BaKalanga: Any links with the semitic world?

WE promised to interrogate the claim that the Mwali religion of the BaKalanga seems to have links with that of the Jews in Israel. The basis of the observation was the idea of a High God, Mwali who is approached from a mountain cave. Secondly, the anointed emissaries of Mwali are referred to as hosana/wosana a term akin to the Biblical hosanna.

Oral traditions in Matabeleland seem unanimous in asserting that the Mwali religion came from VhuVenda across the Vhembe (Limpopo) River. We gave names of places where the shrines were established before finally getting to Njelele within the Matobo Hills. Oral traditions elsewhere in Zimbabwe do make claims of origin of Mwali in Great Zimbabwe before relocating to Matonjeni or Mambeadziva.

The origins in VhuVenda that are asserted in Matabeleland do not necessarily run counter to those in the northern part of the country. Both trace earlier Mwali operations to Great Zimbabwe. Whereas the Matabeleland traditions claim an initial relocation to VhuVenda the other claim asserts that relocation from Great Zimbabwe was direct to Njelele in the Matobo (Matombobgwe) Hills.

We shall, as we interrogate the Semitic link, try to have a closer look at the Great Zimbabwe edifice itself only in so far as it was said to be a religious centre. The name Mwali or Muali, so goes the claim, is said to be derived from a pre-Christian and pre-Islam name for the idea of a High God in the Middle East. The names vary from Il, El, Ilu or even Allah. Emmanuel Ndzimu-Unami in his book, "The ReBirth of BuKalanga: 2012" draws this parallel. He clearly draws from the writings of Professor Gayre of Gayre. That there is this similarity we cannot run away from.

Nor can we run away from the fact that the names from which Mwali is said to be drawn have origins in the Semitic world.

We need to identify other attributes of Mwali that the BaKalanga have retained, thus making their religion unique. Njelele is associated with strict observance of the seventh day. In arguing that there was no cosmic basis for such an observance I said this could not be justified in the absence of a cosmic underpinning. It turns out that within Judaism there is the observance of the first and seventh days in the lunar month.

Even to this day all the agriculturalists under the influence of Njelele observe the Wednesday - chisi as it is called in Mashonaland.

The first day of the new moon was also important and was accompanied by spiritual cleansing. The phases of the moon were strictly observed so that the new moon would be picked up and the king duly notified to prepare, ritually, for the resumption of daily work following the rest day when the moon did not appear in the sky. Thus both days are an integral part and observance of the Njelele/Mwali religion.

Let us now consider the family that is associated with Mwali rituals. In the Jewish religion there is a family that is associated with priestly functions. So it is with Mwali. We observed that in virtually all Njelele-related shrines the officials seem to be of Venda extraction: be they Dube, Ndlovu or Ncube. In fact, it has been said the family that is qualified (chosen?) to undertake priestly functions at Njelele is that of BaLubimbi ba Mbedzi.

The national character of Mwali seems distinct and different from practices among the other Bantu groups. The entire nation seems to look upon Mwali and from all parts of the region people send supplicants to ask for rain and is approached for other issues. This contrasts with the ancestral spirits which are family based and do not perform a nation-wide duty. What we observe is centralised control and influence, a trait not absent among the Semitic Jews in Israel. However this does not preclude the presence, within Kalanga society, of ancestral spirits with limited geographical spheres of operation.

Once you have a centralising religion like Mwali worship among the BaKalanga one would expect a similar organisational structure to be reflected at both social and political levels. Indeed, this was the case with the BaKalanga. Their society became stratified or specialised. There merged the social and political elite possessing both political power and wealth who lived on mountain tops while the poor lower classes lived in lower places. Socio-economic and political differentiation was reflected in the settlement pattern.

Bohhe bagele dombo
BoNthoyiwa bagele dombo
BoTjibumba bagele dombo
Zwilanda zwigele pasi Bambanalo

This piece of oral tradition obtained from Khesari Sibanda (in 2012) from Dombodema Resettlement captures the essence of social stratification on the basis of political power and wealth. The kings or rulers (bohhe) lived on the mountain (dombo). His own ancestors (Nthoyiwa and Tjilumba) also belonged to the elite and lived on mountain top.

The lower classes or servants (zwilanda) lived lower down on the hill called Bambanalo. Interestingly, the oral tradition relates to Mapungubwe Hill at the confluence of the Limpopo and Shashe rivers. Apparently, historical sources do make mention of a hill nearby that is lower than Mapungubwe; Bambandyanalo. Equally interesting is the fact that an oral tradition can live this long, taking into account that Mapungubwe was built even earlier than Great Zimbabwe at the start of the second millennium. Sibanda's ancestors, so it would seem, were associated with Mapungubwe.

We could also mention the Ngoma Lungundu which, it is claimed, is the equivalent of the Ark of the Covenant. It is the BaVenda that are associated with the powerful instrument that was said to be the Voice of God. Let us note that when we say BaVenda we are talking about a people who are part of generic BaKalanga. We mention this spiritual device because of its adaptation to suit the requirements of African design.

Unlike the rectangular Ark of the Covenant, the Ngoma Lungundu is circular in design, more akin to the African drums and the technology of manufacture that is applied is no different. For us what is important here is not the mere fact that the BaKalanga have a religious/ritual device that is akin to that found in the Semitic world but that there was the very necessary adaptation to bring it in line with African cosmology.

Let us look at Great Zimbabwe as the alleged earlier abode of Mwali. Black Africans, which we presume the BaKalanga are an integral part of, have unique ways of expressing their African spirituality. As far as we are aware, African spirituality has never required colossal architectural structures to express itself as is the case with religions such as Islam and Christianity that make use of building structures. Did Mwali make use of the colossal structures at Great Zimbabwe, either the Acropolis or the Great Enclosure? The same Mwali elsewhere does not seem to require cultural structures in the form of monumental buildings. Certainly, at Njelele and related shrines there are no such structures.

In terms of architectural design Great Zimbabwe is in line with African design dictates-circular. However, we can't help noticing the fact that the stone bricks are out of sync. It may appear a very minor consideration to some people but this is an important observation given the fact that the rectangular shape was not part of African design. How did the BaKalanga migrate from the circular design to embrace rectangles unless of course if they were imbued with Semitic influences which at the time were making use of the right angle in construction.

The other observation that we wish to bring out is the fact that at Great Zimbabwe it is not categorically clear where the ruler lived. We do know that among the BaKalanga the rulers lived on mountain tops. On the basis of that idea and practice the king would have lived on the Hill Complex (Acropolis). And yet down below there is the more imposing and more compelling Great Enclosure which competes as the abode of a king (or queen?). Why should there be this apparent uncertainty at Great Zimbabwe?

In the subsequent Zimbabwe type settlements there is clarity with regard to where the king lived – high up on the mountain top in accordance with Khesari Sibanda's oral tradition. Besides, Great Zimbabwe has the colossal conical tower within the Great Enclosure and yet the other similar Zimbabwe type structures like Khami and Manyanga do not have conical towers. Further, Great Zimbabwe yielded soapstone birds which have so far not been yielded by other similar stone settlements. Why?

We cannot help observing that Great Zimbabwe seems unique in comparison to other similar settlements, why? Could it be that it is a mediated architectural edifice, a hybridised monument reflecting more than one architectural tradition form more than one culture? If we take it that the BaKalanga generically embrace the BaLemba with Semitic links all falls into place: there are both Semitic and African influences within the same structures.

We are certainly not done with Great Zimbabwe. We shall return to the settlement to give it yet another look this time from a different angle. Here we were merely interested in the spiritual angle of the edifice from the point of view of the claim that the BaKalanga have a Semitic dimension to them.