Last updated 10th July 2024: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 22 January 2009
The writing of South African history has yet to catch up with many of the historiographical advances made north of the Limpopo. This is especially obvious in the tendency to view white and black states confronting one another in the pre-conquest era as irreconcilably hostile monolithic blocks. This essay attempts to examine the reality of that interaction by focusing on the eastern Transvaal republics and the Swazi in the mid-nineteenth century. The Swazi, it suggests, were not the integrated society that is often assumed, and were forced to enlist the support of Boer factions in the eastern Transvaal to survive internal dissensions and Zulu attack. The Transvaal republics themselves were similarly divided along constitutional, political and economic lines, with access to African resources, whether for labour, for hunting, or for military assistance, constituting a crucial determinant of political power. As a result a shifting kaleidoscope of factional relationships grew up, characterized by changing political alliances and by fissions from both parties concerned. Only once they were freed from the fear of Zulu invasion after 1852 were the Swazi able to proceed undisturbed with the process of internal consolidation, and to present a more unified front to their neighbours. For the Transvaal (by then the South African Republic) that process was postponed even longer, until after the civil wars of the early 1860s, and the discovery of gold a decade after that. Only then can one talk of the South African Republic or the Swazi as being states in any meaningful way.
1 For some of the most important examples see, Agar-Hamilton, J. A. I., The Native Policy of the Voortrekkers 1836–1858 (Cape Town, 1928)Google Scholar; Wichmann, F. A. F., ‘Die Wordingsgeskiedenis van die Zuid-Afrikaansche Republiek, 1838–1860’, Archives Yearbook for South Africa (hereafter A. Y.B.), 1941, 11 (Cape Town, 1941)Google Scholar; van Jaarsveld, F. A., Die Eenheidstrewe van die Republikeinse Afrikaners, Deel I (Johannesburg, 1951), esp. 29–34Google Scholar; van Rooyen, T. S., ‘Die Verhouding tussen die Boere, Engelse en Naturelle in Die Geskiedenis van die Oos Transvaal tot 1882’, A.Y.B. 1951, i (Cape Town, 1951), esp. 188 ff.Google Scholar; Potgieter, F. J., ‘Die Vestiging van die blanke in Transvaal (1837–1886)’, A.Y.B. 1958, ii (Cape Town, 1959), esp. ch. II and IVGoogle Scholar; Duvenage, G. D. J., ‘Willem Hendrik Jacobz se Rol in die Onafhanklikheid en Eenheid strewe van die Voortrekkers op die Hoeveld (1847–1852)’, A.Y.B. 1956, i (Parow, 1956), esp. ch. III, IV and VGoogle Scholar; van der Merwe, A. P., ‘Die Voorgeskiedenis van die Republiek Lydenburg’, (M.A. Thesis, University of Pretoria, 1941)Google Scholar; van Heerden, J. J., ‘Die Kommandant-Generaal in die Geskiedenis van die Suid-Afrikaanse Republiek’, A.Y.B. 1964, ii (Cape Town, 1964)Google Scholar. There is some attempt to go beyond a simplistic picture of black-white opposition in de Vaal, J. D., ‘Die Rol van Joao Albasini in die Geskiedenis van die Transvaal’, A.Y.B. 1953, i (Elsies River, 1953)Google Scholar, but even here a number of important aspects of the problem are glossed over.
2 Two recent exceptions which became available to me after this essay was written are Cobbing, J., ‘The Ndebele under the Khumalos, 1820–1896’ (Ph.D. University of Lancaster, 1976)Google Scholar, and Guy, J. J., ‘The destruction of the Zulu Kingdom: The Civil Wars in Zululand, 1879–1884’ (Ph.D., London, 1975).Google Scholar
3 Beemer, H., ‘Military Organization in Swaziland’, Africa, i (1937)Google Scholar; Kuper, H. (née Beemer), ‘The Development of a Primitive Nation’, African Studies, xv (1041)Google Scholar; Kuper, H., An African Aristocracy (London, 1947)Google Scholar; Marwick, B. A., The Swazi (Cambridge, 1940)Google Scholar; Hughes, A. J. B., Swazi Land Tenure (Durban, 1964)Google Scholar. The only significant pieces of purely historical writing on early Swaziland are Matsebula, J. S. M., Izakhiwo Zama-Swazi (Johannesburg, 1953)Google Scholar; Matsebula, J. S. M., A History of Swaziland (Johannesburg, 1972)Google Scholar; Symington, F. C., ‘Swaziland tot 1890’ (M.A. thesis, University of Pretoria, 1941)Google Scholar. Each of these latter studies has its limitations. Matsebula (though incorporating extremely valuable oral data) relies heavily otherwise on published material, and is not exhaustive of archival sources. Symington focuses primarily on external relations and looks at these mainly from a white standpoint, besides drawing for the most part on Transvaal archival resources. Two other studies which also have similar deficiencies deserve mention here, although they fall more within the ambit of primary documentation. These are Honey, de S. G. M., MSS., ‘History of Swaziland’Google Scholar (Swaziland Archives—hereafter Sw.A.), and Miller, A. M., ‘A Short History of Swazieland’, from The Times of SwazielandGoogle Scholar (Killie Campbell Africana Library—hereafter K.C.L.).
4 See for instance Kuper, H., The Stvazi. A South African Kingdom (U.S.A., 1963), 7Google Scholar, ‘Anthropologists are concerned less with the accuracy of remembered details of speculative reconstructions than with the way the past is perpetuated and sanctions existing institutions’.
5 Beemer, H. ‘Military Organization in Swaziland’, Africa, i (1937), 55CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Matsebula, J. S. M., A History of Swaziland, 22.Google Scholar
6 Natal Archives (hereafter N.A.), Garden Papers, File IVB (Swazis), 1167; Sw.A., R.C.S. 454/40, Encl. Seme, P., ‘Petition of the Swazi tribes of the Eastern Transvaal to the Union Parliament’, 25 Mar. 1932Google Scholar; Matsebula, , History, 13Google Scholar; Bryant, A. T., Olden Times in Zululand and Natal (London, 1929), 322.Google Scholar
7 I have used the term Swazi both for the sake of convenience and because it seems likely to me that it was in use before the reign of Mswati II. It is employed here to describe all those owing allegiance to Sobhuza and Mswati. For the purpose of this article I have also used the term Ngwane to designate the ‘true Swazi’ or Bemdzabuko— i.e. those who had already been incorporated in the Swazi state at Shiselweni. Implicit in this definition is what I have tried to make explicit in the text—namely that the Emakhandzambile did not become properly part of the Ngwane until well into Mswati's reign. The term Emakhandzambile, meaning ‘those found ahead’, denotes those chiefdoms in central and northern Swaziland whom Sobhuza incorporated after his flight from Shiselweni in the south.
8 See for example the chiefdom of the Magagula of Dvokolwako. Their first chief who spoke Siswati was Malambulela, who reigned in the latter part of Mswati's reign. Interview with Mbhuduya, Ganda, Sigunga Magagula and Mavelebaleni Ginindza, Dvokolwako, 20 Dec. 1971. For further illustration of this point see my ‘The rise, consolidation and disintegration of Dlamini power in Swaziland between 1820 and 1889: a study in the relationship of foreign affairs to internal political development’ (Ph.D. University of London, 1977) ch. I.Google Scholar
9 Mswati was 16 at most at his accession—see for example Honey, Sw.A., ‘History’, 25Google Scholar. For the eligibility of various other of Mswati's brothers see N.A., Garden Papers, File IVB (Swazis), 1158; interview with Makathi Mkhatshwa, Mnkonkolote Mkhatshwa and three others, Elwandle, 12 Apr. 1970.
10 N.A., Garden Papers, File IVB (Swazis), 1167. A number of the subordinate chiefdoms that supported Fokoti can still be identified, for example, the Ndlela Nkosi chief-dom (Sw.A., R.C.S. 454/40, Seme, P., ‘Petition…’, 5)Google Scholar; the adherents of Mfipha and Ndlapu Dlamini, both sons of Sobhuza (Honey, Sw.A., ‘History’, 25Google Scholar, and interview with Prince Makhosini Dlamini, Mbabane, 12 Aug. 1970); the adherents of Salahala Nxumalo (interview with Nxumalo, Mandlenkosi, 23 Apr. 1970, Dhume, Swaziland).Google Scholar
11 N.A., Garden Papers, File IVB (Swazis), 1167; Honey, Sw.A, ‘History’, 25Google Scholar; Kuper, H., ‘The Development of a Primitive Nation’, African Studies, xv (1941), 344Google Scholar. Their use of the term ‘herd-boy king’ to describe Mswati comes from Sw.A., R.C.S. 454/40, Seme, P., ‘Petition…’, 5.Google Scholar
12 Honey, Sw.A., ‘History’, 29Google Scholar; Kuper, , ‘Primitive Nation’, 344.Google Scholar
13 Interview with Mkhatshwa, Makathi, Mnkonkolote Mkhatshwa and three others, Elwandle, 12 Apr. 1970Google Scholar; Hughes, A. J. B., Sivazi Land Tenure, 43.Google Scholar
14 Honey, Sw.A., ‘History’, 29Google Scholar; Kuper, ‘Primitive Nation’, 344Google Scholar; for further details see also my Ph.D. thesis, ch. III.
15 For Emakhandzambile see note 7.
16 Garden Papers, File IVB (Swazis), 58–60, 1158; Cory Library (hereafter C.L.), Methodist Archives, Minute Book of the Bechuana Methodist Meeting. Report of the Baraputse Mission, 1845. Allison it should be noted was only dimly aware of the wider ramifications of the dispute. He placed the blame for the rupture squarely on the last attack made by the royal party on a regional chiefdom. Yet there was clearly more to the dispute than this. On Allison's own admission, there was evidence of a growing estrangement between the two parties even before the circumcision ceremonies. Allison put this down to the simple capriciousness of the royal clique, but it seems certain that what he thought of as caprice was in fact the outward sign of a much deeper conflict of interest. The scale of the violence, and the bitterness it provoked seem both to confirm this view. In the absence of more explicit documentation one cannot say for certain what this conflict of interest was, but the general background of events just outlined, and the odium attaching to the royal clique suggest that it was the reforms initiated by them that were to blame.
17 Kuper, , Aristocracy, 15.Google Scholar
18 W.M.M.S., South Africa, XII Bechuanaland 1838–57, Allison, J., 15 Aug. 1844, 10.Google Scholar
19 Pretorius, H. S. and Kruger, D. W. (eds.), Voortrekker-Argiefstukke 1829–1849, (Pretoria, 1937), 233–4Google Scholar. Attention should however be drawn to an element of confusion in the treaty. This arises out of the conflicting designation of Mswati, who appears as ‘King’ in the text but as ‘Captain’ in the signatures appended to the text. The description of Somcuba as ‘ruling in place of the king’ also occurs in the signatures.
20 Garden Papers, File IVB (Swazis), 1158.
21 Honey, Sw.A., ‘History’, 32.Google Scholar
22 Garden Papers, File IVB (Swazis), 1167; Natal Witness, 24 May 1850Google Scholar, Letter from Allison, to Editor, 21 May 1850Google Scholar; Bryant, , Olden Times, 326Google Scholar. Matsebula, , History, 16.Google Scholar
23 Garden Papers, File IVB (Swazis), 1164; for a fuller account see Perkins, F. J. ‘A History of Christian Missions in Swaziland to 1910’ (Ph.D. Thesis, University of Witwatersrand, 1974), 95–104.Google Scholar
24 Pretorius, and Kruger, , Argiefstukke, 227, Memorie aan Volksraad, 8 June 1846Google Scholar; N.A. Executive Council Archives (henceforth E.C.A.), 9, Annexure I of meeting 2, statement by Mpande's messengers, 11 Feb. 1846.
25 Preller, G. S., Voortrekkermense (6 vols. Cape Town, 1918–38), iv, 9Google Scholar, S.W. Burger Sr. The pressure that Sekwati had been under from Sobhuza is corroborated by Trichardt, Louis, Preller, G. S., Dagboek van Louis Trigardt (1836–1838) (Bloemfontein, 1917) 121.Google Scholar
26 See for instance Kruger, D. W., ‘Die Weg na die See’, A.Y.B., 1938, 1 (Cape Town, 1938), 96–7.Google Scholar
27 See Agar-Hamilton, , Native Policy, 57–60Google Scholar; Wichmann, , ‘Wordingsgeskiedenis’, 50–51Google Scholar; Rooyen, van, ‘Verhouding’, 4–5.Google Scholar
28 Potgieter for instance had to apply for a farm in Ohrigstad in the same way as anyone else, S.A.A.R. Transvaal I (Cape Town, 1949), 15Google Scholar, Art. 5, 2 Aug. 1845.
29 One complaint against Potgieter was that he was able to derive personal economic advantage from his position by appropriating the ivory sent in as tribute from neighbouring chiefs. Another was that he gave freedom of access to the English trader Hartley. The two are not generally related, but a connection can be made. The Volksraad party objected to Hartley not so much because he was an Englishman (as is usually suggested) but because he was a trader who could market Potgieter's ivory and help consolidate his economic power. Pretorius, and Kruger, , Argiefstukke, 227Google Scholar, Memorie aan Volksraad, 8 June 1846; 230, Bekendmaking, 19 Jan. 1846. For the importance of hunting and trading to the Ohrigstad settlement see Potgieter, F. J., ‘Die Vestiging van die Blanke in Transvaal’ (1837–86)’, A.Y.B., 1958, 11 (Cape Town, 1959), 39Google Scholar. 44. 48, 60, 84–7, 95, 145, 148. Stuart, J., De Hollandsche Afrikanen en hunne Republiek in Zuid-Afrika (Amsterdam, 1854), 210, 219, 225Google Scholar. Boer dependence on black auxiliaries in their tussles with other African groups is a constantly recurring theme in the history of the Transvaal. It would require a separate paper to document this properly, but for one example see below note 81.
30 Pretorius, and Kruger, , Argiefstukke, 227Google Scholar, Memorie aan Volksraad, , 8 June 1846.Google Scholar
31 E.C.A., 9, Annexure 1 of meeting 2, statement by Mpande's messengers, 11 Feb. 1846.
32 Ibid.
33 S.A.A.R. Transvaal I, 27Google Scholar, Notules, Volksraad, 20 Jan. 1846. 1st Resolution.Google Scholar
34 Ibid.; Pretorius, and Kruger, , Argiefstukke, 227Google Scholar, Memorie aan Volksraad, , 8 June 1846.Google Scholar
35 Wichmann, , ‘Wordingsgeskiedenis’, 53Google Scholar; Kruger, , ‘Weg’, 98–9.Google Scholar
36 Pretorius, and Kruger, , Argiefstukke, 227Google Scholar, Memorie aan Volksraad, , 8 June, 1846Google Scholar; 230, Bekendmaking, 19 June 1846.
37 Ibid.
38 S.A.A.R. Transvaal I, 50, Eerste Volksraad Notules (hereafter E.V.R.), 15 May 1846, Art. IGoogle Scholar. It is possible that Potgieter tried to accommodate some of the Volksraad's demands before this. In the middle of March he agreed to summon Sekwati to Ohrigstad, but this could equally well have been for some other reason—ibid. 41, 18 Mar. 1846, Art. 8.
39 Above, note 38.
40 Pretorius, and Kruger, , Argiefstukke, 252Google Scholar, van, Verklaring (?), Maraba, 23 Jan. 1847Google Scholar; 253, van Mapela, Verklaring, 26 Jan. 1847Google Scholar; 273, Potgieter, A. H. to Klopper, J. C. and Schutte, J. F., 5 June 1847Google Scholar; 295, Clerq, Verklaring van J. de, 18 Jan. 1848Google Scholar; 308–9, van Doris Buis, Verklaring (Buys), 4 Feb. 1848.Google Scholar
41 S.A.A.R. Transvaal I, 50, E.V.R., 15 May 1846, Art. I.Google Scholar
42 For example Wichmann, , ‘Wordingsgeskiedenis’, 51Google Scholar; Kruger, D. W., ‘Die Weg na die See’, A.Y.B. 1938, 1, 100Google Scholar. For the text of the treaty see Pretorius, and Kruger, , Argiefstukke, 233–4.Google Scholar
43 For example see Hamilton, Agar, Native Policy, 61.Google Scholar
44 Pretorius, and Kruger, , Argiefstukke, 227Google Scholar, Memorie aan Volksraad, , 8 June 1846.Google Scholar
45 One source of intelligence for the Swazi and Volksraad party alike would probably have been the four Boer free-booters who joined Mswati early in 1846. There was little love lost between them and Potgieter, as can be seen from Potgieter's denunciations of their activities early in 1847, CO. 179/3, end. in encl. no. 87, Cutting, from The Patriot, 23 Apr. 1847.Google Scholar
46 E.C.A., vol. i, 62, Annexure 2 of meeting 6, Moodie to Secretary to the Government, 20 July 1846.
47 Garden Papers, File IVB (Swazis), 1164.
48 Ibid.; 1166–8.
49 Ibid.
50 Cf. below.
51 CO. 179/1, encl. I in encl. in no. no, Report of Armstrong, N. C. and Cowie, , 30 Mar. 1846Google Scholar; ibid, encl. 2 in no. 110, message from Panda, , 6 Apr. 1846.Google Scholar
52 E.C.A., vol. 1, 75, 78, 82–3, Annexure I to Meeting 7, message of Panda to Lieutenant-Governor, 6 Aug. 1846 and the latter's reply of the same date.
53 Natal Witness, 9 Oct. 1846Google Scholar, message from Mpande to the Lieutenant-Governor and the Lieutenant-Governor's reply.
54 British Parliamentary Papers, 1847–8, Correspondence, 87–8, encl. 5 in encl. in no. 38Google Scholar, Grant, A. to Secretary for Government, 6 May 1846.Google Scholar
55 Natal Witness, 2 Oct. 1847.Google Scholar
56 N.A., S.N.A., vol. 1/6/1, no. 17, Statement of Swazi messengers Bulane, and Kwahla, , 27 Jan. 1847.Google Scholar
57 CO., 179/3, encl. in encl. in no. 87, Cutting, from The Patriot, 23 Apr. 1847.Google Scholar
58 S.N.A. vol. 1/6/1, no. 12, Message of Panda, to Lieutenant-Governor, 13 Aug. 1847Google Scholar; P.P. 1847–8 ‘Correspondence relative to the settlement of Natal’, encl. in no. 75. Statement of Zulu messengers, 8 June 1847.
59 Kruger, ‘Weg’, 100Google Scholar. Evidence of the Volksraad party finally compelling Mpande's forces to leave Swaziland is in S.N.A., vol. 1/6/1, ‘Statements’, no. 12, Message of Panda, to Lieutenant-Governor, , 13 Aug. 1847.Google Scholar
60 See for example Kruger, , ‘Weg’, 99–113Google Scholar; Wichman, , ‘Wordingsgeskiedenis’, 48–64Google Scholar, Jaarsveld, Van, Eenheidstrewe, 78, 81–3, 92–5.Google Scholar
61 Pretorius, and Kruger, , Argiefstukke, 295–6Google Scholar, Memo of interview by de Clerq, J., 18 Jan. 1846; 308–9Google Scholar, Declaration by Buys, Doris, 4 Feb. 1848Google Scholar. Sekwati and Zebedela are amongst the chiefs named in these reports.
62 Ibid., 320–321. Statement of six men of ‘Saptobas’ (i.e. Somcuba), (probably) early June 1848.
63 Above, note 19.
64 There is no suggestion of this from any Swazi source old or new, and it would have been highly irregular.
65 Thus he led the Swazi armies against Malambule, Garden Papers, File IVB (Swazis), 1167–8, C.L., Methodist Archives, M.S. 15, 3, extract of a letter from Allison dated 6 Oct. 1846; Honey, Sw.A., ‘History’, 35Google Scholar, and was in charge of all negotiations with the Boers during and after the hostilities. Pretorius, and Kruger, , Argiefstukke, 233–4, 273Google Scholar, Potgieter, A. H. to Klopper, J. C. and Schutte, J. F., 5 June 1847; 320–1Google Scholar, Statement of six men of ‘Saptobas’ (probably) early June 1847; S.A.A.R. Transvaal I, 70, E.V.R., 22 June 1847, Art. 4.Google Scholar
66 See for instance Matsebula, J. S. M., Izakhiwo ZamaSwazi (Johannesburg, 1953). 9–11, 15Google Scholar, which also pictures Mswati's chief personal attendant and confidant, Khambi Sikondze as playing on these fears; cf. below.
67 Rooyen, Van, ‘Verhouding’, 6–7Google Scholar. It was this which led to the move to Lydenburg a couple of years later.
68 One problem in connection with the departure of Potgieter and his followers from Ohrigstad is to decide when its finality became apparent to Mswati and Somcuba. Potgieter had made expeditions to the north before this, and the exodus of his followers on this occasion took some time before it was complete. It does however seem safe to assume that by the middle of 1849, when the first signs of discord between Somcuba and Mswati appear in Ohrigstad records, the full implications of Potgieter's move were grasped by both sides.
69 Myburgh, A. C., Die Stamme van die Distrik Carolina (Pretoria 1956), 86.Google Scholar
70 Kuper, , ‘Ritual’, 230 note 2Google Scholar; Kuper, , Aristocracy, 203–4, 214, 220–1, 222Google Scholar; Myburgh, , Carolina, 88Google Scholar; Papers, Garden, File IVB (Swazis), 1176, Statement by Kwalakwlahla and two others to the Lieutenant-Governor, 7 Aug. 1851Google Scholar; British Parliamentary Papers, 1880, C. 2695, 23, encl. 7 in no. 17, Report of the Swazi Transvaal Boundary Commission.
71 S.A.A.R. Transvaal I, 285Google Scholar, Versveld, W. F. to Volksraad, , 17 Sept. 1849.Google Scholar
72 Ibid. 103, Meeting of 19 Sept. 1845, Art. 18.
73 Ibid. 289, Versveld, W. F. to Volksraad, , 27 Dec. 1849.Google Scholar
74 This happened probably towards the end of 1850. This is deducible from a message sent by Mswati to the L.G. of Natal, 11 Sept. 1852, N.A., Sir T. Shepstone Collection, Case 22 (Swazi Documents bound together).
75 Myburgh, , Carolina, 88–9Google Scholar: Transvaal Archives, Pretoria (hereafter P.A.), Soutter Collection, Packet 6, no. 2, 285, Resolution of Krygsraad, , 5 Nov. 1853.Google Scholar
76 N.A., S.N. iA no. N 105/79, Report by G. Roth.
77 S.A.A.R. Transvaal I, 103, Meeting of 19 Sept. 1849, Art. 18.Google Scholar
78 These two brothers were Mgidla (interview Hlophe, Tigodvo and others, 1 Apr. 1970Google Scholar, Godlawko, Swaziland; interview Nkambule, , 24 Apr. 1970Google Scholar, Buseleni, Swaziland; interview Manana, Maphoyisa, 24 Apr. 1970Google Scholar, Ka-Manana, Swaziland) and Hhobohhobo (interview with various Dlamini informants, June 1970, Kuhlamukeni, Swaziland); Sw.A., 48/07/220 J, reply to Resident Commissioner's circular, no. 9/1907, Hlathikhulu District.
79 See my Ph.D. thesis, ch. V.
80 Thus as late as Aug. 1850 Mswati still sent a child as a gift to de Clerq, J. B., the Landdrost at Lydenburg—S.A.A.R. Transvaal I, 143, Meeting 24 May 1850, Art. IIGoogle Scholar. Even after the final breakdown of relations with Lydenburg, Mswati still seems to have maintained connexions with individuals inside Lydenburg, presumably with an eye to exploiting continuing divisions within the community—see, P.A., L.L. vol. 172, 10, no. 6, entry for 29 Nov. 1851; P.A., Versameling, H. T. Buhrmann, vol. 7. Buhrmann to wife, 25 May 1851.Google Scholar
81 N.A., S.N.A., vol. 1/1/2, no. 107, Cowie, W. to S.N.A., 24 Sept. 1849Google Scholar; T.S.C., Case 22 (Swazi documents bound together), Statement by Mapitshan, and others, 11 Sept. 1852Google Scholar. It seems likely that it is also this same event that is referred to in S.A.A.R. Transvaal I, 289Google Scholar, Versveld, W. F. to Volksraad, 27 Dec. 1849.Google Scholar
82 Ziervogel, D., The Eastern Sotho (Pretoria, 1954), 11Google Scholar; interview Dlamini, Majahane, 5 June 1970, Ludlawini, Swaziland.Google Scholar
83 Somcuba for example was now used to supply both intelligence and military assistance to the Lydenburg Boers, see S.A.A.R. Transvaal 3, 87Google Scholar, E.V.R., 4.7.1855, Art. 12, Fourie, H. C. M., Amandabele van Fene Mahlangu en hurt religieus-sociaal leven (Zwolle, 1921), 34Google Scholar; S.S. 487, R 4978, end. R 4809, Roth, G. to Col. Secretary, 5 Nov. 1880.Google Scholar
84 Theophilus Shepstone Collection, Case 22 (Swazi documents…), Statement by Mapitshan, and others, 28 Sept. 1852.Google Scholar
85 This had been a prospect which had haunted the Boers in the earliest days of the Ohrigstad settlement (see S.A.A.R. Transvaal I, 33, E.V.R., I, Sitting of Commissie Raad 27 Jan. 1846, Art. 2Google Scholar). Slowly however these fears had evaporated as they came to comprehend the deep-seated antagonisms that existed between the two groups.
86 S.A.A.R. Transvaal 2, 224–5Google Scholar, Minaar, P. C. and 22 others to Volksraad, , 18 Aug. 1851.Google Scholar
87 N.A., S.N.A., vol. 1/7/1, 65, Statement by Gebula, and Gambushe, , messengers from Mpande, 14 Oct. 1851.Google Scholar
88 For the treaty between Somcuba and Lydenburg see P.A., Soutter Collection, Packet 6, no. 2, 205–6, Treaty between Krygsraad, and Sincoeba, , 6 Nov. 1853.Google Scholar
89 For details of this see my Ph.D. Thesis, chs. III and IV.
