Azaghvana E-Book 2003 - Flipbook - Page 503
It was Eustace who picked up on Mathews' suggestion to further investigate the potential of
the 'Gadagal' following the amalgamation of the Gwoza and Ashigashiya districts in 1939
when Gwoza town became the administrative centre for the entire Gwoza hills.
Unfortunately, Eustace's presentation of the social organisation of the 'hill pagans', whom he
describes very negatively as 'extremely backward and primitive', is ethnographically rather
superficial and incorrect in many ways. He claims for example that primogeniture rules not
only succession in terms of a 'chief' (gidegal) through patrilineal descent of their 'kindred
groups', but also in terms of inheritance. We know that this was not so, and that for example
the Dghweɗe had a system of the seventh born (thaghaya) who not only inherited the house
and the infields but also became earth priest for his local lineage section. It seems that Eustace
was using ethnographic assumptions about succession and inheritance to justify his 'plan for
the future' to establish 'Clan Councils', to make the hill population appear less complex for
potential cooperation with the newly created Islamic elite in Gwoza.
Eustace's patronising approach to montagnard social organisation of 1939, by the introduction
of the idea of 'chieftaincy' among the hill populations, something which had never existed in
that way, was continued by district officer Reynolds in 1955. This was two years after the
killing of lawan Buba in Ghwa'a, also known as the 'Johode incident' or the 'Gwoza Affair'
(see Chapter 2.2). By then, any attempt to bring about a system of self-governance in the hills
had failed, but the reason behind this was not that the people of Ghwa'a had been too
backward or primitive, but that they did not want to lose their identity as terrace farmers.
Reynolds also speaks of the 'authority of the lineage head who is the senior male member' and
claims that such a senior lineage head was in charge of all ritual activities in maintaining
rightful territorial links with their locality. However, concerning the institution of the
'Gidegal', Reynolds not only speaks about it as a chiefly institution as Eustace did, but also
points out that:
Although in a long-established locality bonds of common residence, strengthened by lineage ties,
tend to maintain stability, the continued close association which this implies tends to create
tensions between lineages which the lineage system cannot always resolve. This is especially
noticeable where two or more maximal lineages are situated within one locality. In these
situations, the Institution of the Gidegal, which is found in one form or another in all the tribes,
becomes effective and helps to maintain the stability of the locality. As the locality tends to be the
basis of political unity so in the Institution of the Gidegal may be seen the terms of political
authority.
He goes on by saying that:
Gidegal is an Azagavanna [Azaghvana/Dghweɗe] term (used generally by the Administration for
this type of institution) for a person who has the largest backing – usually of his own lineage
members – in a locality. Such authority he has is derived firstly from his backing and secondarily
from his acceptance by the lineage heads of the locality. In most localities there is no formal
election or initiation ceremony. Due to old age, disease or similar affliction, or lack of confidence,
the mantle of authority passes from one person to another (often from father to son, or elder
brother to younger brother) with the tacit consent of the locality. In terms of the theoretical
lineage, the Gidegal would be chosen from A4, being the larger lineage than either A3 or A5. A3,
A4 and A5 having the same mother would support him against a choice of A1 and A2...
Reynolds goes on to describe a system of majority by applying some kind of lineage nesting
that he must have learned from segmentary lineage theory, but also talks about the role of
'lineage heads' who are accountable to 'the Gidegal' which he sees as a person rather than as a
majority system. His main point is that the power of 'the Gidegal' is only effective within the
lineage system and can take no major action without the prior agreement of the 'lineage head'.
He emphasises again that 'the Gidegal' has no ritual power, and neither have the 'lineage
culture of the Mafa and culminated in the position of the traditional village chief, but unlike the British
colonial system, the French system did not incorporate the traditional Mafa chiefs into their system of
direct rule. The Dghweɗe system of lineage majorities never culminated in traditional chieftaincies, and
the attempt to portray it as if this were the case was in our opinion a result of British indirect rule.
501
