Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T16:52:34.587Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Symbolic dimensions of the Southern Bantu homestead1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 December 2011

Adam Kuper
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Some years ago one of the very few structuralist anthropologists to contribute to Southern African studies complained that ‘Aucune étude n'a encore été consacrée à l'organisation spatiale et aux relations qu'elle implique chez les Bantu du Sud-Est’ (Roumeguère- Eberhardt 1963: 77). This was not strictly accurate. For example, Holleman (1940) had provided an important analysis of the Zulu homestead, borrowing something of the methods and concerns of the Leiden school's studies in Indonesia; and one cannot ignore Walton's (1956) wide-ranging if unsystematic treatment of the Southern African village. Yet the topic has been largely neglected despite the highly-ordered nature of the Southern Bantu homestead and the legal and symbolic significance of the traditional homestead plan.

Résumé

La ferme Bantou méridionale et la répartition symbolique de son espace

L'exploitation rurale Nguni se composait traditionnellement d'un cercle ou d'un demi-cercle de cases en forme de ruche ou coniques disposées autour d'une enceinte circulaire pour le bétail. Ces espaces circulaires étaient conçus de manière à étré répartis selon deux plans principaux: l'un diamétral (divisé en est/ouest et droite/gauche) et l'autre concentrique (opposant extérieur/intérieur ou centre/côtés). Le changement d'importance attribué à ces differentes dimensions de l'espace, de légères variations dans leur définition et l'éventail parfois difficulement prévisible des associations au système social ne sauraient cependant dissimuler l'identité profonde des structures Nguni. Il est peut-être plus surprenant de constater que la même structure fondamentale se retrouve dans toute la zone Bantou méridionale, en dêpit de l'opposition qui est généralement soulignée entre la dispersion des fermes Nguni et la concentration des emplacements Sotho-Tswana. Les exploitations Sotho-Tswana, les quartiers et même les villes révélent la présence du même plan d'ensemble.

Le code spatial qui régit la distribution des implantations est lié à d'autres codes symboliques, conformément à des structures conceptuelles de base sur lasquelles repose toute une série de codes symboliques propres à ces sociétés. Ceci est illustré ici par l'analyse de deux modèles Swazi de l'organisation spatiale du ferme, des symboles de lieux rattachés aux défunts et aux ancetres, ainsi que de l'emmagasinage, la préparation et la consommation des céréales.

Type
Research Article
Information
Africa , Volume 50 , Issue 1 , January 1980 , pp. 8 - 23
Copyright
Copyright © International African Institute 1980

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Beemer, H. 1939. ‘Notes on the diet of the Swazi in the Protectorate,’ Bantu Studies 13: 199–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beidelman, T. O. 1966. ‘Swazi royal ritual,’ Africa 36: 373–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berglund, A. I. 1975. Zulu Thought-Patterns and Symbolism. London: Hurst.Google Scholar
Bodenstein, W. and Raum, O. F. 1960. ‘A present-day Zulu philosopher,’ Africa 30: 166–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bryant, A. T. 1949. The Zulu People. Pietermaritzburg: Shooter and Shuter.Google Scholar
Cook, P. A. W. 1931. Social Organization and Ceremonial Institutions of the Bomvana. Cape Town: Juta and Co.Google Scholar
de Jager, E. 1964. Settlement Types of the Nguni and Sotho Tribes. Fort Hare Papers.Google Scholar
Harries, C. L. 1929. The Laws and Customs of the Bapedi. Johannesburg: Honors.Google Scholar
Hartland, E. S. 1906. ‘Travel notes in South Africa,’ Folk-lore 17, 412–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holleman, J. F. 1940. ‘Die twee-eenheidsbeginsel in die sosiale en politieke samenlewing van die Zulu,’ Bantu Studies 14: 31–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holleman, J. F. 1952. Shona Customary Law. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hughes, A. J. B. 1972. Land Tenure, Land Rights and Land Communities on Swazi Nation Land in Swaziland. Durban: Institute for Social Research, University of Natal.Google Scholar
Hunter, M. 1932. ‘Results ofculture contact on the Pondo and Xosa family,’ South African Journal of Science 29: 681–5.Google Scholar
Hunter, M. 1936. Reaction to Conquest. London: Oxford University Press for IAI.Google Scholar
Jenkinson, T. 1882. Amazulu. London: W. H. Allen.Google Scholar
Jones, H. M. 1968. Report of the 1966 Swazi Population Census. Mbabane: Govt. of Swaziland.Google Scholar
Jones, S. M. 1963. A Study of Swazi Nutrition. Durban: Institute of Social Research, University of Natal.Google Scholar
Kerr, A. J. 1961. The Native Law of Succession in South Africa. London: Butterworth.Google Scholar
Kuper, A. J. 1975. ‘The social structure of the Sotho-speaking peoples of Southern Africa,’ Africa 45: 67–81; 139-49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuper, A. J. 1978. ‘Rank and preferential marriage: the Swazi,’ Man 13 (4) 567–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuper, H. 1947. An African Aristocracy. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kuper, H. 1952. The Swazi. (Ethnographic Survey of Africa.) London: International African Institute.Google Scholar
Kuper, H. 1963. The Swazi: A South African Kingdom. New York: Holt, Rinehart.Google Scholar
Kuper, H. 1972. ‘The language of sites in the politics of space,’ American Anthropologist 74 (3): 411–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lévi-Strauss, C. 1956. ‘Les organisations dualistes, existent-elles?’ Bijdragen tot de Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde 112: 99–128. Trans, and reprinted in Structural Anthropology (New York: Basic Books, 1963).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lévi-Strauss, C. [1968] 1978. The origin of Table Manners. London: Jonathan Cape.Google Scholar
Maggs, T. N. O'C. 1976. Iron Age Communities of the Southern Highveld. Pietermaritzburg: The Natal Museum.Google Scholar
Marwick, B. A. 1940. The Swazi. London: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mayr, Fr. 1906. ‘The Zulu Kafirs of Natal,’ Anthropos 1: 453–71.Google Scholar
Mönnig, H. O. 1967. The Pedi. Pretoria: Schaik.Google Scholar
Reader, D. H. 1966. Zulu Tribe in Transition. Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
Roumeguère-Eberhardt, J. 1963. Pensee et societe africaines. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Schapera, I. 1943. Native Land Tenure in the Bechuanaland Protectorate. Alice: The Lovedale Press.Google Scholar
Shaw, E. M. and Warmelo, N. J. van. 1972. The Material Culture of the Cape Nguni. Part I: Settlement Annals of the South African Museum 58 (1).Google Scholar
Sheddick, V. 1954. Land Tenure in Bastuoland. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
Soga, J. H. n.d. [1931?]. The Ama-Xosa: Life and Customs. London: Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Stayt, H. 1931. The Bavenda, London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Walton, J. 1956. African Village. Pretoria: Schaik.Google Scholar
Willoughby, W. C. 1928. The Soul of the Bantu. New York: Doubleday, Doran.Google Scholar
Ziervogel, D. 1957. Szvazi Texts. Pretoria: Schaik.Google Scholar