriage. London:
Routledge.
________. (1971). “The Kaguru Descent Groups (East-Central Tanzania)”, Anthropos,

Bd. 66, H. 3./4, pp.373-396.
________. (1971). The Kaguru: A Matrilineal People of East Africa. New York: Holt,
Rinehart and Winston.
78
Beidelman, T. O. (1974). “Kaguru Names and Naming”, Journal of Anthropological

Research, Vol. 30, No. 4 pp. 281-293. The University of Chicago Press.
________. (1981). “Contradictions between the Sacred and the Secular Life: The Church
Missionary Society in Ukaguru, Tanzania, East Africa, 1876-1914”,
Comparative Studies in Society and History, Vol. 23, No. 1 pp. 73-95.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
________. (1986). Moral Imagination in Kaguru Modes of Thought. Bloomington:

Indiana University Press.
________. (2012). The Culture of Colonialism: The Cultural Subjection of Ukaguru,

Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Boahen, A. A. (Ed.). (1985). General History of Africa Vol. VII: Africa under Colonial
domination 1880-1935. Heinemann: Heinemann Educational Books.
Browning, G. & Kilmister, A. (2006). Critical and Post-Critical Political Economy.

New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Burton, R. (1860). The Lake Regions of Central Africa: A Picture of Exploration. New
York: Harper & Brothers, Publisher.
Crowder, M. (1985). “The First World War and its Consequences” in Boahen, A. A.
(Ed.). General History of Africa Vol. VII: Africa under Colonial Domination.
California: University of California Press.
Dalton, G. (ed.) (1966). Tribal and Peasant Economies: Readings in Economic

Anthropology. New York: The National History Press.
79
Doggart, N., Perkin, A., Kiure, J., Fjeldsa, J., Poynton, J. and Burgess, N. (2006).
‘Changing Places: How the Results of New Field Work in the Rubeho
Mountains influence Conservation Priorities in the Eastern Arc Mountains of
Tanzania’, in African Journal of Ecology, No. 44.
Dumont, L. (2006). An Introduction of Two Theories of Social Anthropology: Descent

groups and Marriage Alliance. New York: Berghahn Books.
Ehret, C. (1995). “The East African Interior”, in M. Elfasl And I. Hrbek (Eds.), General
History of Africa Vol. III: Africa From the Seventh to the Eleventh Century.
Heinemann: Heinemann Educational Publishers.
Evans-Pritchard, E. E. (1940). The Nuer: A Description of the Modes of Livelihood and

Political Institutions of a Nilotic People. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Fox, R. (1967). Kinship and Marriage: An Anthropological Perspective. Australia:

Penguin Books.
Godelier, M. (1972). Rationality and Irrationality in Economics. New York: Monthly

Review Press.
________. (1975). “Modes of Production, Kinship and Demographic Structure”, in

Bloch, M. Marxist Analysis and Social Anthropology, New York: Wiley.
________. (2004). The Metamorphoses of Kinship. Paris: Fayard.
Grant, J. A. (1864). A Walk Across Africa, or Domestic Scenes from my Nile Journal.
Edinburgh: William Blackwood and Sons.
80
Gulliver, P. H. (1971). Neighbours and the Networks: The Idiom of Kinship in Social
Action among the Ndendeuli of Tanzania. Los Angeles: University of
California Press.
Gwassa, G. C. K. (1969) “The German Intervention and African Resistance in

Tanzania”, in Kimambo, I. N. and A. J. Temu, (eds.), A History of Tanzania.
Nairobi: East African Publishing House.
Haussener, G. (2014). “Land Tenure Policy Implications in Tanzania (EA) on Small

Scale Investors”. Unpublished M.A. Thesis, University of Bern.
Iliffe, J. (1979). A Modern History of Tanganyika. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.
______. (1969). Tanganyika under German Rule 1905-1912. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.
Kashaigili, J. J. (2011). ‘Rapid Environmental Flow Assessment for the Ruvu River’,
Global Water for Sustainability Program. A Consultancy Report submitted to
iWASH.
Kimambo, I. N., G. H. Maddox and S. S. Nyanto, (2017). A New History of Tanzania.

Dar es Salaam: Mkuki Na Nyota.
Koponen, J. (1988). People and Production in Late Pre-colonial Tanzania: History and
Structures, Finland: Gummerus Kirjapaino.
________. (1994). Development for Exploitation: German Colonial Policies in

Mainland Tanzania, 1884-1914.
81
Last, J. T. (1878). The Church Missionary Intelligencer, A Monthly Journal of

Missionary Information Vol. III New Series. London: Church Missionary
House.
________. (1882). A Journey into the Nguru Country from Mamboia, East Central
Africa, Proceedings of Royal Geographical.
Malinowski, B. (1930). Parenthood: The Basis of Social Structure, in V. Calverton, V.

and S. D. Schmalhausen (eds.) The New Generation, New York: Macaulay.
Mamdani, M. (1996). Citizen and Subject: Contemporary Africa and the Legacy of Late
Colonialism. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Mbakwe, P. U. (2015). “The impact of colonial rule on the agricultural economy of

Mbaise, Imo State, 1500-1960”, in African Journal of History and Culture
Vol. 7(6), pp. 133-140, June, 2015.
Meeker, J. and D. Meekers. (1997). “The Precarious Socio-Economic Position of

Women in Rural Africa: The Case of the Kaguru of Tanzania”, African
Studies Review, Vol. 40, No.1 pp.35-58. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Meekers, D. and N. Franklin. (1997). ‘Women’s Perception of Polygyny among the

Kaguru of Tanzania’, Working Paper No. 263.
Meillassoux, C. (1972). “From reproduction to production: A Marxist approach to

economic anthropology”, Economy and Society, Vol. 1. Issue 1, pp.93-105.
82
Middleton, J. and E. H. Winter. (eds). (1963). Witchcraft and Sorcery in East Africa.
London: Routledge.
Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock Development: Tanzania, Soil Fertility Appraisal

of Kisangata Farm, Kilosa District, Tanzania 1990, Mlingano Agricultural
Research Institute Tanga.
Mlahagwa, J. R. (1973). “The Headman: Chilongola Jenga” in John Iliffe (ed.), Modern
Tanzanians: A Volume of Biographies. Nairobi: East African Publishing
House.
Mlama, P. (1973). Music in Tanzanian Traditional Theater: The Kaguru as a Case Study.
Unpublished M.A. Dissertation, University of Dar es Salaam.
Morgan, L. H. (1871). Systems of Consanguinity and Affinity of the Human Family.

Washington: Smithsonian Institution.
Mtwale, B. A. (2002). Conflicts between Pastoralists and Farmers over Land Use: A
Case Study of Kilosa District. Unpublished M. A. Dissertation, UDSM.
Neal, S. (1981). A Colonial Dilemma: British Policy and the Colonial Economy of
Tanganyika 1918-1938. Unpublished M.A. Thesis, Australian National
University.
Needham, R. (Ed). (1971) Rethinking Kinship and Marriage. London: Routledge.
Ottenberg, P. (1966). Cultures and Societies of Africa. New York: Random House.
83
Perras, A. (2004). Carl Peters and German Imperialism 1856‒1918: A Political

Biography. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Peterson, D. R. (2006). “Morality Plays: Marriage, Church Courts and Colonial Agency
in Central Tanganyika, ca. 1876-1928”, The American Historical Review,
Vol. 111, No. 4
Petzell, M. (2015). ‘Three Kaguru Stories: Annotations, Analysis and World Lists’,
Studia Orientalia Electronica, Vol. 3. University of Gothenburg.
________. (2008). The Kaguru Language of Tanzania: Grammar, Texts and

Vocabulary. Koln: Rudiger Koppe Verlag.
Radcliffe-Brown, A. R. & D. Forde. (eds.). (1950). African Systems of Kinship and

Marriage. New York: Oxford University Press.
Redd, D. A. (1998). “The Hadza and Kaguru of Tanzania: Gender Roles and Privileges
at Two Subsistence Levels”, Lambda Alpha Journal, v.28.
Rigby, P. (1969). Cattle and Kinship among the Gogo: A Semi-pastoral Society of
Central Tanzania. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Reid, A. and Rachel MacLean, R. (1995). ‘Symbolism and the Social Contexts of Iron
Production in Karagwe’, World Archaeology, Vol. 27, No. 1.
Rodney, W. (1979). “The Political Economy of Colonial Tanganyika 1890-1930” in

Kaniki, M. H. Y. (ed.) Tanzania under Colonial Rule. London: Longman
84
Sample, J. (1951). The Life and Explorations of David Livingstone, LL.D, Careful
Compiled from Reliable Sources.
Sanga, R. T. (2009). Assessing the Impact of Customary Land Rights Registration on

Credit Access by Farmers in Tanzania: A Case of Mbozi District.
Unpublished M.A. Thesis, International Institute for Geo-Information Science
and Earth Observation, The Netherlands.
Schmidt, P. and Donald H. Avery, D. H. (1978). ‘Complex Iron Smelting and

Prehistoric Culture in Tanzania’, Science, Vol. 201, No. 4361.
Schneider, D. M. (1984). A Critique of the Study of Kinship, (Michigan: The University

of Michigan Press, 1984),
________. (2004). “What is Kinship all About” in Robert Parkin and Linda Stone,
(eds.), Kinship and Family: An Anthropological Reader. Oxford: Blackwell
Publishing.
Seddon, D. (Ed.). (1978). Relations of Production: Marxist Approaches to Economic

Anthropology. New York: Frank and Cass Company.
Speke, J. H. (1864). Journal of the Discovery of the Source of the Nile. Edinburgh:
William Blackwood and Sons.
Stanley, H. M. (1879). Through the Dark Continent or the Sources of the Nile around
the Great Lakes of Equatorial Africa and Down the Livingstone River to the
Atlantic Ocean. New York: Harper & Brothers Publishers.
85
Sutton, J. E. G. (1968). “The Settlement of East Africa” in Ogot, B. A. and J. A. Kieran

(eds.) Zamani: A Survey of East African History. Nairobi: East African
Publishing House.
Tadmor, N. (2010). “Early Modern English Kinship in the Long run: Reflections on
Continuity and Change”, in Continuity and Change 25 (1), 2010, 15–48.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Trautmann, T. R. (1987). Lewis Henry Morgan and the Invention of Kinship. Los
Angeles: University of California Press.
Turshen, M. (1984). The Political Ecology of Disease in Tanzania. New Brunswick:

Rutgers University Press.
Wilson, M. (1950). “Nyakyusa Kinship”, in Radcliffe-Brown, A. R. & D. Forde. (eds.).

African Systems of Kinship and Marriage. New York: Oxford University
Press.
________. (1957). Rituals of Kinship among the Nyakyusa. London: Oxford University
Press.
________. (1959)Communal Rituals of the Nyakyusa. London: Oxford University Press.

Kinship Relations, Colonialism and Agricultural Production Among The Kaguru, 1890S-1960

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Kinship Relations, Colonialism and Agricultural Production Among The Kaguru, 1890S-1960

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

KINSHIP RELATIONS, COLONIALISM AND AGRICULTURAL

PRODUCTION AMONG THE KAGURU, 1890s-1960

Imani Yaredi Majenda

PRODUCTION AMONG THE KAGURU, 1890s-1960

Imani Yaredi Majenda

A Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the

University of Dar es Salaam

I would like to show my appreciation to the management of the Institute of Development

Most importantly, my heartfelt appreciation goes to my parents, my father Yaredi

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

CMS Church Missionary Society

DOAG Deutsch-Oastafrikanische Gesellschaft

DUCE Dar es Salaam University College of Education

HESLB Higher Education Students’ Loans Board

IDS Institute of Development Studies

KNA Kaguru Native Authority

KNC Kilosa Native Council

TNA Tanzania National Archives

UDSM University of Dar es Salaam

Declaration and Copyright .................................................................................................ii

List of Abbreviations and Acronyms ................................................................................ vi

Table of Contents ............................................................................................................viii

List of Tables .................................................................................................................... xi

List of Figures ..................................................................................................................xii

CHAPTER ONE: GENERAL INTRODUCTION ........................................................... 1

1.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 1

1.2 Background to the Study .............................................................................................. 1

1.3 Statement of the Problem ............................................................................................. 6

1.4 Objectives of the Study ................................................................................................ 6

1.5 Research Questions ...................................................................................................... 6

1.6 Significance of the Study ............................................................................................. 7

1.7 Scope and Area of the Study ........................................................................................ 7

1.8 Literature Review ......................................................................................................... 8

1.9 Theoretical Framework .............................................................................................. 12

1.10 Research Methodology and Limitation of the Study ............................................... 14

1.11 Data Analysis ........................................................................................................... 17

1.12 Organization of the Dissertation .............................................................................. 17

CHAPTER TWO: GEOGRAPHY, ECONOMIES AND KINSHIP RELATIONS IN

2.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................ 18

2.2 Geography of Ukaguru............................................................................................... 18

2.2.1 Location of Ukaguru ............................................................................................... 18

2.2.2 Landscape, Soil, Vegetation and Climate of Ukaguru ............................................ 23

2.3 Peopling of Ukaguru .................................................................................................. 27

2.4 Kinship Relations in Pre-colonial Ukaguru ............................................................... 31

2.5 The role of marriage in the formation of kinship ties ................................................ 37

2.6 Economic Activities in Ukaguru ................................................................................ 39

2.6 Conclusion ................................................................................................................. 42

CHAPTER THREE: KINSHIP RELATIONS AND AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION

3.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................ 44

3.3 Land ownership, Uses and Kinship relation in Ukaguru ........................................... 44

3.3: Organization of Labour in the Kaguru Lineages ...................................................... 51

3.6 Conclusion ................................................................................................................. 56

CHAPTER FOUR: COLONIALISM, KINSHIP RELATIONS AND AGRICULTURAL

4.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................ 57

4.2 Penetration of Arabs in Ukaguru ............................................................................... 57

4.3 The Penetration of Missionaries in Ukaguru ............................................................. 59

4.4 The CMS and the Kaguru kinship relations ............................................................... 61

4.5 The Colonial Rule in Ukaguru .................................................................................. 63

4.7 Impact of Colonialism on Kinship Relations and Agricultural Production in Ukaguru

4.8 Conclusion ................................................................................................................. 70

CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION .................................................. 71

Figure 1: A Map Showing Geographical Location of Ukaguru……...….…………..….20

1.2 Background to the Study