THE YAO MIGRATION

THE YAO MIGRATION FROM YAOLAND IN THE NINETEENTH CENTURY. CAN IT BE ADEQUATELY EXPLAINED SOLELY BY INTERNAL CONFLICTS FOR POLITICAL HEGEMONY?

BY

Marisen MWALE [M Ed, B Ed]

LECTURE

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND TEACHING STUDIES

[African History]

E-mail: mwalemarisen@yahoo.co.uk

Mailing address: Mzuzu University

                              Private Bag 201

                              Luwinga

                              Mzuzu 2

                              Malawi

ABSTRACT

The Yao are an ethnic grouping who are mostly concentrated in Southern Malawi. Originally from Yaoland in Northern Mozambique, they found themselves migrating from their initial cradle land in the latter half of the nineteenth century. Several factors have been postulated as having fostered this migratory afflatus among which are internal and external pressures as well as natural disasters. It is however a controversy among historians as to which factor or multiple of factors were responsible. The research paper aims at isolating the major causal factor of this diaspora with its major emphasis being to propagate whether internal conflicts for political hegemony were outstanding among the factors.

Key words:  Yao, migration, political hegemony, internal/external conflicts.

The author is a Lecturer at Mzuzu University in Malawi and has a diverse research focus which encompasses International Relations, Development History, African political History and Psychology. He is a holder of a Masters degree in Education from the University of Malawi.

THE YAO MIGRATION FROM YAOLAND IN THE NINETEENTH CENTURY. CAN IT BE ADEQUATELY EXPLAINED SOLELY BY INTERNAL CONFLICTS FOR POLITICAL HEGEMONY?

Bounded to the north by the Rovuma river, to the south by the Luambala river,  to the east by the Lujenda river and to the west by the Luchilingo river is a hill named Yao; ‘Treeless, grass grown and conspicuous’ (Abdallar, 1919). From the area surrounding this hill, in what is now northern Mozambique, a tribe bearing the same name originated. Thence at the eve of the mid-nineteenth century it dispersed to the east, west, north and south. The question that Historians often ask is as to the causes of this diaspora. Was it a result of internal rivalry, external pressures, natural disaster or just trade proclivities or an aggregate of some or all of these factors?

While not attempting to be a history of the whole migratory afflatus, the objective of this paper is to determine whether the exodus of the Yao from Yaoland can be adequately explained solely by internal conflicts for political hegemony. The first section of the paper will analyze the trade factor in conjunction with the emergence of political hegemony and then dissension.

In the second section, the writer will endeavor to highlight on other factors deemed responsible for instigating the dispersion, with the last section  briefly scrutinizing the aftermath of the migration.

Geographically localized in an area straddling the lake on one side and the ocean on the other, it is not surprising that the tradition of the Yao is that of traders (Pachai, 1951). This factor singled them out and set them apart from their Makua, Lomwe and Lolo neighbors. Initially agriculturalists, fishermen and hunters like all the other Bantu, it is not historically clear as to the date when the Yao begun to engage in long-distance trade. However it is known that the Achisi Yao, a unique section of talented blacksmith must have been the pioneers of the remarkable commercial enterprise (Alpers, 1969).

The Achisi made hoes, adzes, knives, razors and other iron goods that they bartered with neighboring people as well as the coast. In exchange for these trade goods which also included animal skins and tobacco in the early days, but later ivory and a negligible number of slaves; the Yao brought back, calico, salt, beads, guns, brassware, earthenware and a lot of other luxury goods (Rangeley, 1964). Thus as early as 1768, they were trading with Kilwa.

To have reached not only Kilwa but also the Congo basin as well as the domain of the prolific Mwata Kazembe and his Bisa subjects at such an early date shows that the Yao had been accustomed to trade for at least several generations . However good trade was, it did increase as Juwayeyi (1972) advocates, ‘the scope and opportunity for ambitious individuals in the Yao society’. One can then be tempted to inquire as to the impact of the trade factor on the early History of the Yao society. But to fully comprehend how the economic revolution affected Yao social as well as political well being, the writer finds it worthwhile at this juncture to briefly analyze the socio-political structure of the Yao prior to their trading proclivities and eventual diaspora.

A segmentary and stateless people; initially the Yao had no centralized political organization. They lived in small clans made up of the same lineage, each under the suzerain of a local headman responsible for judiciary and other rudimentary village affairs (Mitchell, 1971). Then, the clan leader was no different from the other commoners in his economic well being and he did not possess authority outside his narrow bounds. However as trade was introduced and became well established and embedded in Yao society, some clan headmen as well as ambitious members amassed wealth and thus gained more prestige and power not only within their clan domains but in Yao society as a whole. Eventually they began to command some large following until we see an evolution in Yao society from the small scale clan groups to large scale chieftainships (Phiri, 1993).

Political hegemony was proportional to one’s economic status but more to it was the number of subservient subjects within one’s jurisdiction. Apart from being prestigious, the population under one’s control also contributed to one’s wealth as it was obligatory that after each trading expedition, the subjects pay a tribute of allegiance to their leader. Thus subject number was an incentive distinctive enough to trigger an impetus for territorial expansion. In such a scenario, power struggle between the various, ‘Asyene Chilambo’ as Pachai (1969) designates them; each squabbling not only for trade opportunities but also territorial conquest was inevitable.

As argued by Rangeley (1964) who is one perpetrator of the thesis, it was not long therefore that the Yao commenced to raid one another, leader against leader until the Yao country could be said to be no more than a land of brigand chiefs. The wars that arose were aided by the Yao’s possession of guns. It was indeed a survival of the fittest. Among those who emerged formidable was one Mataka, ‘Lord of Mwembe’. Though we cannot depict Mataka’s political acumen on the basis of paramountcy, he was so powerful and controlled a vast territory. His preying and sway upon the other Yao, coupled with his iron fist hold and autocratic disposition over the subjugated was enough to instigate the migration of other ‘Asyenes’ who valued their rights. In essence, such were the vicissitudes of trade on Yao society.

The impact of the trade factor on Yao sociopolitical well being and its subsequent repercussions-that is dissension- is the most commonly held thesis as concerns the exodus of the Yao from their homeland. Yet Historical research has shown that it is not the sole reason that can adequately explain the migration. The question then is as to what other factors apart from the internal conflicts can be ascribed to the nineteenth century Yao diaspora.

Many historians have clearly argued in the light of external factors or pressure in spurring the migration per se and of foremost significance among these is the stimuli triggered by the Lolo. The Lolo people were the immediate neighbors formerly of the Yao. They had a very close relationship with them and they indeed had many things in common (Rangeley, 1963). The language of the Yao bears a marked similarity to the language of the Lolo. The Lolo are depicted in history as a branch of the Makua people who in turn are a subdivision of the Anguru tribe which also encompasses the Lomwe. History is however adamant as to whether the Yao were at one time one of the Anguru tribes but whether or not that is true cannot be clearly ascertained. However, it is discernible that the commercially enterprising Yao must have altered more rapidly than their neighbors because of their contacts with the coast.

How significant then were the Lolo in the whole issue of Yao migration? Several interpretations have been postulated as concerns the stimulant of the bone of contention between the Yao and the Lolo in the period between 1830 and 1850 and latter in the mid 1850s. Among these are famine, jealousy, resistance to enslavement and the need for a supply of slaves. Each of these will be discussed in turn.

To begin with, in his article ‘Ayao’, Rangeley (1963) presupposes that the increasing wealth and comfort of the Yao must have roused the cupidity and jealousy of the Lolo such that in about 1830, the latter led by a chief named Nairuwa fell upon the Yao and utterly defeated them. This as Rangeley asserts culminated in the dispersal of the Yao in disrupted bands. Alpers (1969) however argues that jealousy alone cannot be a reason substantiative enough to explain the Lolo’s hostility. In his classical perspective he contends that it was because of a severe famine in whose throes the Lolo were engulfed coupled with the great enermity that they plundered and rampaged Yaoland as they scavenged for survival. The issue of famine has also been upheld by Juwayeyi who after having interviewed the present day chief Mkanda was told that it was because of a severe famine that the Yao migrated. Chief Mkanda however denies the fact that it was the defeat by the Lolo that engendered dispersion. In his capacity, he emphasizes that there was no war at all for if there had been one, the Yao would have won since they had guns at their disposal (Juwayeyi, 1972).

Another account by yet another writer Raphel (1964) in one of his letters sees a reason of the Lolo attack in the Yao’s participation in East-Central African slave trade. Raphael writes,

‘as they turned to slavery, they may have acquired the necessary means from the Arabs, such as guns, enabling them to conquer other tribes and thereby capture slaves…..to their folly, they captured some of the Makua people and made them slaves. This action annoyed Nairuwa, the leader of the Makua; he therefore made a strong attack on the Yao and forced them to flee from their homeland’.

This assumption has been a matter of controversy in Yao history. However through research, the writer has come to note that in its initial phases, slave trade as conducted by the Yao was not based on raiding but was a matter of quid proquo thus strongly contradicting the long cherished misconception that the Yao were inveterate slave traders. The Yao according to consulted sources were peaceful and respected traders. What slaves they had bought to carry their trade goods from the interior to the coast were the unwanted or socially misfit recalcitrant of the villages; persons convicted of crime, who would normally have been executed or banished from their communities. Thus Raphael’s thesis as enunciated earlier on lacks historical authenticity and needs further qualification.

More comprehensive however in light of the contention on slave trade is the fact that it is probable that as the Lolo resided in close proximity to the coast, the raids by the Arab slave traders proper might have been responsible for their dislocation. In turn, as fugitives, dislodged from their homeland, they could have forced the Yao out as they sought to find themselves a new site for settlement.

The second factor on external pressure has to do with the emergence of the Maseko Ngoni in the period between 1835 and 1870. Coincidental though it might have been with the era of Yao migration, the incursion of the Maseko is rejected by most sources as a factor accounting for the dispersal. Albeit, when one considers Ngoni history; the Maseko’s eviction from the Amatingo country east of the north end of Lake Malawi, around modern Songea, by their fellow Jere of Zwangendaba’s Zulu Gama, found them exercising their usual belligerent military campaigns upon the tribes they encountered as they retreated southwards.

The Yao country is one among the many they indeed traversed and we can well imagine that as was a custom among the militaristic Ngoni, terror and havoc were indiscriminately inflicted upon the unfortunate Yao, thus initiating their dispersal. Nevertheless this contention is conjectural as historians accountable for this thesis contest as to whether it was the Maseko’s first drift northwards as they trekked from Zululand or their southward retreat that actually triggered the Yao exodus.

The last factor on external pressure has to do with the Maconde. Alpers (1969) cites them as one tribe of northern Mozambique that probably attacked the Yao and incited their migration. However he does not give us reasons that stimulated the attacks as has been done with the Lolo factor. Recent research by other historians has culminated in the proposal of other possible factors which encompass natural disasters as well as other human pressures. The famine factor has already been discussed in the preceding analysis. Cole (1972) in his article on ‘Mangochi’ cites that the shortage of land due to population expansion was the major cause of the migration. Another historian Fr Pierre Dupeyron advocates that apart from the Ngoni incursion, the threat of locust was responsible (Alpers, 1969). Nevertheless, these factors important though they might be are of lesser significance.

Another factor quite distinct from the internal rivalry for political hegemony though related to it has to do with ambition among the various Yao traders. Young (1970) in ‘History of the Tumbuka-Kamanga people’ presents a classical analogy between the Yao who came to the Shire highlands and the Balowoka who in the 1780s came to settle in the Nkamanga complex of Northern Malawi. He asserts that contact with the east coast Arab traders stimulated the Yao to undertake trading ventures and expeditions into the interior. Finding the people of the Shire highlands-the Manganja- peaceful and the area attractive, some of the Yao decided to settle permanently in this El Dorado. Whether this contention suffices or not noone knows but it lends itself to be tenable.

From the foregoing, can we then assert that internal factors were the major causal factor of the migration? In placing the primum mobile of the diaspora entirely in the light of the internal rivalry for political hegemony, the danger would be an oversimplification of the whole issue. As has been noted quite apart from the kleinestaaterei that characterized the Yao cradle land between 1830 and 1850, external factors had a greater role to play in spurring the exodus. A close scrutiny of the chronological trend of the migration depicts that not all Yao chiefs and their subjects trekked from their homeland during the eve of internal rivalries. As already cited a set of brigand chiefs like Mataka were left behind and continued to prey, rampage and plunder one another.

However after 1850 we come to see that even the formidable chiefs were compelled to evict Yaoland leaving it entirely deserted. The question one might ask then is as to the real catalyst to this second episode as it may be. It is however worth noting beforehand that for such a complicated phenomenon it is almost futile to argue in terms of fundamental causes because most likely it was a result of a multiplicity of factors. Notwithstanding, historians have put it that, it was the 1850 Nairuwa onslaught coupled with the Ngoni and Maconde cause that actually triggered this latter motion. Along with these historians, the writer thus contends that it was indeed external factors that to a greater degree incited the migration. Debatable as it is, the complete history of the genesis of the Yao migration cannot be reconstructed of course until research among the Makua and Lolo is conducted. Having grappled with the gist of the paper let’s now consider the last part which briefly describes the migratory aftermath.

Yao migration can be spoken of as having occurred in two episodes, the first dated as early as the 1830s. Indeed it was not abrupt but a gradual process. In the first phase, movement was not to areas far away from the original homeland. As already noted, it was in fact during the second wave of attack by the Lolo that most Yao kindred groupings irrupted into Malawi. This marked the second phase of dispersal. Of the initial ten Yao divisions that migrated, only four came to Malawi, namely the Achisi and the Amasaninga who initially occupied the area around Mangochi; the Mangochi, who initially occupied the area around Blantyre and the Machinga who settled between Mangochi and Zomba.

In conclusion, the paper has endeavored to determine whether the nineteenth century Yao diaspora can be adequately explained solely by internal conflict for political hegemony. In the discussion it has been noted that several factors indeed accounted for the exodus and though others are rather controversial; factors like the external pressure from the Lolo, Ngoni and Maconde as well as Natural disasters like famine are historically plausible. As to the factor that fundamentally accounts for the diaspora, the writer has contended with other historians who assert that external factors were indeed dominant in instigating dispersal despite the fact that a multiple of factors did arise. A brief aftermath of the migration has also been portrayed for convenience and thus giving the paper more credence.

Bibliography

Abdalla, Y.B (1919) ‘Chikala Ca WaYao’, ed trans Sanderson M as, The History of the Yao, Zomba Gvt Printers, Zomba.

Alpers, E.A (1969) Trade, state and society among the Yao in the nineteenth century, Journal of African History, 10: 25-48.

Alpers, E.A (1972) ‘The Yao in Malawi: The importance of local research’, in Pachai B ed ‘The Early History of Malawi’, Longman, London.

Cole, A (1972) ‘Mangochi’, Department of Antiquities, Publication no 12, September 1972.

Mitchell, J.C (1971) The Yao Village: A study in the Social structure of a Malawian People, Manchester University Press, Manchester.

Pachai. B (1972) Malawi History of a Nation, Longman, London.

Phiri. K (1993) The Maravi state system and Chewa political development to about 1850, Mimeograph.

Rangeley, W.H (1963) Ayao, Nyasaland Journal, 15(2): 9-52.

Young. C (1970) The History of the Tumbuka-Kamanga people, Frank Cass and Company limited, London.