Author
Abstract
For the past 37 years, David Hedges’ cattle trade theory has dominated the historical analysis of state formation in southern Africa during the 19th century. This theory centres on a cattle trade that came to replace the ivory trade from the late 18th century onwards, and was based on the demand for fresh meat by whalers. In the view of Hedges, the increased cattle trade placed considerable pressure on societies to replenish herds, given the socially and politically important role that cattle played in southern African societies. And since this change coincided with a severe and prolonged drought, it necessitated the restocking of cattle herds through the systematised military raiding of cattle, which, in turn, required a centralised government. In reviewing the evidence for shifts in the patterns of trade at this time, during which whalers called at Delagoa Bay to hunt, discrepancies in Hedges’ analysis came to light.The Portuguese ivory trade at Delagoa Bay started in 1545, when a sporadic trade based on the monsoon seasons laid the foundation for the export of ivory that would boom in the latter half of the 18th century. This trade has been a key element in the dominant explanations offered for accelerated processes of political centralisation in northern Kwazulu-Natal, which culminated in the rise of the Zulu kingdom. David Hedges developed the most influential and enduring of these arguments in his doctoral dissertation in 1978. He argued that it was a sharp contraction of the ivory trade in the last two decades of the 19th century that was a major cause of conflict and state formation. This article reviews the evidence and arguments presented by Hedges and suggests that while his work has provided an important contribution to the debate, elements of his argument need substantial revision.
Suggested Citation
Linell Chewins, 2016.
"The Relationship between Trade in Southern Mozambique and State Formation: Reassessing Hedges on Cattle, Ivory and Brass,"
Journal of Southern African Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 42(4), pages 725-741, July.
Handle:
RePEc:taf:cjssxx:v:42:y:2016:i:4:p:725-741
DOI: 10.1080/03057070.2016.1200869
Download full text from publisher
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:cjssxx:v:42:y:2016:i:4:p:725-741. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/cjss .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.