DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.49271#0293
218
W. S. Ferguson
the males lived in the barracks, keeping their bodies fit by almost unceasing rounds of
war-dancing, and maintaining their stock of cattle by military expeditions into lands far
and near. Fierce and hardy, truculent and fiendishly cruel, they came and went swiftly
and secretly, creating terror and desolation from Mombasa to the Equator. Their peers
in the south deferred circumcision of the males — the prerequisite of marriage — so long
that it was omitted altogether; whereupon the omission of marriage was the logical,
though, of course, impracticable, consequence.103
The author of this innovation is frequently said to have been Chaka;104 but the fact
that he himself was uncircumcised, that he was begotten by an uncircumcised father, and
that the Fengoes, whom he drove from Natal and scattered south and east among the
neighboring tribes, were also uncircumcised,105 leads us to conclude that the prohibition
was earlier than Chaka’s reign. And, in fact, H. F. Fynn, one of the first group of
Europeans to travel in Zululand, who learned its language, and who interrogated Chaka
about its past, tells us definitely106 that it was Chaka’s predecessor, Dingiswayo, who
“ordered the rite to be deferred until he should have brought under his dominion all
[Kafir nations] within his reach. Owing to this circumstance, circumcision fell into disuse
among all the Eastern tribes, and the omission of the ceremony extended to all who
acknowledged his authority. Among these was Senzagakona: the rite was postponed in
his case”; hence the little short of miraculous birth of Chaka, for, as Isaacs, writing in
1836, says:107 “the preposterous idea” is still prevalent among the eastern tribes that
the uncircumcised are “not capable of propagating their species.” What Dingiswayo
accomplished, therefore, if indeed it was he and not some one of his predecessors who
deferred the circumcision of the males,108 i. e., marriage, was to get an ample stock of men
without family ties and responsibilities with which to carry on his wars.
103 Arbousset, op. cit., p. 279, affirms that the Zulu soldiers were circumcised when they were discharged.
Despite the fact that he describes the rite then performed (according to his story) with the greatest circumstantiality,
it seems incredible that the other authorities should all be wrong in making it omitted altogether. Cf. Delegorgue
op. cit., vol. 2, p. 220.
104 Isaacs, op. cit., vol. 2, p. 306; Arbousset, op. cit., p. 279; Gardiner, op. cit., p. 95; Shooter, op. cit., p. 395;
Theal, op. cit., vol. 3, p. 295.
105 Kay, op. cit., p. 406.
106 Fynn, ap. Bird, op. cit., p. 64.
107 Isaacs, op. cit., vol. 1, p. 321.
108 That it was really Dingiswayo, and not someone earlier, who abolished circumcision is suggested by the
fact that among the “Eastern tribes” south of Delagoa Bay, who, according to tradition, abandoned this rite at the
time of the Zulu invasion (Junod, op. cit., vol. 1, p. 72), the custom existed as late as 1798 (W. White, Journal of a
voyage .... on the eastern coast of Africa, London, 1800, p. 38 sqq.). The difficulty is that Chaka was born ca. 1787
and his uncircumcised father perhaps as early as 1760. Hence the custom should have been abolished as early as 1775,
at which time Dingiswayo cannot possibly have been on the throne. It may have been, however, that kings’ sons,
before the general abolition of the practice, were left uncircumcised with the intent that, being technically boys, they
might be debarred from conspiring to take their fathers’ places. Naturally, in that event we cannot use the fact
that Dingiswayo and Chaka were uncircumcised to date the abolition of the practice generally.
W. S. Ferguson
the males lived in the barracks, keeping their bodies fit by almost unceasing rounds of
war-dancing, and maintaining their stock of cattle by military expeditions into lands far
and near. Fierce and hardy, truculent and fiendishly cruel, they came and went swiftly
and secretly, creating terror and desolation from Mombasa to the Equator. Their peers
in the south deferred circumcision of the males — the prerequisite of marriage — so long
that it was omitted altogether; whereupon the omission of marriage was the logical,
though, of course, impracticable, consequence.103
The author of this innovation is frequently said to have been Chaka;104 but the fact
that he himself was uncircumcised, that he was begotten by an uncircumcised father, and
that the Fengoes, whom he drove from Natal and scattered south and east among the
neighboring tribes, were also uncircumcised,105 leads us to conclude that the prohibition
was earlier than Chaka’s reign. And, in fact, H. F. Fynn, one of the first group of
Europeans to travel in Zululand, who learned its language, and who interrogated Chaka
about its past, tells us definitely106 that it was Chaka’s predecessor, Dingiswayo, who
“ordered the rite to be deferred until he should have brought under his dominion all
[Kafir nations] within his reach. Owing to this circumstance, circumcision fell into disuse
among all the Eastern tribes, and the omission of the ceremony extended to all who
acknowledged his authority. Among these was Senzagakona: the rite was postponed in
his case”; hence the little short of miraculous birth of Chaka, for, as Isaacs, writing in
1836, says:107 “the preposterous idea” is still prevalent among the eastern tribes that
the uncircumcised are “not capable of propagating their species.” What Dingiswayo
accomplished, therefore, if indeed it was he and not some one of his predecessors who
deferred the circumcision of the males,108 i. e., marriage, was to get an ample stock of men
without family ties and responsibilities with which to carry on his wars.
103 Arbousset, op. cit., p. 279, affirms that the Zulu soldiers were circumcised when they were discharged.
Despite the fact that he describes the rite then performed (according to his story) with the greatest circumstantiality,
it seems incredible that the other authorities should all be wrong in making it omitted altogether. Cf. Delegorgue
op. cit., vol. 2, p. 220.
104 Isaacs, op. cit., vol. 2, p. 306; Arbousset, op. cit., p. 279; Gardiner, op. cit., p. 95; Shooter, op. cit., p. 395;
Theal, op. cit., vol. 3, p. 295.
105 Kay, op. cit., p. 406.
106 Fynn, ap. Bird, op. cit., p. 64.
107 Isaacs, op. cit., vol. 1, p. 321.
108 That it was really Dingiswayo, and not someone earlier, who abolished circumcision is suggested by the
fact that among the “Eastern tribes” south of Delagoa Bay, who, according to tradition, abandoned this rite at the
time of the Zulu invasion (Junod, op. cit., vol. 1, p. 72), the custom existed as late as 1798 (W. White, Journal of a
voyage .... on the eastern coast of Africa, London, 1800, p. 38 sqq.). The difficulty is that Chaka was born ca. 1787
and his uncircumcised father perhaps as early as 1760. Hence the custom should have been abolished as early as 1775,
at which time Dingiswayo cannot possibly have been on the throne. It may have been, however, that kings’ sons,
before the general abolition of the practice, were left uncircumcised with the intent that, being technically boys, they
might be debarred from conspiring to take their fathers’ places. Naturally, in that event we cannot use the fact
that Dingiswayo and Chaka were uncircumcised to date the abolition of the practice generally.