The arrival of the migrant Nguni in southern Mozambique at the beginning of the 19th century impacted many Tsonga societies in the region and the surrounding areas. In fact, the dominant narrative among scholars is that the history of the Tsonga people in the 19th century was dominated by the invasion and migration of the Nguni conquerors.¹ These Nguni groups were the Msane, Ncwangeni and Gaza, led by Nxaba, Zwangendaba and Soshangane (also known as Manukosi), respectively.² Zwangendaba’s group was also called the Hlatshwayo or the Jele (later Jere), while the Gaza were also known as the Ndwandwe and Mkhatshwa.³ The latter particularly made more impact on the Tsonga people than the other two owing to the period the group spent among the Tsonga.⁴

The general narrative on these invasions is that all the Tsonga societies in southern Africa were affected by the Gaza wars.⁵ In line with this perspective is the notion that Soshangane and his successors ruled over every Tsonga society in southern Africa.⁶ By implication, this means the Hlengwe of southeastern Zimbabwe were among those that were defeated and ruled by the Gaza.⁷ This highlights the nature of a problem in which the relationship between the Gaza and Tsonga communities is interpreted in most of the available scholarly works: many Tsonga communities are classified as having been ruled by the Gaza because of their ethnic identity rather than basing this assertion on empirical data. Therefore, without specific data that speak to the relationship the Gaza had with a specific society, any suggestion of that community having been ruled by the Gaza becomes a vague, blanket statement. Some scholars such as Mpofu refer to this as a ‘social pyramid’ that gave rise to a ‘false historiography’ on the Gaza conquests.⁸ Others such as Tavuyanago refer to it as ‘a cultural confusion’ that distorted the identities of many Tsonga societies.⁹

While there is argument, mainly outside Mozambique, that the Gaza influence on the Tsonga people is overstated, scholars mainly based in Mozambique accuse those outside Mozambique of denying or minimising Gaza influence.¹⁰ This has developed another perspective that has been lingering in the periphery of the historical research space on this matter. The thrust of this perspective is that the Gaza did not rule over all the Tsonga in southern Africa. Instead, this view holds that a good many of Tsonga societies were not related to the Gaza in any way that made them Gaza subjects. Proponents of this perspective do reveal, albeit in limited detail, the kind of relationship these societies may have had with the Gaza. These scholars include Junod (1905, 1912, 1913, 1927)^11,12, Jacques (1938), Shilubana and Ntsanwisi (1979), Harries (1989) and Mathebula (2002).

The Hlengwe of southeastern Zimbabwe are caught between these perspectives, in both of which there are glaring contradictions through which the Gaza influence is portrayed. Bannerman states that the Gaza raided much into what is today Zimbabwe and there are records of them raiding some of the Hlengwe groups.¹³ Thus, this means the Gaza had a great effect on the Hlengwe.¹⁴ This seems to interpret every raid as subjugation. Tavuyanago argues that ‘the Gaza political influence on the Tsonga peoples was almost absent’, while at the same time arguing that it was there ‘in military and economic terms’.¹⁵ However, if it was there ‘in military and economic terms’, it means it was not absent. The issue should therefore be whether such influence equated to the Gaza ruling over the Hlengwe of southeastern Zimbabwe. Therefore, the aim of this article is to explore the relationship between the Hlengwe of southeastern Zimbabwe and the Gaza to see if indeed the Gaza’s rule extended to the former.

The Hlengwe settled in the vicinity of the present-day Zimbabwe in the middle of the 18th century and later crossed into what became known as southeastern Zimbabwe. They moved from the Maputo region in the south because of the expansionist pressures from the Tembe who took most of their land. Their founder, Mantsena, who is also their common ancestor, is believed to have settled at Xikundwini or Xikundu (place of shrubs), between Galupo and Chitolo rivers in the middle of the 18th century.¹⁶ The area was occupied by the Nyayi and the Sono. The Hlengwe defeated them and settled there before Mantsena died in 1766.¹⁷ The conquered peoples became the subjects of the Hlengwe.

Expansionist activities of the Hlengwe continued after Mantsena’s death through his descendants. The first of these happened within a decade of his death and continued towards the end of the 18th century. It was spearheaded by his three sons: Malandele, who was also known as Masivamele, Mangule (also known as Xikovela or Xikovele) and Marumbana (probably Marhumbana), who was also known as Xigombe.¹⁸ His heir, Mangule, reigned first from Xikundwini. He later extended his lands beyond the land he inherited from Mantsena by crossing Galupo and settling in an area between Chepfu (also recorded as Chengane or Chefu) and Dadache rivers in the 1770s.¹⁹ Around the same period, Xigombe entered Zimbabwe along lower Nwanedzi (also spelt Nuanetsi) and Chepfu rivers, also in the present-day Zimbabwe.²⁰ Other sources state he was also once in charge of land between Limpopo and Mawunje rivers, from Sengwe to Bileni, although such land appears to have been inherited by Mangule.²¹ It is recorded that Malandele, who also founded a dynasty under Mangule’s overlordship, was not intelligent and he ran his traditional court in a bowed position; hence, he was nicknamed Masivamele, meaning ‘the bowed one’.²² These expansions continued after the death of Mangule in 1780.²³ This time they were spearheaded by his two sons: Zarhi (also recorded as Zhari or Zari), who was Mangule’s successor, and Mavhuve (also recorded as Mavube).²⁴ Zarhi expanded the Hlengwe territory by crossing Dadache and Lichangalimi rivers along the Mange River.²⁵ Mavhuve established his settlement south of the Save-Runde junction in an area straddling Marhumbini.²⁶

Thus, by the end of the 18th century, the Hlengwe were engaged in expansionist activities unabated. This momentum was continued in the beginning of the 19th century. When Zarhi died in 1911, he was succeeded by his son, Mihingo, who together with Zarhi’s other sons, Ximise, Makwarule and Tshovani continued the expansion crusade.²⁷ By the end of the pre-Gaza phase, Mihingo had crossed the Runde River at its junction with Pombadzi, where he had conquered the Chivonja people and took over their territory.²⁸ Some activities of the Hlengwe between 1830 and 1862 suggest that there was no significant contact between the Hlengwe and the Gaza during this period – the two groups had no political relationship. The significance of this period is that it covers the reigns of the first two of the four people who led the Gaza over the period of its existence. These are Soshangane and Mawewe. Activities of the Hlengwe during this period include some expansionist activities to the direction of the Gaza’s Musapa centre.²⁹ These activities were spearheaded by Mihingo’s sons Banga (also called Mahenye), and Chisa (a corruption of Xisa), who succeeded Mihingo in 1836. Banga settled in an area that was to become southern Chipinga (also Chipinge), between Save and Honde rivers in the present-day Zimbabwe.³⁰ Here, he conquered the Garahwa and Makoni of the Moyo totem. Chisa remained at the Save-Runde junction south of the Chivonja range.³¹

Therefore, between the time of the Hlengwe’s arrival in southeastern Zimbabwe in the middle of the 18th century up to 1862, there is no recorded contact between them and the Gaza. As is further elaborated as follows, it may have taken even longer for the two groups to come into contact.

The Gaza fled the present-day KwaZulu-Natal province of South Africa after their defeat by Shaka of the Zulu and crossed into southern Mozambique in 1821.³² They spent the first 13 years between Maputo and Bileni (or lower Save).³³ Their first home in southern Mozambique was on the land of the Tembe, near the Tembe River in the present-day Maputo. The Ncwangeni rested in the neighbourhood, to the north of the land occupied by the Gaza, among the Matsolo (recorded as Matolla or Matol).³⁴ The Msane took a completely different direction, to the present-day Limpopo province of South Africa, from where they proceeded to the present-day Zimbabwe.³⁵ Portuguese records suggest that by mid-July 1821, the Ncwangeni and the Gaza groups had severely devastated the lands of the Tembe and the Matsolo, respectively. The Portuguese themselves had to bribe them with presents to leave them alone in their fortress of Lourenco Marques.³⁶

By late 1822, the Ncwangeni had moved further ahead of the Gaza and Britain’s Captain Owen encountered them on the Manyisa River.³⁷ According to Liesegang, the Gaza left Maputo in about 1827. But it seems by 1828, the Gaza were still around Maputo. Jose Antonio Teixeira, who governed Lourenco Marques, reported that around this period, he had to pacify Makasana, the ruler of the Maputsu and Soshangane of the Gaza with tribute.³⁸ They seem to have left Maputo area later in 1828 via the country of the Ntimane.³⁹

Information on the sequence of events from the Ntimane’s country to the north is disjointed and confusing. But carefully constructed, the information suggests they fled from Ntimane’s country to the country of the Khosa after hearing that Shaka had sent an army to capture Soshangane, where they had skirmishes with the local people.⁴⁰ In one of such battles, dubbed the Battle of Nyambofu, which was fought at Nguluveni, the Gaza were defeated.⁴¹ They then fled further north and overran the communities around the Limpopo Valley from 1828 to 1831.⁴² They then turned on the Ncwangeni in 1831, forcing them to flee further north. The Ncwangeni attacked another Nguni group up north, the Maseko of Ngwana, pushing them further north.⁴³ The Gaza then proceeded to defeat the Hlavi people in the vicinity of the confluence of Limpopo and Olifants.⁴⁴

The first time the Gaza came closer to the Hlengwe of southeastern Zimbabwe was in 1835, but no record of their contact is available around this period. In fact, available evidence points there being none. Historical evidence suggests that earlier that year the Gaza fought with the Valoyi in the Battle of Xihaheni, the battle being called as such because it was fought at a place called Xihaheni-xa-N’wankome, between Limpopo and Xingwedzi (also spelt Shingweszi) rivers.⁴⁵ The Gaza were defeated and proceeded to the north.⁴⁶ They headed to Musapa on the Buzi River where they encountered and dislodged the Msane who went to Chissanga in Manyika area. The Gaza pursued the Msane in Chissanga, and by the end of 1835, they had completely defeated Nxaba and dislodged him from Chissanga. Says Elkiss about this war⁴⁷:

Soshangane remained in Chissanga for about a year before settling in Musapa in 1836.⁴⁸ Evidence suggests that by this time, the Gaza had lost control of all the Tsonga people they had defeated in the south.⁴⁹ According to Bhila, this made Soshangane introduce a system of ‘vassalage’ that focused mainly on tribute payment and limited political control, in terms of which he appointed governors and tribute collectors over the newly conquered areas. Bhila states that this system was later extended to Kiteve and Sena. The man called Maputhumana was, at some stage, responsible for collecting tribute from Manyika, Uteve and Sena up to about 1845. Other sources say the Gaza had a Nguni governor in the Manyika region called Magigwani in 1845 tasked with tribute collection, who could be the successor to Maphuthumana.⁵⁰ As indicated below, this and other structures of the Gaza are a result of the debate on who was part of the Gaza and who was not.

Soshangane only lived in Musapa for 2 years. In 1838, he migrated back to the Limpopo valley and reasserted his authority there.⁵¹ There is no evidence that by then the Gaza had any contact with the Hlengwe.⁵² In fact, Soshangane’s stay there is said to have been a turbulent one. It is believed that the main reason for his return to the south was the bad conditions in the Musapa District, where many of his people had died of mpondo (smallpox) and other diseases such as dari (malaria).⁵³ He appointed one of his sons, Mzila, in charge of the entire region with Musapa as the main centre.⁵⁴

Throughout the Gaza history, Musapa was the only centre the Gaza established closest to the Hlengwe of southeastern Zimbabwe. Thus, a better description of the area is necessary in order to establish its proximity to the Hlengwe. The area is known in official documents in Mozambique as Mossurize and is, in fact, currently in Mozambique.⁵⁵ It seems at the time of the Gaza’s occupation of the area, and it included the adjacent area of Mount Selinda, which is currently in Chipinge, a district presently falling in Zimbabwe. Both areas were dominated by the Ndau, many of whom the Gaza conquered and politically dominated. Hence, sources suggest the direct subjects of the Gaza in this area were the Ndau Moyo.⁵⁶

Some of the scholars regard the area of Mount Selinda as the actual centre of the Gaza in that region.⁵⁷ But that could refer to the area of Mount Selinda as a district rather than the actual locality. Liesegang suggests the Gaza capital north of Save (in the Musapa area) was moved every 4–6 years,⁵⁸ while Wheeler refers to ‘the frequent displacement of the royal kraal’.⁵⁹ Therefore, the royal kraal may have been moved several times in the area of Musapa and Mount Selinda for security reasons.

Oral accounts of the descendants of the Gaza in the Chipinge area suggest that contrary to popular belief, the capital of Mzila was at Ndungutungu in Chingove, which is currently on the side of Mozambique.⁶⁰ This places the distance between the Gaza rulers even further east from the Chipinge area. However, this could refer to the time when Mzila was the governor of Musapa and not when he was king, that is, from 1838 to 1858.⁶¹ Wheeler suggests that when Mzila became king in the early 1860s, he moved his capital to the north and then to the west, and that his last capital was at ‘Uduengo’.⁶² Erskine states that Mzila’s capital was at Tshamatshama or Nodwengu, the former being its original Tonga name and the latter derived from the name of Zulu king, Mpande’s residence.⁶³ Uduengo and Nodwengu certainly refer to the same name. Erskine further suggests that this residence was at the ‘sources of Umswelisi’.⁶⁴ This residence seems to have been inherited by Nghunghunyani when he succeeded Mzila. Wheeler states that Nghunghunyani’s residence was in Mossurise near Mount Selinda,⁶⁵ and adds that when Nghunghunyani migrated to Bileni, he was coming from Mount Selinda.⁶⁶ However, sources suggest the last capital, which was occupied by Nghunghunyani, was located near the ‘Umzwelizwe River’ (as in Umswelisi) an indication that he may have begun his reign in the residence occupied by Mzila, and perhaps moved his residence around later on,⁶⁷ hence some sources suggest his last residence in the district was specifically located at a place called Chinguno.⁶⁸ These areas are located east of Mount Selinda, and further away from the areas occupied by the Hlengwe of southeastern Zimbabwe. Whichever way, this evidence does not locate the Gaza beyond the present-day Chipinge District, and it falls short of even overwhelmingly spreading its power over the entire Chipinge District, restricting it south of Chimanimani Mountain.

Unlike in Manyika, Kiteve and Sena where the Gaza’s primary focus would remain tribute collection, Soshangane ensured that in Musapa he retained his direct rule of the local people, in particular, the Ndau whom he had subdued. Apart from appointing Mzila as governor of the area, he also appointed a man known as Guveguve, as a tribute collector in the region, and his other son, Macato, as commander-in-chief of the forces of Mzila in Musapa, before he was later deployed at Mambone as governor of those lands.⁶⁹ Macato’s other name was Mangca (also recorded as Magca).⁷⁰ His full name was recorded as Carlos Fernando Machado Mangua in Portuguese documents, a trend also seen in some of the names of Tsonga leaders in Portuguese records. It seems Portuguese gave their own names to these leaders.⁷¹ Mzila remained in charge of those lands until the death of Soshangane in 1858.⁷²

Therefore, throughout the reign of Soshangane, there is no reported contact between the Gaza and the Hlengwe of southeastern Zimbabwe, including those based in the present-day Chipinge District, which he partially occupied. However, it is worth mentioning that at the time the Gaza settled in Musapa, the Hlengwe, unlike in their early history, were no longer under a single authority. Instead, they were fragmented into various chiefdoms largely across the present-day Zimbabwean province of Masvingo and the adjacent Manica and Matebeleland provinces.⁷³ This understanding is crucial in the discussion of the relationship between the two groups that follows.

Anebo argues that bounds of power must be unambiguous. In the same vein, it could be said that the people over whom power is exercised must not be defined in an ambiguous manner.⁷⁴ According to Lewis, the commonest way in which a monarchy was spread throughout a territory was through simple geographical extension of the borders of a kingdom.⁷⁵ This extension could be voluntary or forced.⁷⁶ In the Gaza polity, raids and tribute payments are often seen as instruments through which a society was included in the polity.⁷⁷ This notion has raised a lot of debate among scholars.

The understanding of the Gaza structure is crucial in getting answers to its bounds. There were two major layers in the Gaza structure, each with two segments. According to Liesegang, the highest layer was that of the ruling lineage, the Nguni proper.⁷⁸ This top layer is often divided into two: the ruling Ndwandwe family on the one hand and, on the other, the other Nguni from outside the ruling family, sometimes called the ‘indunas’ or ‘majobos’ or ‘mofanas’ on the other hand.⁷⁹ Haries refers to the two segments of this layer as the Jamene group of the royal family and its relatives on the male side and Nguni commoners who trace their origin to the Pongolo region in the present-day KwaZulu-Natal.⁸⁰ Wheeler refers to the first segment of the layer as the Jamine.⁸¹ According to Liesegang, both Jamene and Jamine are corrupted versions of Dlamini.⁸² Further, Liesegang suggests that the Dlamini house was but one of several similar houses he refers to as royal lineages within the Gaza structure.⁸³ Therefore, it suffices to say the top layer of the Gaza polity was constituted by the Nguni themselves, those who migrated from KwaZulu-Natal and their descendants. This layer had the royal houses of the Ndwandwe, of which the Dlamini was one, and the commoners of Nguni descent. Jaques refers to this group as ‘Vangoni’ (as in Nguni),⁸⁴ while Omer-Cooper calls them ‘ba-Ngoni’.⁸⁵

The next layer was that of the conquered tribes, also divided into two segments: ‘Mabuyindlela’ and ‘subjects chiefs’.⁸⁶ For the Hlengwe to be part of the Gaza, they must have featured in one of the two segments of this layer, either as ‘Mabuyindlela’ or ‘subject chiefs’ since they were not part of the Nguni.

Liesegang refers to ‘Bulundlela’ as ‘men of local origin assimilated to the Nguni (Gaza)’.⁸⁷ He also refers to ‘Mabulundlela’ as ‘Tsonga who were acculturated to Nguni’, and ‘Mabuyundlela’ as ‘of Tsonga extraction’.⁸⁸ These are certainly variants of Mabhulindlela and all refer to the non-Nguni who had been incorporated into the Gaza. Haries calls them ‘Mabuyandlelas’ and describes them as ‘people living in Gazaland who had adopted aspects of the culture of their Ngoni rulers’ or ‘acculturated Ngoni’.⁸⁹ Mathebula refers to ‘Mabhulindlela’ or ‘Mabhuyindlela’ as ‘defeated Tsonga tribes who were used in the army to prepare the way by being made to fight in the forefront’.⁹⁰ These were non-Nguni people who had become part of the Gaza. Essentially, these were societies whose subjugation was completed through integration and direct rule. According to Galli, characteristics of ‘Mabhulindlela/Mabhuyindlela’ included voluntary piecing of ears, supplying troops to the Gaza and offering daughters to Gaza representatives as wives.⁹¹ However, a distinction must be made between a situation where troops were integrated into the Gaza regiments, which would certainly mean subjugation of the supplying society, and where a society sent own regiments to assist the Gaza – as it happened with various groups. The latter would not be a sign of subjugation but of an alliance of some sort. The category ‘Mabhulindlela/Mabhuyindlela’ therefore should be confined into what Newitt calls the ‘central core’ of the polity under the direct rule of the Gaza.⁹²

The ‘subject’ chiefs or ‘subject people’ were in the periphery, attached to the Gaza only through tribute payment. Says Newitt about this arrangement:⁹³

Thus, the relationship between the Gaza and the peripheral chiefs could be said to have been a loose one, mainly on tribute payment and regular raids.

Meanwhile, in addition to the expansionist activities of the Hlengwe between 1830 and 1862, the period of the reigns of Soshangane and Mawewe, Tshovani’s successor, Muteyo, is said to have advanced up to the Lundi and then Chiredzi rivers and conquered some Duma clans in the area.⁹⁴ He also fought the Gudo and the Chisa people, the latter battle taking place near the present-day Lone Star Ranch on the banks of the Nyamasikana River. The Tshovani’s expansion continued beyond the death of Muteyo in 1869 and for most of the second half of the 19th century. His successor, Xitendereva, and Muteyo’s other two sons, Mahike and Magatsi, also managed to extend the Tshovani territory up to the escarpments that run from Nyajena to Matsai. Mahike and Magatsi also managed to establish their own dynasties during this period.⁹⁵ These activities indicate that the Hlengwe had no relationship with the Gaza, at least during this period.

Apart from these activities that ran parallel to the activities of the Gaza, the Hlengwe’s independence from the Gaza is also demonstrated in the manner in which they related to the two Nguni powers in the region – the Gaza and the Ndebele – especially in the second half of the 19th century. Their interaction with the two powers shows that they did not submit to either of the two. In fact, evidence shows different groups of the Hlengwe aligned with either of the two powers in varying periods depending on their interests and for specific military projects. In a dispute between the reigning Chitanga chief – leading one of the branches of the Hlengwe – and his headman, Mpapa, late in the 19th century, the latter sought assistance from the Gaza’s Mzila, while the Chitanga chief was supported by the Ndebele. The war dragged on until Mpapa died, a sign that Chitanga and his Ndebele backers triumphed over Mpapa and his Gaza backers.⁹⁶ In another internal Hlengwe dispute between brothers Mateke and Mayime (corrupted to M’aime in literature), sons of Hokwanye, the Gaza supported the usurper, Mayime, against the rightful ruler, Mateke. Through the Nguni support, Mayime succeeded to kill Mateke.⁹⁷ Mateke’s son, Furumele (also recorded as Furumela or Vurumela), sought support from the Ndebele in pursuance of his rebellious uncle on Nuanetsi and Limpopo junction. Furumele was driven away, an indication that the Mayime and the Gaza again triumphed over Furumele and the Ndebele.⁹⁸ In another skirmish, between Furumele and Matibi, the latter was supported by the Ndebele.⁹⁹ There are also instances where the Hlengwe supplied the Ndebele with troops to fight some of their battles against other tribes during the reigns of Mzilikazi and Lobengula.¹⁰⁰ There are no records of trade or intermarriages between the two either.

It is therefore only in three groups of the Hlengwe where the Gaza overlordship is explained, albeit in much insufficient detail. These are Mahenye (also known as Banga), Tshovani and Sengwe. The only reason that is advanced to justify the suggestion that the Mahenye were part of the Gaza is that they dispatched members or troops to accompany Nghunghunyani in his migration to Bileni.¹⁰¹ This is neither supported by literature nor oral accounts of the Hlengwe, which makes it highly unlikely that it actually happened. Even if this were true, dispatching troops to assist Nghunghunyani would have meant an alliance of some sort rather than the Mahenye being part of the Gaza. Such alliances have already been adequately explained in the earlier discussions.

The Sengwe (a Hlengwe branch) are linked to the Gaza through the ‘subject chiefs’ category in that the branch is said to have paid tribute to Mzila in Musapa, when the latter had a capital there. There is also a suggestion that for this reason, the Sengwe were never attacked by the Gaza. Further evidence suggests that the Sengwe were under the Xikwalakwala branch of the Hlengwe, who are currently on the Mozambican side and are thought to have been subdued by the Gaza.¹⁰² This means the Gaza could have subjugated the Xikwalakwala portion of the Hlengwe’s Mozambique-based branch of whom the Sengwe were part, even though the latter ended up in Zimbabwe through colonial border delimitations. This makes sense in that the founder of the Sengwe dynasty with the same name was the son of Xikwalakwala.¹⁰³ This relationship between the Sengwe and the Gaza is further corroborated by oral accounts which suggest that their members served in the Gaza army and that some of their members accompanied Nghunghunyani when he relocated to Bileni.¹⁰⁴ This evidence locates the Sengwe in the second layer of the Gaza structure, that of subject chiefs. Having members serve in the Gaza regiments and paying tribute to the Gaza certainly make the Sengwe subjects of the Gaza.

In the Tshovani branch of the Hlengwe, evidence indicates that both Tshovani and Muteyo ruled independently of the Gaza until the latter died in 1869. The fact that Muteyo’s successor, Xitendereva, and his brothers, Mahike and Magatsi, continued to expand the Tshovani territory means Xitendereva remained independent at least during these expansionist activities.¹⁰⁵ There are suggestions, though, that Xitendereva may have succumbed to the raids the Gaza constantly conducted on the Tshovani and nearby Ndau. Neither written literature nor oral accounts specifically mentions raids that were directed at the Tshovani. However, Wheeler mentions Nghunghunyani’s raids on tribes in the north and west of Musapa and on others as far west as Mount Wedza during the period of 1886.¹⁰⁶ This could be the period in which the Tshovani, who were in the west, were also attacked. None of these raids appears to have resulted in subjugation of any of the tribes that were attacked. However, a Portuguese official Paiva d’Andrada claimed to have often met ‘Towani’ at the Gaza king’s place in Musapa. He also claimed that some of the ‘Towani’ people accompanied Nghunghunyani to Bileni.¹⁰⁷ The challenge with the Tshovani’s association with the Gaza is that it is based on his purported sight at the Gaza capital and Paiva d’Andrada’s allegation that Tshovani’s troops accompanied Nghunghunyani to Bileni, both of which were apparently disputed by the British authorities with whom the Portuguese were fighting for the inclusion of the communities in the Chipinge area into their respective jurisdictions.¹⁰⁸ Moreover, Paiva d’Andrada’s claim being dated 1890, it is doubtful that people who had accompanied Nghunghunyani to Bileni a year before could not be traced or confirmed by any other means and that a chief who was still part of the Gaza until at least a year before would have his association with the polity disputed so easily. Therefore, it is unlikely that the Tshovani were part of the Gaza. Moreover, the Musapa centre remained active after Nghunghunyani relocated to Bileni under members of the Gaza royal family.¹⁰⁹ These included Mpungu, who was Mzila’s son and Nghunghunyani’s brother.¹¹⁰ Therefore, if the Tshovani were part of the Gaza, they would have remained subjected to the Gaza under the supervision of the Gaza royal family there.

Therefore, the notion that the Gaza ruled over the Hlengwe is not supported by the available data. In fact, available data suggest that the Sengwe was the only group among the current Hlengwe of southeastern Zimbabwe to be ruled by the Gaza. For Tavuyanago, the very suggestion that the Gaza conquered all the Tsonga societies ‘is confused by the assumed Gaza cultural and linguistic impact as enormous’.¹¹¹

An analysis of historical sources reveals a case of overstated power of the Gaza rulers. Wheeler refers to Mzila, the third ruler of the Gaza, as having had ‘shallow’ power.¹¹² Missionary linguist Henri Berthoud, who for a while stayed in Nghunghunyani’s capital, once remarked that the Gaza monarch did not have the power of his Zulu or Swazi peers.¹¹³

Historical data also reveal elements of an imagined Gaza versus the real one. When Portuguese official Antonio Maria Cardoso visited Mzila in 1883, he reported that Mzila ruled over a force and power which were much less than was actually imagined.¹¹⁴ Wheeler also states that it is ‘probable that neither Soshangane nor Muzila (as in Mzila) had more than an ephemeral allegiance from subject groups’.¹¹⁵

The Gaza’s impact on the Tsonga, and the groups that they came into contact with, seems to be exaggerated without factual basis. To start with, none of those groups currently speak Nguni, the language of the Gaza. Instead, it is the descendants of the Gaza who speak the languages of the people they conquered, or it is claimed they ruled.¹¹⁶ Harries argues that Tsonga-speaking peoples as a whole were never culturally assimilated by the Gaza.¹¹⁷ With specific reference to the Hlengwe of southeastern Zimbabwe, Bannerman states that the Hlengwe existed as a separate people before the advent of the Gaza and still exist as a people with their own identity.¹¹⁸

The Gaza is often described as a large polity that incorporated many societies in southern Mozambique, eastern Zimbabwe and South Africa. Some of the sources also include portions that were known to be part of Swaziland. Although its enormity cannot be disputed, it is its actual size that is overstated. This is because of the lack of actual details that associate specific societies to this polity. In this regard, the borders of this polity remain obscure. This could be the case to borders of many other powerful pre-colonial African kingdoms.

Evidence discussed in this article indicates that the Hlengwe of southeastern Zimbabwe were not part of the Gaza polity, as Mabhulindlela or subject chiefs. Because only one of several of the branches of the Hlengwe is associated with the Gaza, it is inaccurate for the entire population of the Hlengwe of southeastern Zimbabwe to be classified as Gaza subjects. Doing so is tantamount to crafting a historiography that allows the Gaza to skip their own boundaries. This study further calls for more scholarly work on this subject in order to determine the borders of the Gaza so as to accurately record its constituent peoples. This will help in properly recording the histories of minority groups so that these groups do not remain in the shadow of powerful kingdoms.