RELIGIOUS INNOVATION AND POLITICAL CONFLICT IN ZAMBIA
The Lumpa rising (Part IV)
Wim van Binsbergen
|
RELIGIOUS INNOVATION AND POLITICAL CONFLICT IN ZAMBIA The Lumpa rising (Part IV) Wim van Binsbergen |
|
The interpretation of the Lumpa rising
as advanced in this chapter has been subject to a careful
re-analysis by Jean-Loup Calmettes, in his recent MSc Econ.
thesis submitted to the University College of Wales.[1] As a Roman Catholic missionary working
in north-eastern Zambia in the late 1960s and early 1970s,
Calmettes was fortunate to have virtually unlimited access to
three sources of data which hitherto have been lacking in the
study of the Lumpa Church: extensive oral-historical evidence;
missionary documents and missionary publications of limited
circulation; and an almost complete set of Lumpa hymns. Calmettes
must be congratulated on the competent way in which he has used
and presented these new materials.[2] Particularly on the descriptive side
his work goes a long way towards resolving some of the major
puzzles of the Lumpa Church. However, I must resist the
temptation to quote extensively from his text. I understand
publication is currently being prepared. Moreover, in the field
of Central African religious studies, extensive quotation from
unpublished scholarly work has since long been the established
privilege of Terence Ranger. Let me therefore limit myself here
to those passages in Calmettes’s thesis which explicitly
criticise my own Lumpa analysis. This critique is contained in
the ten concluding pages of his work.
While Calmettes does agree with the main thrust of my argument,
his specific emphasis is substantially different. In the light of
his analysis I can now see that my argument tried to explain the
Lumpa crisis largely as the confrontation between two monolithic
protagonists: on the one hand the state (in the liminal stage
between the colonial and the post-colonial phase) and the United
National Independence Party, which at the time of the rising was
holding a majority in the Zambian transition government; and on
the other hand the Lumpa Church, which in the years 1963-4
consisted of Lenshina, the senior Church leaders including her
husband, and about 20,000 faithful followers, all that had
remained after about four-fifths of the membership of the late
1950s had defected. According to my analysis, Lumpa had
increasingly defined itself as a peasant movement defying
peasantisation, i.e., incorporation (both economically through
capitalist relations of production, and politically through UNIP)
in the wider capitalist order and the nationalist state. The
basic force behind the Lumpa uprising, I claimed, was the
peasants’ class struggle. The logic of capitalism, as
mediated through the state, left no option but to confront this
struggle violently with military means. Put thus crudely, it is
certainly somewhat too simplistic, and I am grateful to Calmettes
for providing the elements with which we may yet arrive at a
somewhat more penetrating analysis.
In my analysis I stressed how Lumpa was
an exception among Central African forms of religious innovation,
but not because of its size, ritual or beliefs. As a form of
‘superstructural reconstruction’, Lumpa showed a
combination of themes of religious innovation which to the
student of Central African religious change are familiar:
witchcraft eradication, millennarian fervour, a certain concern
for ecological ritual, etc. What was exceptional in Lumpa, I
claimed, was its ability to move towards the creation of
alternative relations of production which could serve as a
negation of the capitalist relations into which the population of
north-eastern Zambia had increasingly been drawn. In other words,
for the alienation produced by incorporation, Lumpa tried to
provide not only ideological and ritual, but also infrastructural
remedies - a state of affairs which I called revolutionary.[3]
Calmettes writes: ‘I agree with Van Binsbergen’s
insistence on the significance of the creation of new relations
of production.’[4] But he is critical of the way in which
I worked this out in detail. He claims that I give a partly false
picture of Lumpa attempts at redefinition of relations of
production prevailing in the countryside of north-eastern Zambia
around 1960; moreover, he feels that I exaggerate the
significance of these attempts.
Thus he denies that the resettlement of a considerable Lumpa
membership around Sioni, without formal permission from the
chiefs, constituted the challenge to the rural production system
I claimed it to be. For tribute labour to chiefs, Calmettes tells
us, had gone into disuse several decades before the Lumpa church
was established. I must reject Calmettes’s point here. I did
not say that unauthorised resettlement of peasants upset a
tribute-labour system which clearly no longer existed. I said it
challenged fundamental property rights in land, which ever since
the rise of the Bemba chiefly dynasties had been vested in the
chiefs. Colonial administration would of course infringe on these
rights in the interests of itself and allied outsiders (claiming
sites for administrative premises, missions or the odd European
settler); but vis-_-vis local peasants the colonial state would
uphold the chiefs’ control over land.
Creation of new villages, or individual changes of residence from
one chief’s area to another, was subject to the formal
approval of the chiefs involved. Clearly this constitutes a major
aspect of the articulation between the domestic community in
north-eastern Zambia and the capitalist mode of production as
mediated through the colonial state. By underpinning
chieftainship (which could be termed an incapsulated,
neo-traditional tributary mode of production), the colonial state
backed a system of chiefly power and prerogatives which to a
considerable extent denied the peasants control over their main
means of production, land. It remains to be analysed how
precisely this system of rural control was instrumental in
forcing a considerable portion of the labour force in the
domestic communities of north-eastern Zambia to be involved in
labour migration. But in the light of Rey’s analysis of
similar processes elsewhere in Africa,[5] it seems very likely that the class
alliance between those European classes controlling the colonial
state (white settlers, metropolitan capitalists, etc.) and local
chiefs enabled the system of circulatory migration to impose
itself on the countryside of north-eastern Zambia. Although I
admit that I should have spelled this out in my main arguments,
this is what I meant by the phrase ‘rural production
system’. In this rural context, much as in the numerous
squatments around the Zambian line of rail, unauthorised
settlement means, essentially, a form of active class struggle.
Calmettes goes on to point out that Lenshina never attempted to
purchase land, as I wrote, but that she merely applied for a
lease on a piece of land. Calmettes adds[6] that he does ‘not think that she
wanted to buy a huge estate on which she would have regrouped her
thousands of shifting cultivators’. I am grateful to
Calmettes for pointing out this monstrous slip of the pen. The
main source on this point[7] mentions ‘lease’, not
‘purchase’. And anyway, given the legal structure of
land tenure in north-eastern Zambia around 1960, it would have
been almost inconceivable that Lenshina could have bought land.
yet I would maintain that from the point of view of Lumpa’s
attempt at redefining existing relations of production, the
difference between purchase and lease may not be all that
important. What is essential is that the Lumpa Church attempted
to gain autonomous control over land, and this, as Roberts
writes, [8]
was taken as
proof that she wished to set up a kingdom of her own. Whatever
the political implications of her request [for land WvB], there
can be little doubt that its rejection had important economic
implications: her followers now felt that their livelihood as
well as their religious and political autonomy was threatened.
Calmettes is likewise critical of my
claim that the final conflict developed out of another aspect of
the land theme in the Lumpa drama: the refusal to demolish the
stockaded villages into which the Lumpa membership had retreated
in 1963. Here again I think there is no need to give in too
readily to Calmettes’s criticism. The demand to abandon
these ‘illegal settlements’ was a central issue, in all
negotiations between the Lumpa Church, the UNIP leadership and
the state, in the months preceding the final conflict. And an
eye-witness of the Lumpa final conflict in Lundazi even started
his account of the Lumpa episode thus:[9]
It was ironic that the ‘Independence’ Constitution
should grant the right of every lawful inhabitant of Northern
Rhodesia to reside where he wished. The members of the
‘Lumpa’ Sect, followers of Alice Lenshina, exercised
this right with results to themselves that will be described.
In the light of all this I would still maintain that,
particularly in the context of land and relations of production
focusing on land, my analysis essentially (although not in all
details) holds out against Calmettes’s criticism.
Let us now turn to those other indications of what I claimed to
be Lumpa’s experimenting with new relations of production
alternative to the form of capitalist relations of production to
which the local peasants were then subjected. Rightly, Calmettes
points out that in the Lumpa Church, tribute labour was not only
revived for the building of the Lumpa cathedral (as mentioned in
my article), but also for agricultural work in Lenshina’s
gardens; the produce she sold. she also received tribute in kind.[10] Calmettes agrees that this is a form
of production which opts out of the relations of production as
defined by the chiefs, modern industry, or the state. While a
Marxist analysis would tend to stress production over circulation
and distribution, we should also look at the latter aspect. Here
Calmettes helps us to detect a fundamental contradiction within
the Lumpa Church, although in his own re-analysis this remains
only implicit. Whereas the Lumpa adherents as direct producers
were joining in new, alternative relations of production as
defined by the Lumpa Church, in the sphere of distribution the
contradiction between them and the Lumpa leadership became very
marked and took on class-like elements.
In my earlier analysis I stressed how the continuous circulation
of multitudes of choir members and pilgrims over the Lumpa
countryside imposed upon local villagers the obligation to feed
and accommodate these outsiders. The Lumpa Church, as an
Organisation, thus created a structure through which a local
surplus was extracted and was made to benefit Lumpa members from
elsewhere. If all Lumpa members had had a chance of touring the
countryside in this way, the inequalities thus created might have
levelled out. In practice, it seems that some groups (those
living around Sioni, the Church’s headquarters; those in
younger age cohorts) were more likely to be on the receiving side
of this regional distribution system. And their continuous
parasitism did create resentment. However, most surplus
extraction by the Lumpa organization benefited not the rank and
file of the Church, but its leadership .
In addition, of course, much was invested in prestigious and
ritual objects, like the Lumpa cathedral. The purchase of two
lorries, bought from similar sources, is very interesting since
on the one hand they served the circulation of choirs and thus
the regional extraction process in the interest of the rank and
file (in addition to the strengthening of ritual ties throughout
the region); on the other hand they served the entrepreneurial
interests of the Church leadership, through trips to the
Copperbelt where produce would be sold.[11] Calmettes provides the answer to my
earlier queries concerning the economic network the Lumpa Church
could maintain with the aid of these trucks. Rather than creating
‘a chain of rural stores’, as ‘a move to create a
self-sufficient distribution system as independent as possible
from outside control’, the trucks turned out to represent
what I suggested as the alternative possibility: ‘merely the
attempt of Lumpa leaders to launch themselves as
entrepreneurs’.[12]
Before Calmettes’s thesis, we had to accept as authoritative
Roberts’s resigned statement:[13]
There is very
little information of any kind on the internal organization of
the Lumpa church - a most important subject which perhaps will
never properly be elucidated.
Against this background I was tempted,
perhaps justifiably, to treat Lumpa as a monolithic whole. But it
is here that the strength of Calmettes’s work lies. The
evolving relations between leaders and followers within the Lumpa
Church, and between the leaders themselves, are now for the first
time discussed in terms that are no longer hazy and conjectural .
Already on theoretical grounds the deficiencies in my earlier
interpretation could have been detected. If we accept that the
impetus behind Lumpa, up to and including the final conflict, was
a peasants’ class struggle against incorporation, then it
should have been clear that these peasant’s experimenting
with new, alternative relations of production did not amount to a
dissolution of all class-like relations. Only then could Lumpa
have been treated as a monolith. But what we should have
expected, instead, was the creation of a new type of class-like
relations: contradictions and patterns of expropriation and
control which, at least initially and at least for the Lumpa
followers themselves, would be hidden from the eye by the
theocratic assumptions of the Lumpa organization and beliefs.
This is precisely what happened. Lumpa channelled peasants’
rejection of current relations of production, offering them a
form of superstructural reconstruction by which to battle against
the alienation springing from current conditions. But meanwhile,
by involving these peasants in new Lumpa-defined relations of
production (such as tribute in labour and kind, resettlement in
Lumpa-controlled settlements, and circulation of pilgrims and
choirs), the Lumpa leadership began to act as an exploiting class
themselves.
In this light many aspects which my earlier analysis could not
accommodate fall into their proper place. Lumpa imposed what
could be termed a theocratic mode of production; or perhaps, in
line with a recent theoretical development hall-marked by the
publication of the ASA volume on Regional Cults,[14] a regional-cultic mode of production.
The internal structure of expropriation and control hinged on the
contradiction between sect leaders and followers. This emergent,
cultic mode of production, whose outlines are now becoming much
clearer thanks to the work of Calmettes, defined itself
vis<-vis the other modes of production represented in the
area. Unauthorised settlement, claims to judicial powers and to
tribute challenged the tributary mode; through unauthorised
settlement again, opposition against polygamy, the mobilisation
of labour for tribute work and ritual activities, and financial
contributions, the Lumpa organization made significant inroads
into what by the 1950s was left of the domestic mode of
production.
While the desire for superstructural reconstruction as felt among
the peasants may ultimately have been the main inspiration of the
Lumpa beliefs, I must agree with the suggestion contained in
Calmettes’s work that the Lumpa leadership was not
fundamentally opposed to the capitalist mode of production, as
long as it fell into line with their own perceived material
interests. Lumpa did not issue pronouncements against wage labour
or migrancy. On the contrary, it set up Lumpa branches in the
industrial areas along the distant line of rail, persuaded
migrants to make the pilgrimage to Sione, and maintained
profitable relations with the thoroughly capitalist Copperbelt
commodity markets. While I would still maintain that the original
inspiration of Lumpa, and the continuing orientation of its rank
and file, was against incorporation into capitalist relations of
production, the conclusion is now forced upon us that the Lumpa
leadership struck a class alliance with the forces of capitalism
as dominant along the line of rail. Lumpa became a structure of
rural extraction, and the Lumpa leadership acquired material
privileges worth defending.
There is much to be said for Calmettes’s view that the
leaders’ struggle to defend privileges as derived from the
internal set-up of the Lumpa Church was an important factor in
the feuding which arose in north-eastern Zambia between Lumpa and
the United National Independence Party. Much as the increasingly
oppressive nature of the Lumpa organisation brought up to 80 per
cent of the original membership to defect in the early 1960s (so
that these peasants had little reason left to resist the UNIP
pressure to join the party), the fear, among the Lumpa
leadership, of a further eroding of their privileges seems to
have suggested the strong anti-UNIP pronouncements made by this
leadership as from 1962. In fact, the Lumpa leaders had changed
their attitude vis-à-vis nationalism and the colonial state much
earlier than this: after having served as a nationalist platform
for some years, already the 1957 Lumpa constitution virtually
pledged allegiance to the colonial state.[15] I would suggest that already by that
time the Lumpa leadership had come to understand that, in
upholding the status quo, the colonial state (as the expression,
and protection, of the totality of class contradictions existing
within its territory[16]) would be an essential factor in the
continuation of the very privileges the sect leaders were
building up by means of the Lumpa organization.
Thus it could be claimed that in the final conflict leaders and
followers were fighting the same enemy but for very different
reasons. The peasant rank and file were still, with remarkable
courage as well as occasional atrocity, fighting the destruction
of their reconstructed new society; the Lumpa leadership, which
de facto had acquired the status of a local religious
bourgeoisie, was fighting against the annihilation of their
privileges. The complexities of this situation are perhaps
reflected in the fact that Lenshina and her top leadership took
little or no part in the actual battles, and were in a remarkably
confused state when finally apprehended.
In the light of this reinterpretation, it does not seem as if I
exaggerated the significance of Lumpa’s striving towards new
relations of production. Of course, even these new relations of
production never reached maturity; I never claimed they did, and
in a context of international dependency it is extremely unlikely
that a relatively small peasant movement could ever succeed in
escaping a structure of peripheral capitalism controlled from
powerful metropoles. But notwithstanding all this, Lumpa’s
attempts at new relations of production were both even more
complex and more fundamental to Lumpa’s development than I
claimed in my original argument.
Having criticised my analysis of Lumpa attempts at creating new
relations of production, and having pointed out (correctly) that
my analysis is only partial, Calmettes goes on to overstress the
significance of the internal cleavage within Lumpa. He plays down
entirely the struggle for both superstructural and
infrastructural reconstruction, which I continue to see as the
main inspiration of the Lumpa rank and file, up to and throughout
the final conflict. For him, ‘The conflict resembles more
the wars which took place when the Bemba chiefs defended their
privileges.’[17]
Following the line of Lehmann’s early analysis,[18] Calmettes considers Lenshina to be a
self-styled female Bemba chief. The fact that she surrounded
herself with tribute labour and claimed judicial powers,
Calmettes does not see as the selective borrowing of redefined
historical institutions into a totally new set of relations of
production, social relations and ritual relations: instead, he
considers it a ‘return towards the past’,[19] in other words as an attempt to revive
the tributary mode of production - an attempt which, without much
conceptual discussion, he calls, ‘messianic sect’. Thus
he becomes the victim of his own, in itself illuminating,
emphasis on the internal dynamics of the Lumpa Church.[20]
I would rather insist on the implications of the type of
relations of production which had been evolved within the sect
itself. I think that they explain the ideology of the leadership
of the sect and the final conflict.
After what I have said above I do not think we need a detailed
spelling out of the tributary mode of production in Bembaland in
the two or three centuries of its pre-colonial existence[21] or in its incapsulated neo-traditional
colonial form[22] to make the point convincingly that
the essence of the Lumpa Church was not a revival of the
tributary mode of production. Moreover, the final conflict was
between the Lumpa Church (with all its internal contradictions)
and an outside enemy, and cannot be adequately explained by
reference to the Lumpa internal structure alone.
Calmettes’s criticism has thus
helped us to deepen our understanding of Lumpa in terms of
relations of production, even though we cannot accept his own
alternative analysis. Let us now proceed to re-examine the other
quasi-monolithic block in my original argument: that of UNIP and
the state, in an attempt to re-interpret both the nature and the
timing of the final conflict that led to Lumpa’s
annihilation.
We would do well to heed Cross’s warning in the context of
the clashes between the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the state in
Zambia and other African countries. In his view,[23]
The course of events would appear to be determined more by the
kings of the State than by the state of the Kingdom .... The
clashes and restrictions may be more accurately explained by an
examination of the particular demands of politicians.
Towards an understanding of the party side in the conflict
Calmettes has very little to contribute. He promises[24] to provide an analysis of the class
base of UNIP in north-eastern Zambia in what could have been an
answer to an urgent question I had raised:[25]
The crucial
issue is the mobilisation process by which UNIP established
itself among the peasants of Chinsali district. But ...no new,
detailed material is available on this point.
Calmettes reflects[26] on a handful of educated and
politically-minded activists who passed through Lumpa (in its
pro-nationalist phase), only to opt out of that organization when
it could no longer identify with the nationalist cause and/or
serve their personal interests. But he has hardly anything to say
concerning the thousands of uneducated peasants whose allegiance
shifted from Lumpa to UNIP without, apparently, any significant
class differences between them and faithful Lumpa adherents being
involved.
Studies of class formation in Africa,[27] against the background of a renewed
interest in the theory of the state among Marxist general
theorists,[28] have stressed how in modern Africa the
struggle between classes over the control of the post-colonial
state has become the major form of class conflict. This state of
affairs is attributed to such factors as: the expansion of state
control in all sectors of economic and social life; the decline
or removal, after independence, of those classes which had firmly
controlled the colonial state; and the fact that after
independence the state has become political, i.e. susceptible to
processes of mass mobilisation, factional strife and
representational government. This insight may prove helpful to
understand the timing and the impetus of the final Lumpa
conflict. Thus we might be able to proceed beyond the idealist,
Weberian approach as pursued in my original Lumpa study, which
appears to attribute too much weight to the problem of the
legitimation of the post-colonial state as if this were an
independent input in the development of political processes in
the Third World (or anywhere else).
From the point of view of Lumpa members experiencing violent
persecution in rural north-eastern Zambia, the feuding as waged
by local branches of UNIP, and the final battles with state
troops armed with automatic weapons, all may have been part of
the same process of escalating violence. UNIP’s president Dr
Kaunda was leading the UNIP transition government when
negotiations to give up the fortified villages broke off, and the
order for military action was given. But in fact the state and
UNIP had only very recently merged into one force confronting
Lumpa. Nor did formal authority over the government executive and
the armed forces mean that UNIP had yet gained de facto control
over the entire state. The civil service was still largely
staffed with people who, until very recently, had opposed the
nationalist movement and had assisted in its repression. Among
them, anti
Lumpa feelings may not have been so very strong. Thus, police
officers in Lundazi (as a Lumpa area surpassed only by Chinsali
district) ate their 1963 Christmas dinner inside a Lumpa
stockaded village, where they were stationed in order to protect
it against violent attacks from the local UNIP branch.[29] Short’s claim[30] that Lumpa ‘relations with the
Police were good, as they spent much time protecting them from
attack’, may only apply to Lundazi.
In any case, UNIP’s attainment of political supremacy with
the creation of the transition government must have tipped the
balance of UNIP/Lumpa feuding in a decisive way. Lumpa could no
longer look to the state for protection against UNIP. State
officers now had to obey orders given by leading UNIP politicians
who, while not themselves involved in the UNIP/Lumpa feuding, yet
had an emotional stake in the matter in so far as they hailed
from Chinsali district (Kaunda, Kapwepwe) and politically could
not afford to disavow the violence of their Chinsali UNIP
branches. On the other hand, UNIP now had access to mobilisation
methods (state troops and their automatic weapons) which before
they could not have brought to bear on Lumpa. And while these
methods did not prove to be persuasive (1,500 killed and 20,000
emigrated bear witness to this) they were effective none the
less.
Clearly, Lumpa leaders were not competing with the nationalist
petty bourgeoisie that constituted UNIP’s leadership, over
the control of the entire Northern Rhodesian or Zambian state.
However, on a more limited geographical scale, Lumpa’s
rejection of UNIP in north-eastern Zambia certainly amounted to a
serious challenge of that bourgeoisie’s position. My
re-analysis in the light of Calmettes’s criticism has shown
how overall rejection of peasant incorporation, stressed as a
sole factor in my earlier analysis, may have been only one side
of Lumpa. The struggle of the Lumpa leadership to safeguard its
own privileged position (which depended on the continued
functioning of the structure of domination that Lumpa, as a
regional-cultic mode of production, had imposed upon the
countryside) may be another side. If so, another dimension of
class conflict in Lumpa is revealed which so far has found little
mention in the literature on class formation in modern Africa:
the struggle between a secular bourgeoisie and a religious
bourgeoisie. The issue at stake was not directly control of the
state, but on the one hand a network of economic, political and
social relations as existing in a significant part of the
state’s territory; on the other, the self-esteem and
credibility of a political petty bourgeoisie uncertain of its
recent hold on the state. Lumpa represented a threat to processes
of mass mobilisation at the grass-roots level, so crucial for a
bourgeoisie aspiring to control the post-colonial state; at the
same time, the state contained the military means to exterminate
such threats. Therefore, once having secured a considerable
degree of control over the state, the secular protagonist in this
conflict could effectively crush its religious adversary.
Alavi, H. (1972), ‘The state in
post-colonial societies: Pakistan and Bangla Desh’, New Left
Review, 74:25-39.
Anonymous (1964), ‘Postscript to
the Lumpa movement’, Newsletter (London: Institute for Race
Relations), September 1964: 25-8.
Assimeng, J.M. (1970), ‘Sectarian
allegiance and political authority: The Watch Tower Society in
Zambia 1907-35’, Journal of Modern African Studies,
8:97-112.
Balandier, G. (1965), ‘Messianism
and nationalism in black Africa’, in: Van den Berghe, P.
(ed.), Africa: Problems of Change and Conflict, San Francisco:
Chandler, pp. 443-60.
Banton, M. (1970), ‘African
prophets’, in: Middleton, J . (ed.) (1970), Black Africa,
London: Collier-Macmillan, pp. 222-33
Barrett, D.B. (1968), Schism and
Renewal in Africa, Nairobi: Oxford University Press.
Calmettes, J.-L. (1970), Lumpa Church:
I. The Genesis and Development 1953-1964, Ilondola Mission,
Chinsali.
Calmettes, J.-L. (1972), ‘The
Lumpa Church and Witchcraft Eradication’, paper read at
Conference on the History of Central African Religious Systems,
University of Zambia/University of California Los Angeles,
Lusaka.
Calmettes, J .-L. (1978), ‘The
Lumpa Sect, Rural Reconstruction, and Conflict’, MSc (Econ)
thesis, University of Wales.
Caplan, G.C. (1970), The Elites of
Barotseland 1878-1969, London: Hurst .
Carter, M. (1972), ‘Origin and
Diffusion of Central African Cults of Affliction’, paper
read at Conference on the History of Central African Religious
Systems, University of Zambia/University of California Los
Angeles, Lusaka.
Chéry, H.C. (1959), ‘Les sectes
en Rhodésie du Nord’, Parole et Mission, 2:278-94.
Chéry, H.C. (1961), ‘Visage des
sectes et motifs de dissidence’, in: Masson, J. (ed.)
(1961), Devant les Sectes non-chrétiennes, Louvain: Desclée de
Brouwer, pp. 28-51.
Chibanza, S .l . (1961), ‘Kaonde
history’, in: Apthorpe, R.J. (1961), (ed.) Central Bantu
Historical Texts, 1, Lusaka: Rhodes-Livingstone Institute,
Communication no. 22, pp. 41 -114.
Clairmonte, P. (1964), ‘Lumpa
church based on fear’, The Times, 6 August 1964.
Cross, S. (1970), ‘A prophet not
without honour: Jeremiah Gondwe’, in: Allen, C.H. and R.W.
Johnson (eds) (1970),African Perspectives, Cambridge University
Press, pp. 171-84.
Cross, S. (1973), ‘The Watch Tower
Movement in S. Central Africa 1908-1945 ‘, DPhil. thesis,
Oxford.
Cross, S. (1978), ‘Independent
churches and independent states: Jehovah’s Witnesses in East
and Central Africa’, in: Fasholé-Luke, E.R., R. Gray, A.
Hastings and G. Tasie (eds) (1978), Christianity in Independent
Africa, London: Rex Collins, pp. 304-15.
Department, 1964, Information
Department of the Government of Northern Rhodesia (1964),
‘Official Description of the Development of the Lumpa
Church, etc.’, East Africa and Rhodesia, 40 (2080), 20
August 1964: 940-1.
Douglas, M. (1963), ‘Techniques of
sorcery control in Central Africa’, in: Middleton, J. and
E.H. Winter (eds) (1963), Witchcraft and Sorcery in East Africa,
London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, pp. 123-41.
Douglas, M. (1964b), ‘Against
witchcraft’, New Society, 4.
Eliade, M. ( 1949), Le Mythe de
I’éternel retour, Paris: Gallimard.
Emanuel, P.A. ( 1964), ‘De zwarte
Hemel’, Kroniek van Afrika, 4: 196-9.
Fernandez, J.W. (1964b), ‘The
Lumpa uprising: Why?’, Africa Report, 9:30-2.
Franklin, H. (1964),
‘Zambia’s holy war’, Spectator (London), 213, 7
August 1964: 173.
Gertzel, G. (ed.) (n.d.), The Political
Process in Zambia. Documents and Readings, Part 1: The
Socio-Economic Background, University of Zambia (c. 1972).
Geschiere, P.L. (1978),
‘Stamgemeenschappen onder Staatsgezag’, PhD thesis,
Free University, Amsterdam. [ vervang door Engelse versie ]
Gluckman, M. (1971), ‘Tribalism,
ruralism and urbanism in South and Central Africa’, in:
Turner, V.W. (ed.) (1971), Profiles of Change (Colonialism in
Africa 1870-1960, part 111, general editors L. Gann and P.
Duignan), Cambridge University Press, pp. 127-66.
Greschat, H.J. (1965), ‘
"Witchcraft" und kirchlicher Separatismus in
Zentral-Afrika’, in: Benz, E. (ed.) (1965), Messianische
Kirchen, Sekten und Bewegungen im Heutigen Afrika, Leiden: Brill,
pp. 89-104.
Greschat, H.J. (1968), ‘Legend?
fraud? reality? Alice Lenshina’s prophetic experience: notes
from some sources’, Africana Marburgensia, 1:8-13.
Gulliver, P.H. (1972),
‘Bibliography of the principal writings of Audrey
Richards’, in: La Fontaine, J.S. (ed.) (1972), The
Interpretation of Ritual, London: Tavistock, pp. 285-9.
Hall, R. ( 1968), Zambia, London: Pall
Mall Press.
Henderson, I. (1970a), ‘The
origins of nationalism in East and Central Africa: the Zambian
case’, Journal of African History, 11:591 -603.
Heward, C. (1964), ‘The rise of
Alice Lenshina’, New Society, 4, 98, 13 August 1964: 6-8.
Hodges, T. (1976), Jehovah’s
Witnesses in Central Africa, London Minority Rights Group.
Hooker, J .R. (1965), ‘Witnesses
and Watchtower in the Rhodesias and Nyasaland’, Journal of
African History, 6:91-106.
Jules-Rosette, B. (1977),
‘Grass-roots ecumenism’, African Social Research,
23:185-216.
Krishnamurty, B.S. (1972), Chachacha,
Lusaka: Oxford University Press and Neczam.
Kuper, A. (1979), ‘The magician
and the missionary’, in: Van den Berghe, P. (ed.) (1979),
The Liberal Dilemma in South Africa, London: Croom Helm, pp.
77-96.
Lanternari, V. (1965-6),
‘Syncrétismes, messianismes, néo-traditionalismes:
Postface é une étude des mouvements religieux de l’Afrique
noire’, Archives de Sociologie des Religions, 19: 99-116,
and (II: ‘La situation post-coloniale’) 20: 101-110.
Legum, C. (1966), Zambia: Independence
and Beyond. London: Nelson.
Lehmann, D. (1961), ‘Alice
Lenshina Mulenga and the Lumpa Church ‘, in: Taylor, J.V.
and D.A. Lehmann (1961), Christians of the Copperbelt, London:
SCM Press, pp. 248-68.
Lehmann, D. (1963), ‘Women in the
independent African churches’, in: Hayward, V.E.W. (ed.)
(1963),African Independent Church Movements, London: Edinburgh
House Press, pp. 65-9.
Linden, J. and I. Linden (1971),
‘John Chilembwe and the New Jerusalem’, Journal of
African History, 12: 629-51.
Long, N. (1968), Social Change and the
Individual, Manchester University Press for Institute for Social
Research.
Macpherson, F. (1958), ‘Notes on
the beginning of the movement’, Occasional Papers (London,
International Missionary Council), 1: 2-5.
Macpherson, F. (1974), Kenneth Kaunda
of Zambia, Lusaka: Oxford University Press.
Mamdani, M. (1976), Politics and Class
Formation in Uganda, London: Heinemann.
Martin, M.L. (1964), ‘The conflict
between the Lumpa church and the government of Zambia (Northern
Rhodesia)’, Ministry (Marija),5 :46-8.
Meebelo, H.S. (1971), Reaction to
Colonialism, Manchester University Press for Institute for
African Studies.
Miliband, R. (1969), The State in
Capitalist Society, London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.
Molteno, R. (1974), ‘Cleavage and
conflict in Zambian politics: a study in sectionalism,’ in:
Tordoff, W. (ed.) (1974), Politics in Zambia, Manchester
University Press, pp. 62-106.
Mulford, D.C. (1967), Zambia: The
Politics of Independence 1957-1964, Oxford University Press.
Muntemba, M.S. (1972b), ‘Zambia
Nzila Sect and Christian Churches in the Livingstone Area’,
paper read at Conference on the History of Central African
Religious Systems, University of Zambia/ University of California
Los Angeles, Lusaka.
Mwanakatwe, J.M. (1968), The Growth of
Education in Zambia since Independence, Lusaka: Oxford University
Press.
Ofori, P.E. (1977), Christianity in
Tropical Africa: a Selective Annotated Bibliography, Nendeln: KTO
Press.
Oger, L. (1960), ‘Lumpa Church:
the Lenshina Movement in Northern Rhodesia’, (n.p.)
(Serenje), MS in University of Zambia Library, Lusaka.
Oosthuizen, G.C. (1968),
Post-Christianity in Africa, London: Hurst.
Peel, J.D.Y. (1973), ‘The
religious transformation in Africa in a Weberian
perspective’, in CNRS/CISR, The Contemporary Metamorphosis
of Religion?, Lille, pp. 337-52.
Pettman, J. (1974), Zambia: Security
and Conflict, Lewes: Julien Friedmann .
Phiri, A. (1975), ‘No salute, No
school’, Target, 147:4,10.
Poulantzas, N. (1974), Les Classes
sociales dans le capitalisme aujourd’hui, Paris: Seuil.
Shepperson, G. and T. Price
(1958),Independent African, Edinburgh University Press.
Ranger, T.O. (1968a), ‘Connexions
between "primary resistance movements" and modern mass
nationalism in East and Central Africa’, Journal of African
History, 9: 437-53, 631-41.
Ranger, T.O. (1972a),
‘Mcape’, paper read at Conference on the History of
Central African Religious Systems, University of Zambia/
University of California Los Angeles, Lusaka.
Ranger, T.O. (1975), ‘The Mwana
Lesa movement of 1925 ‘, in: Ranger, T.O. and J. Weller
(eds) (1975), Themes in the Christian History of Central Africa,
London: Heinemann, pp. 45-75.
Report (1965), Report of the commission
of inquiry into the former Lumpa church, Lusaka: Government
Printer.
Rey, P.-P. (1973), Les Alliances de
classes, Paris: Maspero.
Rey, P.-P. (ed.) (1976), Capitalisme
négrier, Paris: Maspero.
Roberts, A. (1964),’The Lumpa
tragedy’, Peace News, no. 1471,4 September.
Roberts, A. (1972), The Lumpa church of
Alice Lenshina, Lusaka: Oxford University Press; reprint of:
Roberts, A. (1970b), ‘The Lumpa Church of Alice
Lenshina’, in: Rotberg, R.I. and A. Mazrui (eds), Protest
and Power in Black Africa, New York: Oxford University Press, pp.
513-68.
Roberts, A. (1970b), ‘The Lumpa
Church of Alice Lenshina’, in: Rotberg, R.I. and A. Mazrui
(eds), Protest and Power in Black Africa, New York: Oxford
University Press, pp. 513-68.
Roberts, A. (1973), A history of the
Bemba, London: Longman
Rotberg, R.I. (1961), ‘The
Lenshina movement of Northern Rhodesia’, Rhodes-Livingstone
Journal, 29: 63-78.
Rotberg, R.I. (1965), Christian
Missionaries and the Creation of Northern Rhodesia, 1880-1924,
Princeton University Press.
Rotberg, R.I. (1967), The Rise of
Nationalism in Central Africa, Harvard University Press.
Saul, J .S. (1974), ‘African
peasants and revolution’, Review of African Political
Economy, I :41-68.
Shepperson, G. (1970), ‘The
comparative study of millennarian movements’, in: Thrupp,
S.L. (ed.) (1970), Millennial Dreams in Action, New York:
Schocken, pp. 44-52.
Shivji, I.G. (1976), Class Struggles in
Tanzania, London: Heinemann.
Short, R. (1973),African Sunset,
London: Johnson Publications Ltd.
Short, R. (1978), Personal
communication, I April 1978.
Sklar, R. (1974), ‘Zambia’s
response to the Rhodesian unilateral declaration of
independence’, in: Tordoff, W. (ed.) (1974), Politics in
Zambia, Manchester University Press, pp. 320-62.
Stone, W.V. (1958), ‘The
"Alice Movement" in 1958’, Occasional Papers,
London: International Missionary Council, l :5-10.
Tordoff, W. (ed.) (1974), Politics in
Zambia, Manchester University Press .
Turner, V.W. (1966), ‘Colour
classification in Ndembu ritual’, in: Banton, M. (ed.)
(1966), Anthropological Approaches to the Study of Religion,
London: Tavistock, ASA Monograph no. 3, pp. 47-84.
Van Binsbergen, W.M.J . (1972b),
‘Possession and Mediumship in Zambia: Towards a Comparative
Approach’, paper read at Conference on the History of
Central African Religious Systems, University of
Zambia/University of California Los Angeles, Lusaka; this volume,
chapter 2.
Van Binsbergen, W.M.J. (1975a),
‘Ethnicity as a Dependent Variable: The "Nkoya"
Ethnic Identity and Inter-Ethnic Relations in Zambia’, paper
read at 34th Annual Meeting, Society for Applied Anthropology,
Amsterdam.
Van Binsbergen, W.M.J. (1975b),
‘Labour Migration and the Generation Conflict: An Essay on
Social Change in Central Western Zambia’, paper read at 34th
Annual Meeting, Society for Applied Anthropology, Amsterdam.
Van Binsbergen, W.M.J . (1976a),
‘The dynamics of religious change in western Zambia’,
Ufahamu, 6: 69-87.
Van Binsbergen, W.M.J. (1976b),
‘Ritual, class and urban-rural relations’, Cultures et
développement, 8: 195-218; this volume, chapter 6.
Van Binsbergen W.M.J . (1976c),
‘Religious innovation and political conflict in
Zambia’, in Van Binsbergen and Buijtenhuijs (1976a): 101-35;
this volume, chapter 8.
Van Binsbergen, W.M.J . (1977a),
‘Regional and non-regional cults of affliction in western
Zambia’, in Werbner (1977a):141-75; this volume, chapter 5.
Van Binsbergen, W.M.J . (1977c),
‘Law in the context of Nkoya society’, in: Roberts,
S.A. (ed.) (1977), Law and the Family in Africa, The Hague/Paris:
Mouton for Afrika-Studiecentrum, pp. 39-68.
Van Binsbergen, W.M.J. (1978),
‘Class Formation and the Penetration of Capitalism in a
Zambian Rural District’, paper read at Seminar on Social
Stratification and Class Formation in Africa,
Afrika-Studiecentrum, Leiden.
Van Binsbergen, W.M.J. (1979b),
‘Explorations in the sociology and history of territorial
cults in Zambia’, in Schoffeleers (1979b): 47-88
Van Binsbergen, W.M.J . (1979c)
‘The infancy of Edward Shelonga: an extended case from the
Zambian Nkoya’, in: Van der Geest, J.D.M. and K.W. van der
Veen (eds) (1979), In Search of Health, University of Amsterdam,
pp. 19-90.
Van Binsbergen, W.M.J. (forthcoming
(a)), Ritual, Class and Urban-Rural Relations.
Vansina, J . (1966), Kingdoms of the
Savanna, Madison: Wisconsin University Press
Weber, M. (1969), The Theory of Social
end Economic Organization, Glencoe: Free Press.
Weber, M. (1976), The Protestant Ethic
and the Spirit of Capitalism, London: Allen & Unwin, 2nd ed.
Welbourn, F.B. (1964), ‘Lumpa and
Zambia’, Venture (London),16, 9-10 September 1964: 41.
Werbner, R.P. (1969),
‘Constitutional ambiguities and the British administration
of royal careers among the Bemba of Zambia’, in: Nader, L.
(ed.) (1969), Law in Culture and Society, Chicago: Aldine, pp.
245-72.
Werbner, R. P. (ed.) (1977a), Regional
Cults, London: Academic Press, ASA Monograph no. 16.
Willis, R.G. (1970), ‘Instant
millennium: The sociology of African witch-cleansing cults’,
in: Douglas, M. (ed.) (1970a), Witchcraft Confessions and
Accusations, London: Tavistock, ASA Monograph no. 9, pp. 129-39.
Wilson, B.R. (1964), ‘Peril in
martyrdom’, Observer, 16 August 1964.
Wilson, B.R. (1975), Magic and the
Millennium, Frogmore: Paladin/ Granada Publishing (reprint of
1973 edition).
All files cited below are in the Zambia
National Archives, Lusaka. For a general description of the
organization of these archives, and an explanation of file
numbers, see Graham and Halwindi (1970).
KDD 1/2/1
Mwepya Witchdoctor (Kasempa District)
KDD 1/4/1
Kasempa Province Correspondence: Watchtower Movement
KDE 8/1/18
Mankoya District Annual Report 1926
KSX 1/1/1
Mankoya District Correspondence 1931-5
SEC/NAT/393
Watchtower 1931 -2
SEC/NAT/66A
Barotse Annual Report 1935,1936 (includes Mankoya Annual Report
1935,1936)
ZA 1/9/62/1/6
Watchtower from 4 September 1934
ZA 1/9/181/(3)
Witchcraft
ZA 1/10/file no. 62 Watchtower
(includes: ‘Quarterly Report for the Period Ending 30th
September 1926, Confidential Annexure, Kalabo’)
ZA 1/10/vol 3 no. 4 Watchtower Movement
ZA 1/15/M/1
Deportation of Watchtower Natives
ZA 1/15/M/2
Mchape
ZA 7/1/16/3
Barotse Annual Report 1933 (includes Mankoya District Annual
Report 1933)
ZA 7/1/17/5 Barotse Annual Report 1934 (includes Mankoya District Annual Report 1934)
homepage | index
page Lumpa | Part
I
| Part II | Part
III
[1]
Calmettes (1978)
[2]
In its emphasis on political, economic and class issues
Calmettes’s latest work also represents a remarkable step
for ward as compared to his earlier Lumpa pieces (1970, 1972).
[3]
Van Binsbergen (I 976c): 109; cf. p. 275 above.
[4]
Calmettes (1978):193.
[5]
Rey (1973,1976).
[6]
Calmettes (1978):195.
[7]
Report (1965):9;cf. Roberts (1972):39.
[8]
Roberts (1972):39.
[9]
Short (1973) :267.
[10]
Calmettes ( I 978) :193; cf. Oger ( I 960): 17.
[11]
Calmettes (1978):172.
[12]
Van Binsbergen ( I 976c): 121; cf. p. 292 above.
[13]
Roberts ( I 972) : 3; cf. Van Binsbergen (1977a: 161, this
volume, p. 202 ).
[14]
Werbner (1977a).
[15]
‘Lumpa Church is an organisation in which to worship God and
his son Jesus Christ. It is not an organisation to make unruly
behaviour with the laws of the Country’, Laws of the Lumpa
Church, Lehmann (1961):253; my italics.
[16]
Cf. Poulantzas (1974).
[17]
Calmettes (1978):197;it would be interesting to know what
specific pre-colonial wars or primary resistance movements
Calmettes is referring to here.
[18]
Lehmann (1961)
[19]
Calmettes (1978):196
[20]
Calmettes (1978):198
[21]
Roberts (1973)
[22]
Richards ( I 939,1969); Brelsford ( I 942,1944); Werbner (1969)
[23]
Cross (1978):307
[24]
Calmettes (1978):109f
[25]
Van Binsbergen (1976c):126;cf p 297 above
[26]
Calmettes (1978):145f
[27]
Mamdani (1976); Shivji (1976); Alavi (1972); Saul (1974);
Geschiere (1978); Buijtenhuijs and Geschiere (1978)
[28]
Cf Miliband (1969) and especially Poulantzas (1974)
[29]
Short (1973) :267
[30]
Short (1973) :267
homepage | index
page Lumpa | Part
I
| Part II | Part
III
page last modified: 2000-05-17 16:17:32