Azaghvana E-Book 2003 - Flipbook - Page 199
and we do not know the literal meaning of khaɓaka, but my Tatsa friends pointed out that the
word referred to the joining point between them. This could perhaps only be a reference to
their shared origin as full-brothers, despite them now being located in different lineage wards.
In all our examples so far, the term ksage appears to be the larger unit of patrilineal descent,
of which kambarte is the new localised sub-unit. It seems that the splitting of local lineages
along maternal lines was likely to happen more often when larger clan groups continued to
expand. Still, in all cases it led to new local start-up lineages as a result of migration or
expansion within Dghweɗe as a whole. It seems therefore that kambarte implied the context
of splitting via kuɗige, while ksage did not. Such a preliminary conclusion appears to
reconcile the contradiction of how ksage and kambarte was explained by Zakariya Kwire in
the above provisional list. There, ksage was explained to be the classifying term for patrilineal
descent together with smaller lineage groups, while kambarte was seen to be the reference to
apical ancestor Thakara as their beginning in the locality.
We would like to suggest that ksage perhaps refers to genealogical descent across several
lineage groups of the same local origin which has become mythological or legendary, which
in the case of Dghweɗe as an apical ancestor embraces both late pre-colonial northern
Dghweɗe and southern Dghweɗe as one ethnic group area. Now, even Dghweɗe-Mbra could
become kambarte with Mbra or Ngra as their shared apical ancestor in Tur. Ksage in that
sense is presumably more a classifying term, while kambarte is much less so and needs to be
localised. Our oral historical examples of kambarte Vaghagaya and kambarte Thakara
(referred to as kambarte Ghwa'a from a Korana Basa perspective) illustrate this. In this sense,
ksage and kambarte cannot be used synonymously to designate clans and lineages, but the
former is more an ancestor-centred classification, and the latter a reference to a specific local
group where ego-centred descent is the base for passing on ritual entitlements.
We have seen in the previous chapter that outsiders could also become founders and that it
was not one line of patrilocal descent which brought about such a ritual entitlement, but that
increase in number in terms of lineage expansion could override the ritual seniority of smaller
clan or lineage groups. In the context of this, specialist lineages with their clan medicines
accompanied the Dghweɗe on their ritual journey to a fully integrated ethnic group, and we
will see below how ritual representatives of the various clan or lineage sections have a place
in their communal ceremonies of local group formation.
Exogamous clans and lineages according to Mathews (1934)
We remember that Mathews (ibid) arranges the Dghweɗe into four sub-groups, of which two
are descended from 'Dofede' (Dghweɗe), while the 'Hembe' and the 'Gudile' (Gudule) are not,
but all four are often referred to as 'Johode'. We explained that 'Johode' was often a reference
to Ghwa'a, and that Mathews wrongly identified 'Moghzo' (Mughuze) as someone who
perhaps also came from, or at least once lived in, 'Johode'. He then writes that:
Each hamlet is an exogamous clan, except for marriage with strangers, and for the Gudile
[Gudule] people, who are poor and relatively few and weak. They say that they discarded
exogamy because they had stronger neighbours of whom they were frightened.
Next he lists these four groups:
(1) Wa'a (Johode), Washile (Kunde) and Tadadigile (Tokoshe)
(2) Korana Basa, Korana Kwandama, Khudimsa, Kolika, Haraza, Geltaure
(3) Hembe
(4) Gudile
He then says that:
All places named in (1) to (4) are exogamous except Gudile and in addition Haraza, Kudimsa and
the two Koranas do not marry each other being sons of a common father, Vragei.
197
