DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.70004#0101
99
Fathers (REIL 1969, 21 - 24). As a result, the settlements grew considerably
in size: the LMS stations at Kawimbe and Niamkolo each had nearly 1,000
African inhabitants a few years after their foundation and Kambole had 500,
although they were built in an area of scattered settlement with few popula-
tion concentrations (JOHNSON n.d., 103). The stations also attracted settlers
as the missionaries were partly regarded as chiefs and because many African
chiefs, having surrendered to the colonial power, had lost prestige. When Chief
Makasa wanted to move his village in 1898, hardly anybody followed him, the
majority staying close to the White Fathers’ mission at Kayambi, near the old
chief’s residence. The Bemba Chief Luchembe complained to the District Com-
missioner in 1907 about the increasing number of people moving to the nearby
Chilonga mission station (WF), where 250 huts had already been built. He
was advised to move closer to the mission station himself (Garvey 1974, 419).
This example introduces another consideration in the choice of location of mis-
sion stations, namely the relationship of the missions to traditional systems of
rule. Before the BSAC established effective administrative control in North-
ern Rhodesia by building government stations, missionaries arriving in the
area had to come to an arrangement with the chiefs. This applies to the Lozi,
the Bemba and the Ila, e.g., where missionaries had earlier closer contact with
the rulers. By 1900, there were 17 administrative centres established by the
BSAC as against 18 mission stations (compare Map 5 above with Map 4.1, p.
86 in FETTER 1983). As noted above in the case of Monze, the missions were
generally interested in settling near chiefs’ villages as these represented major
population concentrations4. It was also assumed that access to the traditional
ruler would make it easier for them to establish further stations. On the other
hand they were discouraged from association with less important chiefs, par-
ticularly in weakly organised acephalous societies, as this might be perceived
by others as an alliance which could restrict access to other work areas. Ac-
cording to PRETORIUS (1972, 366 - 367), chiefs wanted to have missionaries
near them for three reasons:
1. They considered missionaries to be useful instruments of foreign policy
whilst the presence of a mission was seen as protection against neighbour-
ing tribes. Missionaries were also good advisers and acted as mediators
in dealings with the colonial administration.
2. Chiefs saw in the missionary a useful insurance against the ambition
of elders coveting the chieftainship. The presence of a missionary in a
village increased the prestige of the chief.
3. Missionaries were considered to have power to release supernatural pow-
ers, although they continually denied this.
The chiefs also wanted schooling, many Africans considering that mastery of
writing was the explanation of the superiority of Europeans. In many cases
Fathers (REIL 1969, 21 - 24). As a result, the settlements grew considerably
in size: the LMS stations at Kawimbe and Niamkolo each had nearly 1,000
African inhabitants a few years after their foundation and Kambole had 500,
although they were built in an area of scattered settlement with few popula-
tion concentrations (JOHNSON n.d., 103). The stations also attracted settlers
as the missionaries were partly regarded as chiefs and because many African
chiefs, having surrendered to the colonial power, had lost prestige. When Chief
Makasa wanted to move his village in 1898, hardly anybody followed him, the
majority staying close to the White Fathers’ mission at Kayambi, near the old
chief’s residence. The Bemba Chief Luchembe complained to the District Com-
missioner in 1907 about the increasing number of people moving to the nearby
Chilonga mission station (WF), where 250 huts had already been built. He
was advised to move closer to the mission station himself (Garvey 1974, 419).
This example introduces another consideration in the choice of location of mis-
sion stations, namely the relationship of the missions to traditional systems of
rule. Before the BSAC established effective administrative control in North-
ern Rhodesia by building government stations, missionaries arriving in the
area had to come to an arrangement with the chiefs. This applies to the Lozi,
the Bemba and the Ila, e.g., where missionaries had earlier closer contact with
the rulers. By 1900, there were 17 administrative centres established by the
BSAC as against 18 mission stations (compare Map 5 above with Map 4.1, p.
86 in FETTER 1983). As noted above in the case of Monze, the missions were
generally interested in settling near chiefs’ villages as these represented major
population concentrations4. It was also assumed that access to the traditional
ruler would make it easier for them to establish further stations. On the other
hand they were discouraged from association with less important chiefs, par-
ticularly in weakly organised acephalous societies, as this might be perceived
by others as an alliance which could restrict access to other work areas. Ac-
cording to PRETORIUS (1972, 366 - 367), chiefs wanted to have missionaries
near them for three reasons:
1. They considered missionaries to be useful instruments of foreign policy
whilst the presence of a mission was seen as protection against neighbour-
ing tribes. Missionaries were also good advisers and acted as mediators
in dealings with the colonial administration.
2. Chiefs saw in the missionary a useful insurance against the ambition
of elders coveting the chieftainship. The presence of a missionary in a
village increased the prestige of the chief.
3. Missionaries were considered to have power to release supernatural pow-
ers, although they continually denied this.
The chiefs also wanted schooling, many Africans considering that mastery of
writing was the explanation of the superiority of Europeans. In many cases