Lably
Skip to content

Mfecane

1815–1840 period of civil conflict in southern Africa

  • 17 min read
  • 7 chapters
Mfecane
Unknown author · Public domain

Explore on Lably

ToursExplore Lably’s 3D tours

Traditional estimates for the death toll range from 1 million to 2 million; however, these numbers are controversial, and some recent scholars revise the mortality figure significantly downwards and attribute the root causes to complex political, economic, and environmental developments. The Mfecane is significant in that it saw the formation of new states, institutions, and ethnic identities in southeastern Africa.

The Mfecane's historiography itself is also historically significant, with different versions having been employed to serve a range of political purposes since its inception as a historical concept. The label first emerged in the 1830s and blamed the disruption on the actions of King Shaka, who was alleged to have waged near-genocidal wars that depopulated the land and sparked a chain reaction of violence as fleeing groups sought to conquer new lands. Since the latter half of the 20th century, this interpretation has fallen out of favour among scholars due to a lack of historical evidence.

Causes

The Mfecane resulted from the complex interplay of pre-existing trends of political centralisation with the effects of international trade, environmental instability, and European colonisation. State formation and expansion had already been intensifying in Southeastern Africa as of at least the late 1700s, but these processes were greatly accelerated after the international ivory trade opened. The trade allowed leaders to amass unprecedented amounts of wealth, which they could then use to cultivate greater political power. Wealth and power became mutually reinforcing, as wealth enabled leaders to develop state instruments of control and expropriation, which they used to extract further wealth through taxation and military action. The consequence of this cycle was an increasing political and wealth disparity within and between polities, particularly in concern to productive land and food stores.

Political centralisation became problematic in the early 19th century when deep drought (aggravated by the atmospheric effects of volcanic eruptions in 1809 and 1815) struck Southeastern Africa. Whereas previous droughts had not caused serious famine, the unequal distribution of land and food stores lessened the ability of average people to meet their needs. Though far less susceptible to famine, leaders faced threats to their power as (taxable) agricultural production dropped and ivory became scarcer due to overhunting. Faced with the challenges of fighting famine and maintaining wealth flows, leaders were incentivised to turn to raiding and conquest. Conquest protected conquering peoples against famine by providing immediate access to the conquered peoples' livestock and grain stores and, in the long term, by securing arable land and the people (particularly women) to farm it at greater intensities than before. Here another self-reinforcing cycle set in as famine and warfare promoted insecurity and militarism, which promoted political centralisation and more warfare as strong leaders expanded their authority by offering a desperately-needed escape from famine to loyal followers.

A second stage of turmoil from the 1820s to the 1830s was driven in large part by slave and cattle raiding by Griqua, Basters, and other Khoekhoe-European groups armed and mounted by European settlers, who benefitted from trading their plunder. The increasing economic pull of the international slave trade also incentivised greater warfare and disruption between polities close to international ports such as Delagoa Bay.

Sign in to keep reading

6 more chapters are free with a Lably account.

More in Modern