University of Pittsburgh- Of the Commonwealth System of Higher Education

Warfare, Political Leadership, and State Formation: The Case of the Zulu Kingdom, 1808-1879
Author(s): Mathieu Deflem
Source: Ethnology, Vol. 38, No. 4 (Autumn, 1999), pp. 371-391
Published by: University of Pittsburgh- Of the Commonwealth System of Higher Education
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3773913 .
Accessed: 20/06/2014 22:47

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

University of Pittsburgh- Of the Commonwealth System of Higher Education is collaborating with JSTOR to
digitize, preserve and extend access to Ethnology.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.145 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 22:47:14 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 f Purdue University

WARFARE,POLITICALLEADERSHIP,AND STATE
FORMATION:THE CASEOF THE ZULUKINGDOM,
1808-18791

4 MathieuDeilem

The origin and evolutionof the nineteenth-centuryZulu Kingdomare used to examine

two competingstate formationtheories:RobertCarneiro'scircumscriptiontheory and
ElmanService'stheory of institutionalizedleadership.Both theoriespartly clarifyZulu
political developments:Carneiro'sexplainsthe origin and territorialexpansionof the
Zulu empire, while Service's can account for the beginningdifferentiationof political
roles in the Zulustate. Twoalternativeexplanationsof the causesof Zulustate formation
are discussedto integratethe divergingtheoreticalperspectivesof Carneiroand Service.
First, the role of the Zulu king, Shaka, should be consideredpoliticallyrelevant only
inasmuchas Shaka'swars of conquestwere instrumentalfor the unificationof the Zulu
Kingdom. Second, further developmentsin Zulu politics involved limited structural
change from dispersed tribes to a unified military state. The analysis of political
formations,includingtheir originand furthertransformation,shouldnot be conducted
in unilinearevolutionaryterms, but from a multidimensionalprocessualperspective.
(State formation, circumscriptiontheory, institutionalizedleadership,Zulu Kingdom)

Thedevelopmentof the ZuluKingdomis one of the mostremarkable andextensively

documentedcasestudiesin thehistoryof stateformation.Therise of the Zuluempire
over a relativelyshortperiodof time, its powerfulexpansionover a wide territory,
the overwhelmingviolenceandterrorinvolved,andthe brutalEuropeanoverthrow
of the regimehavelong attractedscholarlyattentionfromhistorians,anthropologists,
and sociologistsof Africanpoliticalsystems. In this article, two theoriesof state
formationare appliedto the developmentof the Zulu Kingdom:RobertCarneiro's
circumscription theory(Carneiro1970)andElmanService'stheoryof institutional-
ized leadership(Service1975).Thesetheoriesrepresenttwo influentialperspectives
in the historicalstudyof stateformation,butthey havenot yet been carefullytested
in light of the Zulucase. This is particularly
remarkablegiven the widely acknowl-
edged analyticalmeritof both theoriesas well as the historicalsignificanceof the
evolution of the Zulu political structure.This essay therefore undertakesan
examinationthat may provevaluableto assess the strengthsand limitationsof two
theoriesof stateformationin light of a significantepisodein the historyof African
indigenouspolitics.I also seek to advanceideasthatmay aid in breakingthroughall
too commonlyheldconceptionsof stateformationprocessesdueto a nearlyexclusive
orientationon Europeanpoliticalprocesses.My analysisrestson the assumptionthat
political systems developed autonomouslyin precolonialtimes in Africa (and
elsewhere)that were of sufficientcomplexityto be discussed in terms of state
formations,yet thathaveto be explainedby theoreticalmodelsthattakeinto account
specific conditionsof time and place which set them apartfrom their European
counterparts.
371
ETHNOLOGYvol. 38 no. 4, Fall 1999, pp. 371-91.
ETHNOLOGY, c/o Deparanent of Anthropology,The University of Pittsburgh,PittsburghPA 15260 USA
Copyrightt 1999 The University of Pittsburgh.All rights reserved.

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.145 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 22:47:14 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
372 ETHNOLOGY

Afteroutliningthemainthesesof Carneiro'scircumscription theoryandService's

theory of institutionalizedleadershipand deriving testable propositionsfrom a
comparisonof both,I presenta briefhistoryof the ZuluKingdomfromits formation
to the Europeandestructionof the empire(1808-1879)andtracethe factorsthatcan
accountfor the evolutionof Zulupoliticsin termsof Carneiro'sandService'sstate
formationtheories, indicatingthe strengthsand limitationsof the theories. Two
alternativeexplanationsof Zulupoliticalprocesseswill also be considered:the role
of the Zulukings, particularlyShaka;andthe natureof Zulupoliticaldevelopments
from dispersedtribesto a uniEledpoliticalentity.These leadto a discussionof the
applicabilityof Carneiro'sand Service'sstateformationtheoriestothe case ofthe
ZuluKingdom.I concludeby suggestingthe needfor a multidimensional processual
frameworkof political developmentsthat combines coercive and integrative
mechanismsto explainthe dynamicnatureof politicalformationsandtransforma-
tions.

TWOTHEORIESOF STATEFORMATION

One of the crucial problems in the historicalstudy of political systems,

speciflcallyin non-Westerncontexts,is the transformation fromegalitarianto state
societies.This transformation is observedin the transitionfrombandsto tribesand
chiefdomsto states(Flannery1972:401-04;Lewellen1983:18-38;Walter1969:56-
86). Bandsare the simplestforms of politicalorganization:familiesare organized
along kinshiplines, while other integrativemechanismsof leadershipare largely
absent.Tribes are largercommunitiesintegratingdifferentbandsby principlesof
descent(lineages).Chiefdomsarethefirstsocialformsto differentiate politicalroles:
lineages are rankedin a hierarchythat sets the descentgroup of the chief above
othersto indicateauthoritative leadership.The powerof the chief is centralizedand
relativelystable,andthe economicorderis to someextentstructured by chieflyrule
(throughthe organizationof labor and the redistributionof wealth). In states,
governmentis highlycentralizedin a professionalrulingbodyseparatedEom kinship
bondsandorganizedintospecializedofficesthathandlepolitical,economic,andlegal
matters.The legitimizedmonopolyof the use or threatof force is one of the salient
featuresof states.Thereis littledisagreementoverthetransitionfrombandsto states,
butthe stateformationtheoriesof CarneiroandServicerepresenttwo prominentand
competingviewpointsin the debateover the conditionsof this politicaltransforma-
tion.

Warfareand Circumscription

The circumscription theoryof RobertCarneiroexplainsthe formationof states

as the outcomeof a regularanddeterminate culturalprocess(Carneiro1970, 1981,
1992). Carneiroassertsthat since differentstates arose independentlyat different
historicaltimes in variouspartof the world,theiroriginneedsto be accountedfor

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.145 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 22:47:14 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 STATEFORMATION:
THE ZULU KINGDOM,1808-1879
373
by a generaltheory.Warfare,Carneiroargues,plays the most decisiverole in the
creationof states,but threesocioecologicalconditionsalso haveto be met.
First, statesarisein areaswherethe availabilityof agriculturallandis restricted.
This refers to the ecological conditionof environmentalcircumscription.When
agriculturalland is readily availableSwarfarewill lead to a dispersalof villages
becausethe basic meansfor subsistencecan easily be foundelsewhere.As, on the
otherhand,the limitsof arablelandarereachedS villagescan no longerdisperseinto
otherareas.Thenwarfarearisesout of a needto acquireagriculturalresources,and
some villages will be politicallysubjugatedby other, more dominantgroupings.
Formerly autonomousvillages thus become incorporatedinto larger political
formations:chiefdomsareformedandcomeunderthe controlof a paramountchief.
Increasedcompetitionover land acceleratesthe process of warfire and political
subjugationto create even greater political units (compoundand consolidated
chiefdoms).Eventually,whenan areais sharplycircumscribed andsuff1cientlylarge,
highly centralizedand internallydifferentiatedstates are formed. Individualwar
heroesthenoccupynewlyformedpoliticalofficesto decreeandenforcelawsScollect
taxes, organizelabor,anddraftmen for war.
Resource concentrationis a second condition for warfare to lead to state
formation.Resourceconcentrationrefersto the fact thatthe availabilityof food in
anareacanbe restrictedso thatexploitableareasbecomecompletelyoccupied.When
this is the case, competitionover cultivatablelandincreases.This leadsto conflicts
andwarfare,which can becomeintensifiedto the extentthatpoliticalcommunities
areutlitedandeventuallythrougha progressionof processesof politicalsubjugation,
forma state.
Finally,Carneiroarguesthatpopulationpressureandsocialcircumscription can
also explainhow warfareleadsto the creationof states.Populationpressurerefers
to the density of populationrelativeto availableland. High populationdensity in
villages located near the center of a territorycan lead to increasedpressuresto
occupyagriculturalland.Warfarearises,becomesmoreintense,andis redirectedto
land acquisition.This bringsaboutthe crystalizationof largerpoliticalunits and,
ultimately,the formationof states.The territoriallimits of the state are reachedat
thepointwheresufficientlyconsolidatedgroupsmeetothersocialformationsof equal
politicalcomplexity.The geographicalspreadof the stateis haltedbecauseof social
. . -

clrcumscrlptlon .

The Institutionalizationof CentralizedLeadership

ElmanService (1975) situatesthe origin of state governmentin a process of

institutionalization
of centralizedleadership.Leadershiprefers to the exercise of
power, definedas the relativeabilityof a personor groupto commandobedience
and/or challenge resistance.For a communityto become a state, its political
organizationhas to evolve in such a way thatthe power of leadershipis not only
basedon authorityrestingon a hierarchicalrelationshipbut also on a legal system

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.145 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 22:47:14 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 -

374 ETHNOLOGY

to sanctionthe monopolyof force. Some initial form of leadership,based on a

hereditaryaristocracy can evolve into a bureaucraticsystem that secures a
redistributiveandallocativeeconomicsystem.The rise to statehoodis essentiallya
process throughwhich politicalpower becomesformallyestablishedin a central
bureaucracy.
In egalitariansocieties (bandsand tribes), reinforcementmechanismsoperate
througha systemof rewardsandpunishments withinthetraditionalkinshipstructure
Thereare no formallaws to regulatebehaviorsincethe communityis smallenough
to deal with mattersin an informalmannerbasedon habits,custom,and domestic
power. Leadershipis not permanentbut intermittentand acceptedbecause of an
individual'scharismaticqualities,his sensitivityto public opinion, and his good
adviceratherthanhis powerto interveneas an executivethirdparty.Mediationin
disputesis largelybasedon consensusin judgment Whena disputecannotreadily
be resolved,a publicduelcansettlemattersof conflict,or whendifferentcommuni-
ties are involved, a rule-violatormay be punishedby his own kinsmen.Warfare
betweencommunitiescannotalwaysbe avoided,but intergroupmarriagesandtrade
betweendifferentcommunitiesoffer importantmeansof keepingpeace.
In chiefdoms,the leader'spersonalpoweris institutionalized
to forma hierarchy
of subsidiaryoffices. This hierarchyof authorityserves to redistributegoods and
services to the community,thus reducingthe politicalsigniElcance of the kinship
structure.The chief commandslabor and decides how and to whom goods are
allocated.Leadershipin a chiefdomis more establishedand centralized,and the
boundariesof the politicalorganizationare more distinctthan in tribal societies.
Chiefdomsare ideologicallysupportedby the belief thatthe characterof the leader
is transmittedto his sons, especiallythe Elrstborn (primogeniture),and by the
supernaturalstatus attributedto his authority.Disputesin chiefdomsare largely
settledthroughinformallysanctionedcustomsbasedon territorialgroupsentiments.
Mediationis assignedto the hereditarychieflyaristocracy,so thatthe kinship-based
status of the elders is graduallydevalued.The increasedpolitical centralization
enablesthe chiefs to intervenein disputesandcommandin warfare,but tradeand
othermeans of keepingpeace are equallyimportantin the regulationof external
analrs.
Serviceconsiderschiefdomsintermediate inthetransitionfromegalitarian to state
societies.Thecrucialcharacteristicof politicalstatesis thatcentralauthoritybecomes
fully establishedand institutionalized
in formallyregulatedoffices. State-controlled
laws are formal, andjudicial offilcesare assignedto act as thirdparties. Unlike
ehiefdoms, the political structureof states is fully differentiated,visible, and
territoriallybounded.Stateshavea monopolyoverthethreator use of physicalforce,
bothinternally,througha formalizedjudicialandpunitivesystemof repressivelaws,
andexternally,by meansof an organizedandpermanentarmy.

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.145 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 22:47:14 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 STATEFORMATION:
THE ZULU KINGDOM,1808-1879 375

Circamscribed
Wafare versusInstitutionalized
Leadership

Comparingthe theories of Carneiroand Service highlights some of the

contrastingcharacteristicsof their perspectivesand their relianceon two distinct
intellectualtraditionsin modernstatetheories.2Carneirostheoryof stateformation
assertsthatwarfaredirectedat the conquestof arablelandis the centralmechanism
of state formationunderparticularconditionsof circumscription.Since Carneiro
assumesthatpeopleshouldnotbe expectedto willinglygive up theirsovereignty,he
rejects voluntaristicor integrativestate theories based on social contract or
co-operation.Onthe contrary,theprincipleof zcompetitiveexclusiontdemonstrated
in wars of conquestis the pivotalforce to explainthe origin of states (Carneiro
197B).Warfireis consideredthe primemoverof stateformationbecauseit leadsto
theterritorialuniElcation of formerlyautonomousvillagesthroughalliancesbetween
villages actingjointly in defenseor offensein a struggleover productiveland.
Carneiro'scircumscription theoryreveals a clear indebtednessto the work of
Herbert Spencer. In his evolutionistsociology, Spencer (1896) attributedthe
formationof the stateto a processof politicaldifferentiation and integration.This
evolutionessentiallyhadmilitaryoriginsin the graduallyincreasingorganizationof
warfarethatled to the incorporation of smallersocietiesinto largerunits: zmilitary
cooperationis thatprimarykind of cooperationwhich preparesthe way for other
kindst (Spencer1896:280). Successfulwarriorscould becomepolitical leadersto
establisha unionbetweenmilitaryandpoliticalsupremacy.Spencer(1896:268-72)
also arguedthatthis transformation processis determined(or hampered)by material
conditions in general and environmentalconstraintsin particular.Carneiro's
circumscription theory shareswith Spencer'sperspectivean evolutionaryoutlook
emphasizingexternalconflictsthatunderconditionsof environmental constraintare
directed at territorialconquest and the subjugationof formerly autonomous
communltles.
Service7stheoryof institutionalized leadershipprimarilyfocuses on the internal
integrativeprocessleadingto state formation.Accordingto Service leadershipin
statesin the first instancetries to protectits hegemonyandmustthereforebecome
centralizedand functionallydifferentiatedinto specializedpoliticalroles. Service
acknowledgesthatin exceptionalcircumstarlces statescanresortto forceandwarfares
butundernormalconditionsmechanismsof peace-keepingthroughthe allocationof
scarce resourcesand the establishmentof a system of law are more important.
Politicalleadershipcan only meet this objectivewhen differentpoliticalroles are
centrallyinstitutionalized.
Service'stheoryof institutionalized leadership,then, is closely akinto the state
theoryof Max Weber.To be sure, warfareplays no small role in Weber's(1958
[1919], 1954 [1922])theoryof the state,whichhe definedin termsof the monopoly
of force over a giventerritory.WhileWeberarguedthatthe use or threatof physical
force was a meansspecificto the state, he did not considerit a sufElcientcondition
for the states furtherdevelopment.Statepowers also had to be legitimatedby a

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.145 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 22:47:14 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
376 ETHNOLOGY

formallyenactedsystemof laws, andthe meansof statecontrolhadto be allocated

to a functionallyspecializedbureaucratic apparatus.Thus, the statecould fulfill its
variousfunctionsof bureaucratic authority(internalandexternalcoercion,legislation,
justice, and administration)and bureaucratic management(to regulatethe market
economy).Service'stheory,too, doesnotdenythe initialrelevanceof coerciveforce
in the formationof the state, yet, like Weber,Servicesees coercionas a minimal
conditionwhich still has to be followedby a differentiationof politicalroles to
sustain the militarythreat. In this process, Service (1975:40) assumes Weber's
distinction between charismatic,traditional,and legal political legitimacy to
correspondto the nature of leadershipin, respectively, egalitariansocieties,
chiefdoms,and states. In addition,Serviceconceivesof the institutionalization of
leadershipas necessaryto securea fairlyconceivedmanagement of economicgoods
(contraryto Marxistconceptions).
In sum, the theoriesof CarneiroandServicecontraston two issues:a) the role
of circumscribed warfarein Carneiro'scoerciveperspectiveversusthe development
of a sanctioningandredistributive systemin Service'sintegrativeapproach;andb)
Carneiro'semphasison the territorialuniElcation of dispersedvillagesto explainthe
origin of the state versus the signifilcanceService attributesto the functional
differentiationof politicaloffices in a bureaucracyto elucidatea process of state
formation.Theseissuesserve, in the nextsections,as the criticalguideto assessthe
strengthsandlimitationsof thetwo theoriesregardingthecase of the ZuluKingdom.

THE RISEAND FALLOF THE ZULU KINGDOM3

I distinguishthree periodsin the historicaldevelopmentof the Zulu political

structure.Eachperiodmanifestsdistinctbreaksin thenatureof Zulugovernmentand
by a successionof remarkable
is characterized eventsthatledto the unificationof the
ZuluKingdomin southernAfrica.Fromits initialformationin 1808to its fall in the
Anglo-Zuluwar of 1879, HIvekingsreignedover the ZuluKingdom.

TheFoundationsof the ZaluKingdom

The historyof the ZuluKingdombeginswith the reignof Dingiswayo,chief of

the Mthethwa,an Nguni-speakinggroup of the Bantupopulationin southeastern
Africa. During his reign from 1808 to 1818, Dingiswayo conqueredseveral
chiefdomssurroundingthe Mthethwaterritory.The main drive for Dingiswayo's
wars of conquestwas his desireto end the internecinefightingbetweendifferent
communitiesand to bringthemundera single government.Dingiswayo'smilitary
expeditionswere successfullargelybecausehe hadrestructured the formerflghting
units of different lineages into uniEled,age-gradedregiments. This military
reorganizationhad importantsociopoliticalimplicationssince it weakenedthe
influence of territoriallybased kinship relations. Dingiswayo also changedthe
politicalorderby centralizingpoweroverthe conqueredarea.He increasedcontrol

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.145 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 22:47:14 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 STATEFORMATION:
THE ZULU KINGDOM,1808-1879
377
over the defeatedchiefs when they acceptedhis dominionor when he considered
them loyal favorites.Dingiswayo'sexerciseof force was said to be relativelymild
beyondthe actualconquest,andthe chiefdomssubmittingto his powerandoffering
tributewere largelyleft intact.
The Zulu, at that time a small lineage of some 2,000 members,were also
conqueredby the Mthethwa.Shaka an illegitimateson of the Zuluchief, took refuge
withthe MthethwaS joinedtheirarmy,andbecameone of its bravestwarriors.When
the chief of the Zuludied, Shakaseizedpowerandreorganizedthe Zulucommunity
alongMthethwamilitarylinesbasedon age ratherthankinship.Dingiswayodied in
1818duringa confrontation withthe Ndwandwecommunity.ThereafterShakakilled
thelegitimateheirof Dingiswayo appointeda favoriteto be the newMthethwachiefs
but soon subsumedthe Mthethwaregimentsunder Zulu control and proclaimed
himselfthe new rulerof the ZuluKingdom.

The Period of TerroristicDespotism

The reign of Shakamarksa crucialphasein the historyof the Zulu Kingdom.

AfterShakahadseized power,he furtherdevelopedthe disciplinedorganizationof
the military.He introducedthe assegai (a shortthrustingspear)andtrainedthe army
to encirclethe enemyin a shield-to-shield formationso thatrivalwarriorscouldbe
stabbedat the heart.These military-technical innovationswere to be of enormous
politicalimportance.Theefficiencyof the militaryapparatus allowedShakato gather
a largenumberof chiefdomsinto one entityandto incorporatethe defeatedtroops
into the Zulu military.Thoughsome chiefdomswere able to disperseinto other
territories,Shaka'swars resultedin the mergingof some 300 formerlyindependent
chiefdomsinto the ZuluKingdom.
The internalpolitical structureof the kingdomchangeddramaticallyduring
Shaka's regime. He orderedhis warriorsto remain unmarriedand made the
organizationof the age-graderegimentsa matterof his personaldecision,thusfurther
weakeningtraditionalkinshipties andthe powersof the eldersin favorof his central
authority.Shakaalso resortedto violence to neutralizethe powers of the Zulu
sorcerersso thathe alonewouldhavea monopolyon magicalpractices.In addition,
cowardsin battle, kinsmentreatingShaka'smotherbadly, and anybodyarbitrarily
chosenby Shakacouldbe seizedandkilled.Butthe authoritarian rule of Shakastill
reliedon a delicatesystemof delegatedchieflypowers.Shakawas assistedby a staff
of chiefs who surroundedhim in the royalkraal (a territorialdwellingunit withthe
houseof the king locatedat the center).WhileShakaneededthe chiefsto executehis
will, he was carelFul
to limittheireffectivepowersandto stir rivalryamongthemso
they would checkone anotherbut neverdisputehis will.
The precariousbalanceof Shaka'sauthoritativerule, markedby a continued
relianceon a pluralityof chiefs andexhaustedby terrorandviolence both at home
and abroad, could in the end not be maintained.The system of terror went
completelyout of controlafterShaka'smotherdied. SuNJects not showingsufficient

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.145 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 22:47:14 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
378 ETHNOLOGY

grief were slaughtered,and Shakaproclaimedthat sexual intercourseamong his

subjectswas prohibited,no cows wereto be milked,andno cropswereto be planted
for a periodof one year. The regimeof destructionandsacrificefinallyaffectedthe
people's loyalty to Shakaand evoked mutinyamong his people. In 1828, three
conspirators,two of whomwerebrothersof Shaka?stabbedhim to death.Dingane,
one of the assassinsanda brotherof Shaka,then murderedhis fellow conspirators
andbecamethe new king of the Zulu.
Dingane's rule clearly shows the extent to which the regime of Shakahad
profoundlyafiSected and changedthe Zulu politicalorder.While Dinganeinitially
promised to restorepeace and happinessin the country,the system of terrorwas
quickly restored.The death of Shakahad broughtabouta weakeningof central
politicalorder,so thatdifferenttribesunifiedunderhis rule now soughtto remove
themselvesfromZuluauthority.To keepthe kingdomunited,Dinganesaw no other
way but to resortto the methodsof violenceinstitutedduringShaka'sreign. The
renewedterrormaderelationswiththeneighboring Europeansincreasinglyturbulent.
DuringShaka'sregime,the Britishand Boer settlersin the areahad not interfered
with Zulu rule largelybecausethey could not standup to the militarymight of
Shaka's army. But as the Europeanpresencegrew strongerand the economic
advantagesof trade with the Zulu decreased,the autonomyof Zulu political
developmentswas affected.Dingane'sbrotherMpandejoined the Europeansand,
unitedin militaryforce, they rebelledagainstthe Zuluking. Dinganeretreatedinto
Swaziland,but in 1840he was killedby conspiratorsled by Mpande,who took over
the Zuluthrone.

The Contradictionsand Fall of The Z>la Kingdom

Whilesome featuresof the despoticnatureof the Zulupoliticalorderremained

alive andwell duringMpande'srule, the extentof terrorgenerallydecreased.The
reignof Mpandewas peacefulin comparisonwithhis predecessors'regimes.Instead
of engaging in bloody expeditionsof conquest,Mpandeintegratedthe military
regimentsinto a system of economic distribution.The political system thereby
became more consolidatedand functionallydifferentiatedinto an economically
legitimatedregime.At the sametime, however,the chiefs, who were offzlciallystill
consideredthe king's loyal agents, startedassumingmore autonomouspower for
themselves.The politicalantagonismsandthe weakeningof the centralizedsystem
markthe first indicationsof the transitorystate of the Zulu politicalorder.When
Mpandedied a naturaldeathin 1872, aftera reignof morethan30 years, his son
Cetshwayobecamethe new king of the Zulu.
Cetshwayo'sreignwas short-lived.The Zuluchiefsbeganto pose limitstQ the
king?sauthoritySandCetshwayocouldnotmakedecisionsof nation-wideimportance
without their consent. The Europeanpressureson the Zulu state also became
stronger.In 1873,TheophilusShepstone,NatalSecretaryforNativeAffairs,crowned
Cetshwayoking of the Zulu,not, as Cetshwayothought,to conf1rmhis independent

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.145 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 22:47:14 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 THE ZULU KINGDOM,1808-1879
STATEFORMATION: 379

royalauthoritybut, on the contrary,becausethe sovereigntyof the Zulu kingwas

seen to be inconsistentwith Britishcolonial rule. The coronationof Cetshwayo
symbolizedthatthe ZuluKingdomexistedonly by virtueof the mercyof the British
empire. In 1878, Bartle Frere, the BritishHigh Commissionerof South Africa,
presentedan ultimatumfor Cetshwayoto disbandthe Zulu army, stop the many
executions,as Shepstonehad alreadyadvisedduringCetshwayo'scoronation,give
missionariesthe freedomto teach,andgrantyoungZulumenthe freedomto marry.
When the Zulu king did not conformto these demands,a successionof bloody
confrontationsbetweenthe Zuluandthe Britishultimatelyled to the Anglo-Zuluwar
of 1879, aiter which the Zulu Kingdomwas broughtunderBritishcolonial rule.
Cetshwayothen went to Englandand appealedto the Queento restorehis royal
staXs.This was grantedundertheconditionof severalrestraints,andCetshwayowas
againcrownedking of the Zulu. A militaryconfrontation betweenthe Zulu andthe
Zibhebhutribefinallydeliveredthe finalblow to the once mightyZulu. Cetshwayo
fled from the fightingwith the Zibhebhu,and in 1884 he was founddead. Three
yearslater Zuluterritorywas declareda Britishprotectorate,andin 1897 it became
partof Natal.

THEORETICAL OF ZULU STATEFORMATION

EXPLANATIONS

Circumscription Leadershipin the ZuluRingdom

and Institutionalized

Analyzingthe evolutionof the Zulu Kingdomon the basis of the suggested

theoriesindicatesthatthe ZulupoliticalstructureEltSwell with Carneiro'stheoryon
the role of warfare.The datain this regardareoverwhelmingandleaveno doubton
the significanceof warfareaggregating formerlydispersedtribesintoone nation.The
wars of conquestinitiatedunderDingiswayo'srule and vigorouslyintensiEled by
Shakawere certainlythe maindrivingforce for the enormousterritorialexpansion
of the ZuluKingdom,bringingmanypreviouslyindependent chiefdomsunderunified
politicalrule.
Thereis also supportfor the conditionsunderwhichCarneiroconsiderswarfare
a causefor the formationof states.First,with regardto environmental circumscrip-
tion, the Zulu Kingdom,once it had expandedover a wide territory,was indeed
conElnedby environmentalborders.The unificationof tribes extendedfrom the
IndianOceanin the eastto the BuffaloRiverin the west, andfromthe Phongoloand
MhkuzeRiversin the northto the ThukelaRiverin the south(Guy 1979:3-5;Walter
1969:127,206). Second,resourceconcentration also playeda role in the formation
of the kingdom.The coastalregionwas largelycoveredwith tractsof bushunfitfor
peopleor cattle.Furtherinland,however,areasof sweetgrasseswere well suitedto
cattle-herdingand harboredthe majorityof the Zulu people (Gump 1989; Guy
1979:5-9, 1980). The concentrationof agriculturalresourcesis also relatedto the
elementof populationpressure.The availabilityof food necessaryfor stock-keeping
in the centerof Zululandbroughtabouta higherpopulationdensitythere andthis

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.145 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 22:47:14 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
380 ETHNOLOGY

in turnled to migrationsinto otherareas.Butwhenneighboringareaswere already

occupiedor were ecologicallyunsuitedto sustaininglivelihood,therewere limitsto
increasingproductionin anyregion,giventhe relativelyhighnumberof inhabitants.
The imbalancebetweenpopulationdensityandthe availabilityof exploitableareas
producederuptionsof violenceandintensiE1ed struggleover accessto vitalresources
(Guy 1979:9-10,1980;Stevenson1968:40-52).Thewarsof conquestinitiatedby the
Zulu kings found an importantimpetus in these socioecologicalconditionsto
neutralizeinternalconflictsandseek arablelandin otherregions.In addition,it is
importantto note thatthe earlier-mentioned signiElcance of environmental circum-
scriptionshouldbe consideredin conjunction with the elementof socialcircumscrip-
tion. Whilethe ZuluKingdomwas constrainedby physicalboundaries,these limits
at the sametime designateddivisionsbetweendistinctsociopoliticalformations.The
opportunitiesfor free movementof the Zulu were limitedby the presenceof the
Swazi and TembeThongato the north,the Boers and Basutoto the west, andthe
Britishto the south (Gluckman1940:27;Walter1969:247-48).These constraints
referto more thanjust physicalborders:politicallysignificantactlvitiesare made
possibleor impossibleby thedemarcations set by naturalfrontierswhenandbecause
they also separaterelativelywell-established social units.
Service's theory also has its merits in accountingfor Zulu state formation.
Consideringthe differentiationof politicalroles, thefunctionof chieftainshipis seen
to alreadyhaveexpandedduringthereignof Dingiswayo.Thesettlementof disputes,
for instance,was politicallyadjudicatedto theZulukingandhis loyalchiefs. Further
developmentsenhancedthe institutionalization of leadershipandthe differentiation
between to some extent specializedpolitical roles (Romm 1986:615-41;Service
1975:104-16).Duringthe regime of Shaka,kinshipties were alreadyweakened
throughthe formationof age-graderegiments.The militarysystem becamemore
prominent(withoutfullydevelopedpoliticalroles), andthe dominantvaluesof Zulu
politics were primarilyrelated to warfare(Gluckman1940:31; Guy 1980:31;
Uzoigwe 1977:31). Shaka'srule was centralizedand authoritarian, but the local
chiefs did retainsome autonomouspower.Dinganebroughtthe chiefsto the capital
and furtherstrengthenedhis sovereignauthority.Governmental functionsbecame
even more institutionalized underMpande'srule. Mpande put his sons in important
administrative andeconomicpositions,so thata hereditarypoliticalsystembecame
morelikely. Now a formalcode of legalityregulatedsomedisputes(theking alone,
for instance,could orderexecutions).
Service'stheoryalso pointsto the economicrole of leadership:to protectitself,
leadersh1p hasto securea redistributionof resourceswhichis equitable(or whichcan
be legitimatedas equitable).Indeed,the goods seized in Zuluwarfarewere used to
providethe royalkraalbut also to maintainthe standingarmyandcontrola system
of honor and rewardsamong the Zulu populationat large. Shaka had already
distributedthe bootyhe capturedamonghis warriors,butespeciallyduringthe reign
of DinganeandMpandethe king'sallocationof rewardsandsupplyof food was an
importantbalanceagainstthe systemof internallydirectedterror.The economically

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.145 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 22:47:14 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 STATEFORMATION:
THE ZULU KINGDOM,1808-1879 381

functionalinstitutionalization
of politicalleadershipwas furtherexpandedduringthe
reignof MpandeandCetshwayowhenthe militaryregiments,now no longerengaged
in warfare,looked after the cattle and securedthe allocationof food (Gluckman
1940:133;Walter1969:192-95).The Zulu Kingdomthen had the beginningsof a
central,politicallycontrolledsystemof economyandlaw.

Strengthsand Limitationsof the Theories

On the basis of this analysis,the theoriesof Carneiroand Service both Emd

conE1rmation by the data on Zulu state formation.However, the sharpcontrasts
betweenthe theoriescannotwarranta simple acceptanceof both positions. Some
filrtherthoughtson the Zulu politicaltransformation and generalcriticismsof the
theoriesmay leadto a morebalancedevaluationin this respect.
First,withregardto Carneiro'stheory,theprimordialrole he ascribesto warfare
in stateformationfindstremendoussupportin the Zulucase. The aggregativewars
wereundoubtedly crucialfortheformationandterritorialexpansionof the Zulustate.
However,Carneiro'stheoryseemsto neglectan importantelementof warandterror
in the Zulu empire. Walter (1969) has convincinglyshown that Zulu political
violencecamein manyforms.The terroristicZuluregime(especiallyunderShaka)
managedto maintainordernot only by expansionbut also by furtherconsolidation
of evolvingpoliticalauthority.Carneiro(1988:503-07)acknowledgesthatwarfareis
only a f1rst,althoughnecessary,step for the formationof states and distinguishes
betweendispersiveandaggregativewarfare(Carneiro1990, 1992). Yet he seemsto
neglect the possibilitythat war can also play an integrativerole in the internal
political order. The continuedexistenceof violence and terrorin the Zulu state
cannot only be accountedfor by the role Carneiroassigns to war in externally
orientedconquest(competitiveexclusion),butshouldalsobe explainedas an internal
mechanismof zcoerced inclusiont to sustain political hegemony. The Zulu's
aggregativewarfare,as a processof uniElcation by externalcoercion,was accompa-
niedby an integrativemechanismof internalcoercion.Moreover,warfareshouldnot
be regardedonly as a cause but also as a resultof state formation(Cohen 1984).
Carneiro(1992:96)defineswar as zan activityof independent,sovereignpolitical
units, using force to pursuenationalpolicy"and at the same time he characterizes
the stateas zan autonomouspoliticalunit, encompassingmanycommunitieswithin
its territoryand havinga centralizedgovernmentwith the power to collect taxes,
draftmen for workor war, anddecreeandenforcelaws"(Carneiro1970:733).The
dualrole of warfarein the formationandcontinuedexistenceof politicalsystemsis
not surprising.Weber(1954 [1922]:342),for instance,had indicatedthe twofold
importanceof war for politicalcommunities.But it seems necessaryto drawmore
precisedistinctionsbetweendifferenttypesof warfare(for instance,warfareto build
nationsand warfareas a result of state power) in orderto indicateits different
politicallyrelevantrepercussions.4

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.145 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 22:47:14 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
382 ETHNOLOGY

Next, the role of resourceconcentration in Zulustateformationis less clear in

relationto populationdensity.An interestingdebatein this regardhasfocusedon the
thesis suggestedby FortesandEvans-Pritchard (1940:7-8)thatonly populationsize
mattersin the formationof states,whilepopulationdensitywouldbe relatedonly to
ecologicalconditionsandmodesof livelihood.Gluckman(1960:166-68)supported
this thesis and arguedthat Zulu populationdensitywas relativelylow at 3.5 per
squaremile. Stevenson(1968:40-52),on the otherhand,arguedthatwhile Gluckman
gave an accurateestimateof Zulupopulation,the areato whichthis numbershould
be comparedwas actuallysmaller,so thatZulupopulationdensitywas higherthan
Gluckman'sestimate(some ten per squaremile in pre-Shakantimes, and twenty
around1850). I cannot,of course,resolveherethe issue of Zulupopulationdensity,
but it should be rememberedthat Carneirodoes not view populationdensitybut
populationdensityrelativeto availableresources(population pressure)as a condition
for warfareto generatestateformations.Somecross-cultural evidencesupportsthis
thesis. Keeley(1988), for instance,has shownthatpopulationpressureis positively
correlatedto thesocioeconomiccomplexityof hunter-gatherers, identifyingtwo types
of hunter-gatherers with rapid transitionfrom one to the other. Researchalso
suggeststhatpopulationpressureis a priorconditionto increasingsocialcomplexity,
at least in societies with high agriculturaldevelopment(Harner1970; Vengroff
1976). While the data on the Zulu are not conclusivein this regard,in light of
cross-culturalfindings Carneiro'scircumscriptiontheory can deflnitely not be
rejected.
The theory of Service pays more attentionto the evolutionstaking place in
politicalformationsoncetheyhavebeenestablishedterritorially.Servicearguesthat
the institutionalization of leadershipaccountsfor the increasingcomplexitiesin
politicalstateformations.In the case of the ZuluKingdom,suchfactorsincludethe
formationof age-graderegiments,the reorganization of the king'srelationships with
the local chiefs, the emerging centralizationfor settling disputes, the gradual
establishmentof a redistributive economicsystem,andthe beginningdifferentiation
of politicalroles. However,in lightof the Zuludata,two criticismscanbe madeof
Service's theory. First, Service may have offeredtoo optimistica pictureof the
redistributive mechanismsof economicsystemsin states.Fried(1978), for instance,
argues that the state should be viewed as a stratifiedorder in which different
membersof society enjoy differentiatedrights of access to the basic productive
necessitiesof life. Statesmay stabilizeunequalaccessto strategicresourcesrather
thanprovidea fair allocationof goods. Second,the literatureon the Zulu clearly
shows that centralsystemsof legalityandeconomywere undevelopedin the Zulu
Kingdom.The beginningsof such systemswere present,but they were not fully
institutionalizedin a permanentbureaucracy. In addition,thewarsof conquestin the
formationof the Zulu state, as well as the role of internalterroronce the kingdom
was formed,cannotadequatelybe accountedfor in Service'stheory.WhileService
rightly draws attentionto the necessarymonitoringof activities once political
communitiesare territoriallyformed,he cannotaccountfor the fact that warfare

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.145 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 22:47:14 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 THE ZULU KINGDOM,1808-1879
STATEFORMATION: 383

initiallyleadsto the territorialunificationof a largepopulation.Externallyoriented

violence and force were deE1nitely crucialto unitethe varioustribes into one Zulu
Kingdom,andthe impressionleft by the internalsystemof terroron the Zulupeople
helpedto legitimizethe politicalorder(Walter1969:250-54).Regardlessof whether
thepoliticallysteeredeconomicsystemwas moreor less redistributive (Service1975)
or helped to sustain inequalities(Fried 1978), the patternsof violence always
operatedjointlywith changingZulueconomicandlegal arrangements.

ACCOUNTSOF ZULU STATEFORMATION

ALTERNATIVE

Inthe literatureon the ZuluKingdomtwo additionalelementsareoftendiscussed

to explainthe formationandexpansionof the Zulustate:f1rst,the role of Shakaand
the systemof terrorextendedunderhis rule;and, second,the precisenatureof Zulu
politicaldevelopmentsfromdispersedtribesandchiefdomsto one unifiedstate. A
briefdiscussionof thesematterswill provevaluableto furtherassessthe theoriesof
CarneiroandService.

TheIndividaalin History:TheRole of Shaka

Shaka'srole in the formationof the Zulustatecannotbe ignoredfor, as Sahlins

(1983:518-22)arguesshistorycan be a historyof kings or heroic history.- This
occurswhen the culturalorderwmultiplies" the kingesactionsin the social system
andmythbecomeshistory.The historicalevidenceshowsthatthe Zulukingsindeed
enjoyedsucha powerfulsociopoliticalrole. Zuluideologymaintainedthatthe nation
oughtto be the body of the king andthatall conductin the countryshouldemanate
ffom his single will. The Zulupeopleperceivedthemselvesas abantabe nlsosi(the
people of the king) and the king was referredto as wena Baba (the fatherof the
nation) (Chanaiwa1980:16; Walter 1969:256-58). With this kind of despotic
constitutionalismthe terroristicregimeof Shakacould survivefor a long time and
influencelaterkingswho originallysoughtto reignpeacefully.
Shaka'spersonalityhasoftenbeenusedto explaintheterrorin the ZuluKingdom
(e.g., Lewy 1979).5Even the anthropologistMax Gluckman7who describedthe
formationof the Zulu state in sociostructural terms, could not resist referringto
Shakaas za latenthomosexualandpossiblypsychotic"(Gluckman1960:158, 168).
A recent commentatoridentifsedShakaas za man of extraordinaryqualitiesand
courage,a true geniusX(Kunene1987:254, 251). In light of the events that took
placeafterthe deathof ShakaSsmother(includingthe killingof some 6,000 people)
Gluckman(1974:140) concludes Shaka was a near-psychoticwith a disturbed
psychosexuality,while Kunene(1987:275)writes that the incidentmust have zin
some ways disorientedhim.'
Thepsychologicaldebateon Shaka'spersonalityis evidentlyof greatideological
significance,especiallyin the contextof nationalismandethnicidentitytoday(Golan
1994; Hamilton1998), but not relevantin the presentcontextbeyondthe actual

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.145 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 22:47:14 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
384 ETHNOLOGY

implicationsit may have had for Zulu stateformation.Broughtdown to its proper

proportionsfor the analysisofferedhere, the social andpoliticalimpactof Shaka's
militaryexploitsandreignof terrordid marka crucialturningpointin Zulupolitical
developments.In line with CarneiroSstheory Shaka'swars were indeed prime
moversin the expansionof the Zulustate,andhis despoticregimerevealedpolitical
policy;if not in intent thendeflnitelywithregardto its politicallysignificanteffects
(Walter 1969:244-63). The wars of conquest, the organizationof age-grade
regiments the restructuring of chiefly authority,the weakeningof kinshipties and
magicalpowers, and the impressionleft by the systemof internalviolence on the
Zulupeople, did havefar-reaching implicationsfor the politicalorder.Regardlessof
whatanalysesof Shaka'scharactermaybring?the politicalimplicationsof Shaka's
wars of conquestand his role withinthe Zulu Kingdomare whatmatterfrom the
perspectiveof stateformationtheories.
This discussionraisesthe questionof whetherShaka'swars and the resulting
modiflcationsin Zulu political structureoriginatedfrom developmentsin the
traditionalchiefdomsors conversely,were causedby events takingplace outside
Zululand.Some authorsquestionthe pristinenessof the Zulu nation (Lewellen
1983:41-45;Wright1977:386-93)anddefendthe positionthattradewith European
visitorsandneighboringinhabitants was a decidingfaetorfor Zulustateformation,
muchliketradehaselsewherealsobeenobservedto influencepoliticaldevelopments
(e.g. KippandSchortman1989;Pastore1997). This argumentcontendsthat Zulu
politicalexpansionwas initiatedto manipulateandmonopolizethe ivory tradewith
Europeansettlers(Gluckman1960:]58-60; Gump1988:525-27;Walter1969:115).
Contactswith the Europeancommunitiescouldalso havebeenresponsiblefor Zulu
militaryreorganizations. Dingiswayo,for instance,is reportedto have workedfor
a white travelerfrom whom he could have learnedaboutextendingpoliticalrule,
regimentalorganization,and disciplinedwarfare(Walter1969:117).While some
evidencesuggeststhatZulustateformationdidnotoccurin perfectisolation,external
influencessurely cannotexplainthe entirerangeof changesthattook place. Most
researchindeed indicatesthatthe military-political reorganizations initiatedby the
Zulu kings on the basis of indigenoussystems'huntingpracticeswere decisive for
the furtherexpansionand consolidationof the kingdom(Chanaiwa1980:6-12;
Stevenson1968:33).Shaka,for instance,Elrmlyestablishedthe age-gradedmilitary
regiments,unified hundredsof tribes (in no more than ten years), weakenedthe
powerof eldersandsorcerers,andcontrolleda standingarmywith the aid of loyal
chiefs. The subsequentkings maintainedand intensifiedthese strategies.These
internalprocessesfar outweighedany externalinfluencesthatat best functionedas
catalyststo speedup alreadyongoingdevelopments.

The Nature of Zllla Political Transformations

Anothermatterthat has not been adequatelyresolvedis whetherthe political

changes in the Zulu territoryentailed a radical hreak from traditionalpower

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.145 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 22:47:14 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 STATEFORMATION:
THE ZULU KINGDOMs1808-1879 385

structures.Even if the politicalreformationsof Zulu society are consistentwith

internaldevelopmentsevolving out of the traditionalstructBreof chiefdoms it is
unclearwhetherthe Zulu Kingdomtransformedinto a political entity radically
differentfrom traditionalchiefdoms.In this respectsthe political anthropologist
Southall(1974:155-56)has arguedthat the definitionof modernWesternstates
cannotbe appliedto precolonialAfrica.The politicaldevelopmentstakingplace in
the Africancontextshouldnot be describedtoo readilyin termsof a dichotomous
divisionbetweentraditionalandmodernpolitics. This would excludemany of the
Africanstatesthat are not transitionalto, or aberrantfromSmodernstatesbut are
essentiallycharacterized by a complementary oppositionbetweendifferentelements
of bothchiefdomsandstates.Fromthisperspective,Lewellen(1983:35-36)suggests
thatthe Zulu Kingdomshouldnot be seen simplyin termsof Westernstatessince,
next to features of Europeanmodern states (e.g., the unificationof formerly
autonomousgroups,andthe claimto a monopolyof force), it still borethe markof
traditionalchiefdoms(e.g., the lack of fully developedoccupationalspecialization,
andthe continuingimportanceof relativelyindependent clans).
Differenttimes anddifferentplacescall for differentanalyses,guidedby similar
goals (to determinethe natureandevolutionof government),yet aimedat locating
thosecausesandconditionsthatwerespecif1cto the Africanregionin the precolonial
era (an insightwhichappliesequallyto postcolonialAfrica;see Stark1986). When
statesarecharacterized as zhistoricallyspeciflcX(Denis 1989:347) it shouldfollow
thatthey are analyzedin termsof theirown history.To furtherassessthis matterin
light of the Zulu case, Gluckman(1974) has in one of his laterworks on the Zulu
offered an interestinginterpretation that provides supportfor this position (see
MacMillan1995).Rtecting some of his earlierassertionson the radicaltransforma-
tion of Zulupolitics(e.g., Gluckman1958, 1960) Gluckman(1974) indicatessome
pertinentambiguitiesin Zulupoliticalevolutionandarguesthatdevelopmentsfrom
egalitarianto morecomplex,differentiated societiesmustbe conceivedas a long-term
processtWiththe Zuluthisimpliesfullytakingintoaccountthe ambivalencebetween
the increasingcomplexityof politicalreformations andthe persistingresistancefrom
traditionalstructures.On the one hand, the reorganizationsof the Zulu army
particularly underShakas reign,weredecisivein weakeningkinship-based political
alliances. Within the geographicalconfines of the Zulu Kingdom, military
arrangements crossedterritorialdivisionsin favorof age-basedregimentsthatcome
close to a differentiationof politicalroles in modernstates. On the other hand,
however,Gluckman(1974)alsoindicatesthatZulupoliticaltransformations remained
limitedpreciselybecausetheywere only militaryin natureSandthatfurtherpolitical
developmentstoward a centralizedand bureaucratically differentiatedstate were
hamperedby the limiting effects of the Zulu Kingdom'smaterialbasis. This is
demonstratedby Shaka's Zinabilityto use the cattle the armies seized, save by
distributingthemamonghis peopleandkillingthemto providegreatpublicfeasts"
(Gluckman1974:143). Gluckmanassertsthatthetransformations in the Zulupolitical
system were substantialbut not radical: substantialbecause of the military

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.145 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 22:47:14 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
386 ETHNOLOGY

reorganization andtheunificationof differentchiefdomsthroughaggregativewarfare;

but not radicalbecauseof the limitationsin technologyand economyprohibiting
furtherpoliticaldevelopments.He concludesthatthe formationof the ZuluKingdom
involved limited structuralchange, with radical change coming only with the
Anglo-ZuluWarandthe destructionot the state.
Gluckman'spositionclarifies how the partialapplicabilityof the theoriesof
Carneiroand Service actuallyreflects ambiguitiesand tensionswithin the Zulu
politicalstructure.Onthe one hand,theterritorialexpansionanduniElcation brought
aboutby Zulu warfareandthe installationof war heroesinto quasi-politicalofElces
conformwith Carneiro'stheory.Onthe otherhand,in line with Service'stheory,if
these positions of military-basedauthoritydo not develop into genuinepolitical
offices, a true consolidationof politicalhegemonycannotcome about. Primarily
integratedby militaryforceandreorganized alongmilitarylines, withtraditionaland
diversifyingprinciplesof politicalorganization stillpersisting,theZuluKingdomwas
essentiallya politicalformation in transition,well underwayto crystalizinginto a
fully consolidatedstate, yet still lackingthe differentiationand specializationof
complexpoliticalstateswhichwas characteristic for the Britishsettlerswho were
thereforein a positionto subsumeit undertheircontrol.The discussionon whether
the changesthataccountfor the politicalnatureof the ZuluKingdomresultedfrom
influencesfrom outsidethe bound'aries of the ZuluKingdomthereforeprovesto be
of limited relevance. Such rigid distinctionsseem to rest on the fiction that
sociopolitical developmentscan take place in a vacuum. It appearsbetter to
acknowledgethatpoliticalcommunitiesalwaysconstitute,vis-a-vistheirneighboring
regimes, relativelyautonomousentities. In the case of the Zulu Kingdom,for
instance some outsideinfluenceswere present,buttheirrole can only haveexisted
in facilitatingprocessesalreadystartedwithinthe Zuluterritory.It wasthetragicfate
of the incompletenessof this processSthe fact that tensionspersistedbetweenthe
remnantsof the traditionalchiefdomsystem and the newly formedpoliticalstate
structureS thatfacilitatedthe Europeanoverthrowof the regime.

CONCLUSION

Based on this analysis, Carneiro'stheory can adequatelyexplain the initial

creationof the Zulu kingdomover a wide, yet circumscribedterritory.The data
revealthe signiElcance of aggregativewarfarein the evolutionof the ZuluKingdom
and,thoughthereis disagreement overtheelementof populationdensity,Carneiro's
auxiliaryhypotheseson the socioecologlcalconditionsof state formationgenerally
Elndsupportin the Zulucase. Thetheoryof Service,on the otherhand,can account
for some of the furtherinternaldevelopmentsin the Zulupoliticalorder.Regardless
of Shaka'spersonalrole, a matterwhichis important onlywithregardto its political
consequences,the territorialexpansioninitiatedunderDingiswayoand intensified
withShakadid leadto politicalandeconomicreorganizations. Thesechangesdid not
develop into an bureaucratic
institutionalized system but rather representedits

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.145 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 22:47:14 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 STATEFORMATION:
THE ZULU KINGDOM,1808-1879 387

rudimentary beginnings.Moreover,the limitedrole Serviceascribesto coerciveand

repressivemechanismsof internalcontrolneglectsthe effect of terrorandviolence
in the Zulu Kingdom.The terroristicnatureof governmentcontinuedto endure
duringthe reignof MpandeandCetshwayo,whenpoliticalroleswere more,yet not
fully, diXerentiated.In Carneiro'stheory,this elementof coercioncan moreeasily
be accountedfor as the antivoluntaristic componentof state formationzturned
inward-:warfarecan be aggregativeor dispersivebut also internallyfunctionalfor
the consolidationof politicalauthority.However,boththeoreticalviewpointsseem
to neglect the ambivalentstate of Zulu politicaltransformations and their gradual
evolution into more complex formations(Lewellen 1983:1-12). In line with
Gluckman'sperspectiveof the limitedstructural changesin the case of Zulupolitical
developments I contendthat the kingdomwas transforminginto an indigenous
Africanstate,yet lackedthecomplexityandfunctionaldifferentiation thatwouldhave
been necessaryto haveopposedthe Europeanoverthrow.
Neithercoercivenor integrativeevolutionarymodels of politicaldevelopment,
tryingto capturetransformations in unilinearterms,can accountfor the ambiguous
state of political formations.Such a more dynamic and complex perspective
harmonizeswith some of the most recently advancedtheories in the political
anthropologyof state formation.Cohen (6993), for instance, has arguedfor a
ulenticularXstate theory to suggest a process of formation,transformation,and
(possible)de-formationof politicalstates.Likewise,Roscoe(1988, 1992, 1993)has
proposed a processualperspectiveof state formationthat takes into account
topographicalas well as other conditionsof militaryexpansion,suggestinghow
nonmaterial,specif1callysymbolic factors in cultural practice must also be
considered.The developmentof the Zulustatein this respectconElrms the criticisms
thathave long been raisedagainstsuchprogressivelyorientedevolutionistperspec-
tives. To accountfor the tensionsthatremainedpresentin the ZuluKingdom,even
whenit coveredanunprecedented area,a multidimensionalprocessualmodelof state
formation seems called for. Any political community,whether more or less
egalitarianor difFerentiated,
shouldat any particularpointbe describedin termsof
degree:political formationsalways entail a process of historicalchange, and, as
currenteventsin EasternEuropeunfortunately show, processsurelydoes not always
mean progress. Therefore,the Zulu case demonstratesthe need for a dynamic
perspectiveof stateformationandtransformationnot onebasedon a predetermined
evolutionistscheme,but one allowingfor influencesfromvariousforces to explain
the changing nature of political structures.The Zulu Kingdom, then, can be
characterizedas an essentially military state which was politically not fully
developed.Preciselybecauseof the ambiguitiesresultingfromconflictingprinciples
of organization,the kingdomwas vulnerableto outsideattack.Howeverparadoxical-
ly, the historyof the Zulustatethus becomesas mucha questionof its destruction
as of its formation.

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.145 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 22:47:14 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
388 ETHNOLOGY

NOTES

1. I am grateful to Paul Shankmanfor his help in the preparationof this paper. I also thank Robert
L. Carneiro, Eve Darian-Smith,Paul Roscoe, and the late ElmanR. Service for their helpful eomments
on a previous draft. An earlier version won the graduatestudentpaper competition of the Northeastern
Anthropological Association.
2. For general discussions of state formation theoriess specifically as they apply to non-Western
societies, see Cohen (1978), Haas (1982), Lewellen (1983:45-54), and Serviee (1978). The contrasts
between the theories of Carneiro and Service are addressed in Carneiro (1970:733-34, 1987:760-62,
1988), Graberand Roscoe (1988), Haas (1982:71-85, 133-36), Schacht (1988), Serviee (1975:xi-20),
and ROSCQe (1988).
3. This presentation of the evolution of the Zulu state is largely based on Walter (1969:109-243),
Gluckman(1960, 1974), Gump (1994), Ritter(1955), and Romm (1986). Additionalmaterialwas taken
from Becker (1964), Guy (1979:3-40), Laband (1992), Morris (1965), and Thompson (1969:336-64).
4. It may be not warfare as such but warfare under particularecological conditions that leads to
increasingpolitical complexity (Shankman1991; Knauft1992), and it may be thatecological constraints
become sociopolitically relevant in light of a specific culturalheritage (Peoples 1993). In the case of
the Zulu Kingdom, the element of warfare must be evaluated m terms of its organizationalstructures
and the authoritativecommand over decisions in warfare ratherthan the sheer capacity to make war
(Otterbein 1967; Peires 1981:9-10; Ferguson 1990:47-51). Similarly, the hierarchical settlement of
warfareby the establishmentof state authorityoften leads to new internalconflicts over political power
and economic resources (Chase-Dunn and Hall 1993:869-70) and pristine states were from the start
marked by further expansion drives (Algaze 1993).
5. Beyond Shaka's personality, the mfecane (the great crushing) has been a matter of contiIlued
controversy in this regard. The mfecane refers to the Zulu terror and warfare which disrupted large
parts of southern Africa during the 1820s and which may have led to the depopulationof a large area
in Southern Africa (Gump 1988:534; Wright 1991). The evidence on the violence of Zulu warfare,
however, does not permit conclusions thatgo beyond the unificationof the Zulu statet and, as Cobbing
(1988) argues, an analysis of these events in terms of black-on-black destmotion, ending with the
Europeanrestoration of peace and security, mainly serves ideological purposes. However, this is not
to deny the existence of internaldynamics in the shape of aggregative warfarewithin Zulu territory(see
Eldredge 1992; Hamilton 1992; Omer-Cooper 1993; and Peires 1993).

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Algaze, G. 1993. Expansionary Dynamics of Some Early Pristine States. American Anthropologist
95(2):304-33.
Becker, P. 1964. Rule of Fear: The LifEand Time.s of Dingane. London.
Carneiro, R. L. I970. A Theory of the Origin of the State. Science 169:733-38.
1978. Political Expansionas an Expression of the Principleof CompetitiveExelusion. Origins
of the State: The Anthropology of Political Evolution, eds. R. Cohen and E R. Service, pp.
205-23. Philadelphia.
1981. The Chiefdom: Precursor of the State. The Transitionto Statehood, eds. G. Jones and
B. Kautzspp. 834-71. New York.
1987. Cross-Currentsin the Theory of State Formation.ArnericanEthnologist 14(4):7S6-70.
1988. The CircumscriptionTheory: Challenge and Response. American BehavioralScientist
3184):497-511.
1990. Chiefdom-LevelWarfarea.sExempliEledin Fiji and the Cauca Valley. The Anthropolo-
gy of War, ed. J. Haas, pp. 190-211. Cambridge.
1992. The Role of Warfarein Political Evolution:Past Results and FutureProjections. Effects
oi War on Society, ed. G. Ausenda, pp. 87-102. San Marino.

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.145 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 22:47:14 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 STATE FORMATION:THE ZULU KINGDOM, 1808-1879 389

Chanaiwa, D. S. 1980. The Zulu Revolution: State Formationin a PastoralistSoeiety. Afriean Studies
Review 23(3):1-20.
Chase-Dunn, C., and T. D. Hall. 1993. Comparmg World-Systems: Concepts and Working
Hypotheses. Soeial Forces 71(4):851-86.
Cobbing, J. 1988. The Mfecane as Alibi: Thoughts on Dithakong and Mbolompo. Journal of African
History 29(3):487-519.
Cohen, R. 1978. Introduetion.Origins of the State: The Anthropology of Politieal Evolution, eds. R.
Cohen and E. R. Service, pp. 1-20. Philadelphia.
1984. Warfare and State Formation: Wars Make States and States Make War. Warfare,
Culture, and Environment, ed. R. B. Ferguson, pp. 329-58. New York.
1993. The State: A Lenticular Perspective. Political and Legal Anthropology Review
16(1):1-7.
Denis, C. 1989. The Genesis of American Capitalism:An Historieal Inquiryinto State Theory. Journal
of Historical Sociology 2(4):328-56.
Eldredge, E. A. 1992. Sources of Conflict in Southern Afriea, c. 1800-30: The "Mfecane"Reconsid-
ered. Journal of Afriean History 33(1):1-35.
Ferguson, R. B. 1990. ExplainingWar. The Anthropologyof War, ed. J. Haas, pp. 26-55. Cambridge.
Flannery, K. 1972. The CulturalEvolution of Civilization. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics
3:399-426.
Fortes, M., and E. E. Evans-Pritchard.1940. Introduction.African Political Systems, eds. M. Fortes
and E. E. Evans-Pritchard,pp. 1-23. London.
Pried, M. H. 1978. The State, the Chieken, and the Egg; or What Came First? Origins of the State:
The Anthropology of Political Evolution, eds. R. Cohen and E. R. Service, pp. 35-47.
Philadelphia.
Gluckman, M. 1940. The Kingdom of the Zulu of South Afriea. Afriean Politieal Systems, eds. M.
Fortes and E. E. Evans-Pritehard,pp. 25-55. London.
1958. Analysis of a Social Situationin Modern Zululand. Rhodes-LivmgstonePaper Nv. 28.
Manehester.
1960. The Rise of a Zulu Empire. ScientiElcAmerican 202(4):157-68.
1974. The Individual in a Social Framework:The Rise of King Shaka of Zululand. Journal
of African Studies 1(2):113-44.
Golan, D. 1994. Inventing Shaka: Using History in the Constructionof Zulu Nationalism. Boulder.
Graber, R. B., and P. B. Roscoe. 1988. Introduction:Circumscriptionand the Evolution of Society.
Ameriean Behavioral Scientist 31(4):405- 15.
Gump, J. 1988. Origins of the Zulu Kingdom. The Historian 50(4):521-34.
1989. Ecological Change and Pre-Shakan State Formation. African Economic History
18:57-71.
1994. The Dust Rose Like Smoke: The Subjugationof the Zulu and the Sioux. Lincoln NE.
Guy, J. J. 1971. Review of Terror and Resistance by E. V. Walter. African Affairs 70(281):414-15.
1979. The Destruction of the Zulu Kingdom:The Civil War in Zululand, 1879-1884. London.
1980. Ecological Factors in the Rise of Shaka and the Zulu Kingdom. Economy and Society
in Pre-lndustrialSouth Africa, eds. S. Marks and A. Atmore, pp. 102-19. London.
Haas, J. 1982. The Evolution of the Prehistoric State. New York.
Hamilton, C. A. 1992. "The Characterand Objects of Chaka": A Reconsideration of the Making of
Shaka as "Mfecane"Motor. Journal of African History 33(1):37-63.
1998. Terrific Majesty: The Powers of Shaka Zulu and the Limits of Historical Invention.
Cambridge MA.
Harner, M. J. 1970. Population Pressure and the Social Evolution of Agriculturalists. Southwestern
Journal of Anthropology 26(1):67-86.
Keeley, L. H. 1988. Hunter-GathererEconomic Complexityand "PopulationPressure":A Cross-Cultu-
ral Analysis. Journal of AnthropologicalArcheology 7:373-411.

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.145 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 22:47:14 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
390 ETHNOLOGY

Kipp, R. S., and E. M. Schortman. 1989. The Political Impact of Trade in Chiefdoms. American
Anthropologist 91(2):370-85.
KnaufttB. 1992. Warfare, Western Intrusionand Ecology in Melanesia (Comment). Man 27(2):399-
401.
Kunene, M. 1987. Shaka the Great:Warrior-Kingand Pounder of the Zulu Nation. Journal of African
Civilizations 9:251-81 .
LabandsJ. 1992. Kingdom in Crisis: The Zulu Response to the British Invasion of 1879. Manchester.
Lewellen, T. C. 1983. Political Anthropology An Introduction.South Hadley MA.
Lewy, E. 1979. Historical Charismatic Leaders and Mythical Heroes. Journal of Psychohistory
6(3):377-92.
MacMillan, H. 1995. Return to the Malungwana Drift: Max Gluckman, the Zulu Nation and the
Common Society. African Affairs 94:39-65.
Morris, D. R. 1965. The Washing of the Spears: A History of the Rise of the Zulu Nation under Shaka
and Its Fall in the Zulu War of 1879. New York.
Omer-Cooper, J. D. 1993. Has the Mfecane a Future?A Response to the Cobbing Critique. Journalof
Southern African Studies 19(2):273-94.
Otterbein,K. F. 1967. The Evolution of Zulll Warfare. Law and Warfare:Studies in the Anthropology
of Conflict, ed. P. Bohannan, pp. 351-57. Garden City NY.
PastoresM. 1997. Taxation, Coercion, Trade and Development in a FrontierEconomy: Early and Mid
Colonial Paraguay. Journal of Latin American Studies 29:329-54.
Peires, J. B. 1981. Introduction.Before and After Shaka: Papers in Nguni Histery, ed. J. B. Peiress
pp. 1-9. Grahamstown.
1993* Paradigm Deleted: The MaterialistInterpretationof the M%ecane.Journalof Southern
African Studies 19(2):295-313.
Peoples, J. G. 1993. Political Evolution in Micronesia. Ethnology 32(1):1-17.
Ritter, E. A. 195S. Shaka Zulu: The Rise of the Zulu Empire. London.
Romm, S. 1986. Political Conflict, Role Differentiationand State Formation: A Case Study of the
Zulus. Social Science Information25(3):607-45.
Roscoe, P. 1988. From Big-Men to the State: A ProcesXsual Approach to CircumscriptionTheory.
American Behavioral Scientist 31(4):472-83.
1992. Warfare, Terrain, and Political Expansion. Human Ecology 20(1):1-20.
1993. Practice and Political Centralisation:A New Apprvachto Political Evolution. Cllrrent
Anthropology 34(2):111-40.
Sahlins, M. 1983* Other Times, Other Customs: The Anthropologyof History. American Anthropolo-
gist 85(3):517-44*
Schacht, R. M. 1988. Circumscript}onTheory: A Critical Review. American Behavioral Scientist
31(4):438-48.
Service, E. R. 1975. Origins of the State and Civilization: The Process of Cultural Evolution. New
York.
1978. Classical and ModernTheories of the Origins of Gvvernment.Origins of the State: The
Anthropology of Political Evolution, eds. R. Cohen and E. R. Service, pp. 21-34.
J z1ac e P lla.
. .

Shankman, P. 1991. Culture Contact, CulturalEcology, and Dani Warfare. Man 26(2):299-321.
Southall, A. 1974. State Formation in Africa. ArmualReview of Anthropology 3:153-65.
Spencer, H. 1896. The Principles of Sociology, Volume II-I. New York.
Stark, F. M 1986. Theories of ContemporaryState Forlnationin Africa: A Reassessment. Journalof
Modern AfricarlStudies 14(2):335-47.
Stevenson, R. F. 1968. Populationand Political System.sin Tropical Africa. New York.
Thompson L. 1969. Co-operationand Conflict: The Zulu Kingdomand Natal. The Oxford History of
South Africa, eds. M. Wilson arld L. Thompsonspp. 334-90. New York.

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.145 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 22:47:14 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 STATEFORMATION:
THE ZULU KINGDOM,1808-1879 391

Uzoigwe, G. N. 1977. The Warrior and the State in Precolonial Africa. Journal of Asian and African
Studies 12:20-47.
Vengroff, R. 1976. Population Density and State Formation in Africa. African Studies Review
19(1):67-74.
Walter, E. V. 1969. Terror and Resistance: A Study of Political Violence. New York.
Weber, M. 1954 (1922). Political Communities. Max Weber on Law in Economy and Society, ed. M.
Rheinstein, pp. 338-48. New York.
1958 (1919). Politics as a Vocation. From Max Weber: Essays m Sociology, eds. H. Gerth
and C. W. Mills, pp. 77-128. New York.
Wright, H. T. 1977. Recent Research on the Origin of the State. Annual Review of Anthropology
6:379-97.
Wright, J. 1991. A. T. Bryant and "the Wars of Shaka." History in Africa 18:409-25.

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.145 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 22:47:14 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions