free web hosting | website hosting | Business Web Hosting | Free Website Submission | shopping cart | php hosting


The Lumpa rising (Part IV)

Wim van Binsbergen

index page Lumpa | Part I | Part II | Part III

Postscript: J.-L. Calmettes’s contribution to Lumpa studies

The interpretation of the Lumpa rising as advanced in this chapter has been subject to a careful re-analysis by Jean-Loup Calmettes, in his recent MSc Econ. thesis submitted to the University College of Wales.[1] As a Roman Catholic missionary working in north-eastern Zambia in the late 1960s and early 1970s, Calmettes was fortunate to have virtually unlimited access to three sources of data which hitherto have been lacking in the study of the Lumpa Church: extensive oral-historical evidence; missionary documents and missionary publications of limited circulation; and an almost complete set of Lumpa hymns. Calmettes must be congratulated on the competent way in which he has used and presented these new materials.[2] Particularly on the descriptive side his work goes a long way towards resolving some of the major puzzles of the Lumpa Church. However, I must resist the temptation to quote extensively from his text. I understand publication is currently being prepared. Moreover, in the field of Central African religious studies, extensive quotation from unpublished scholarly work has since long been the established privilege of Terence Ranger. Let me therefore limit myself here to those passages in Calmettes’s thesis which explicitly criticise my own Lumpa analysis. This critique is contained in the ten concluding pages of his work.

                        While Calmettes does agree with the main thrust of my argument, his specific emphasis is substantially different. In the light of his analysis I can now see that my argument tried to explain the Lumpa crisis largely as the confrontation between two monolithic protagonists: on the one hand the state (in the liminal stage between the colonial and the post-colonial phase) and the United National Independence Party, which at the time of the rising was holding a majority in the Zambian transition government; and on the other hand the Lumpa Church, which in the years 1963-4 consisted of Lenshina, the senior Church leaders including her husband, and about 20,000 faithful followers, all that had remained after about four-fifths of the membership of the late 1950s had defected. According to my analysis, Lumpa had increasingly defined itself as a peasant movement defying peasantisation, i.e., incorporation (both economically through capitalist relations of production, and politically through UNIP) in the wider capitalist order and the nationalist state. The basic force behind the Lumpa uprising, I claimed, was the peasants’ class struggle. The logic of capitalism, as mediated through the state, left no option but to confront this struggle violently with military means. Put thus crudely, it is certainly somewhat too simplistic, and I am grateful to Calmettes for providing the elements with which we may yet arrive at a somewhat more penetrating analysis.


Towards new relations of production

In my analysis I stressed how Lumpa was an exception among Central African forms of religious innovation, but not because of its size, ritual or beliefs. As a form of ‘superstructural reconstruction’, Lumpa showed a combination of themes of religious innovation which to the student of Central African religious change are familiar: witchcraft eradication, millennarian fervour, a certain concern for ecological ritual, etc. What was exceptional in Lumpa, I claimed, was its ability to move towards the creation of alternative relations of production which could serve as a negation of the capitalist relations into which the population of north-eastern Zambia had increasingly been drawn. In other words, for the alienation produced by incorporation, Lumpa tried to provide not only ideological and ritual, but also infrastructural remedies - a state of affairs which I called revolutionary.[3]

                        Calmettes writes: ‘I agree with Van Binsbergen’s insistence on the significance of the creation of new relations of production.’[4] But he is critical of the way in which I worked this out in detail. He claims that I give a partly false picture of Lumpa attempts at redefinition of relations of production prevailing in the countryside of north-eastern Zambia around 1960; moreover, he feels that I exaggerate the significance of these attempts.

                        Thus he denies that the resettlement of a considerable Lumpa membership around Sioni, without formal permission from the chiefs, constituted the challenge to the rural production system I claimed it to be. For tribute labour to chiefs, Calmettes tells us, had gone into disuse several decades before the Lumpa church was established. I must reject Calmettes’s point here. I did not say that unauthorised resettlement of peasants upset a tribute-labour system which clearly no longer existed. I said it challenged fundamental property rights in land, which ever since the rise of the Bemba chiefly dynasties had been vested in the chiefs. Colonial administration would of course infringe on these rights in the interests of itself and allied outsiders (claiming sites for administrative premises, missions or the odd European settler); but vis-_-vis local peasants the colonial state would uphold the chiefs’ control over land.

                        Creation of new villages, or individual changes of residence from one chief’s area to another, was subject to the formal approval of the chiefs involved. Clearly this constitutes a major aspect of the articulation between the domestic community in north-eastern Zambia and the capitalist mode of production as mediated through the colonial state. By underpinning chieftainship (which could be termed an incapsulated, neo-traditional tributary mode of production), the colonial state backed a system of chiefly power and prerogatives which to a considerable extent denied the peasants control over their main means of production, land. It remains to be analysed how precisely this system of rural control was instrumental in forcing a considerable portion of the labour force in the domestic communities of north-eastern Zambia to be involved in labour migration. But in the light of Rey’s analysis of similar processes elsewhere in Africa,[5] it seems very likely that the class alliance between those European classes controlling the colonial state (white settlers, metropolitan capitalists, etc.) and local chiefs enabled the system of circulatory migration to impose itself on the countryside of north-eastern Zambia. Although I admit that I should have spelled this out in my main arguments, this is what I meant by the phrase ‘rural production system’. In this rural context, much as in the numerous squatments around the Zambian line of rail, unauthorised settlement means, essentially, a form of active class struggle.

                        Calmettes goes on to point out that Lenshina never attempted to purchase land, as I wrote, but that she merely applied for a lease on a piece of land. Calmettes adds[6] that he does ‘not think that she wanted to buy a huge estate on which she would have regrouped her thousands of shifting cultivators’. I am grateful to Calmettes for pointing out this monstrous slip of the pen. The main source on this point[7] mentions ‘lease’, not ‘purchase’. And anyway, given the legal structure of land tenure in north-eastern Zambia around 1960, it would have been almost inconceivable that Lenshina could have bought land. yet I would maintain that from the point of view of Lumpa’s attempt at redefining existing relations of production, the difference between purchase and lease may not be all that important. What is essential is that the Lumpa Church attempted to gain autonomous control over land, and this, as Roberts writes, [8]

was taken as proof that she wished to set up a kingdom of her own. Whatever the political implications of her request [for land WvB], there can be little doubt that its rejection had important economic implications: her followers now felt that their livelihood as well as their religious and political autonomy was threatened.

Calmettes is likewise critical of my claim that the final conflict developed out of another aspect of the land theme in the Lumpa drama: the refusal to demolish the stockaded villages into which the Lumpa membership had retreated in 1963. Here again I think there is no need to give in too readily to Calmettes’s criticism. The demand to abandon these ‘illegal settlements’ was a central issue, in all negotiations between the Lumpa Church, the UNIP leadership and the state, in the months preceding the final conflict. And an eye-witness of the Lumpa final conflict in Lundazi even started his account of the Lumpa episode thus:[9]

                        It was ironic that the ‘Independence’ Constitution should grant the right of every lawful inhabitant of Northern Rhodesia to reside where he wished. The members of the ‘Lumpa’ Sect, followers of Alice Lenshina, exercised this right with results to themselves that will be described.

                        In the light of all this I would still maintain that, particularly in the context of land and relations of production focusing on land, my analysis essentially (although not in all details) holds out against Calmettes’s criticism.

                        Let us now turn to those other indications of what I claimed to be Lumpa’s experimenting with new relations of production alternative to the form of capitalist relations of production to which the local peasants were then subjected. Rightly, Calmettes points out that in the Lumpa Church, tribute labour was not only revived for the building of the Lumpa cathedral (as mentioned in my article), but also for agricultural work in Lenshina’s gardens; the produce she sold. she also received tribute in kind.[10] Calmettes agrees that this is a form of production which opts out of the relations of production as defined by the chiefs, modern industry, or the state. While a Marxist analysis would tend to stress production over circulation and distribution, we should also look at the latter aspect. Here Calmettes helps us to detect a fundamental contradiction within the Lumpa Church, although in his own re-analysis this remains only implicit. Whereas the Lumpa adherents as direct producers were joining in new, alternative relations of production as defined by the Lumpa Church, in the sphere of distribution the contradiction between them and the Lumpa leadership became very marked and took on class-like elements.

                        In my earlier analysis I stressed how the continuous circulation of multitudes of choir members and pilgrims over the Lumpa countryside imposed upon local villagers the obligation to feed and accommodate these outsiders. The Lumpa Church, as an Organisation, thus created a structure through which a local surplus was extracted and was made to benefit Lumpa members from elsewhere. If all Lumpa members had had a chance of touring the countryside in this way, the inequalities thus created might have levelled out. In practice, it seems that some groups (those living around Sioni, the Church’s headquarters; those in younger age cohorts) were more likely to be on the receiving side of this regional distribution system. And their continuous parasitism did create resentment. However, most surplus extraction by the Lumpa organization benefited not the rank and file of the Church, but its leadership .

                        In addition, of course, much was invested in prestigious and ritual objects, like the Lumpa cathedral. The purchase of two lorries, bought from similar sources, is very interesting since on the one hand they served the circulation of choirs and thus the regional extraction process in the interest of the rank and file (in addition to the strengthening of ritual ties throughout the region); on the other hand they served the entrepreneurial interests of the Church leadership, through trips to the Copperbelt where produce would be sold.[11] Calmettes provides the answer to my earlier queries concerning the economic network the Lumpa Church could maintain with the aid of these trucks. Rather than creating ‘a chain of rural stores’, as ‘a move to create a self-sufficient distribution system as independent as possible from outside control’, the trucks turned out to represent what I suggested as the alternative possibility: ‘merely the attempt of Lumpa leaders to launch themselves as entrepreneurs’.[12]

                        Before Calmettes’s thesis, we had to accept as authoritative Roberts’s resigned statement:[13]

There is very little information of any kind on the internal organization of the Lumpa church - a most important subject which perhaps will never properly be elucidated.

Against this background I was tempted, perhaps justifiably, to treat Lumpa as a monolithic whole. But it is here that the strength of Calmettes’s work lies. The evolving relations between leaders and followers within the Lumpa Church, and between the leaders themselves, are now for the first time discussed in terms that are no longer hazy and conjectural .

                        Already on theoretical grounds the deficiencies in my earlier interpretation could have been detected. If we accept that the impetus behind Lumpa, up to and including the final conflict, was a peasants’ class struggle against incorporation, then it should have been clear that these peasant’s experimenting with new, alternative relations of production did not amount to a dissolution of all class-like relations. Only then could Lumpa have been treated as a monolith. But what we should have expected, instead, was the creation of a new type of class-like relations: contradictions and patterns of expropriation and control which, at least initially and at least for the Lumpa followers themselves, would be hidden from the eye by the theocratic assumptions of the Lumpa organization and beliefs. This is precisely what happened. Lumpa channelled peasants’ rejection of current relations of production, offering them a form of superstructural reconstruction by which to battle against the alienation springing from current conditions. But meanwhile, by involving these peasants in new Lumpa-defined relations of production (such as tribute in labour and kind, resettlement in Lumpa-controlled settlements, and circulation of pilgrims and choirs), the Lumpa leadership began to act as an exploiting class themselves.

                        In this light many aspects which my earlier analysis could not accommodate fall into their proper place. Lumpa imposed what could be termed a theocratic mode of production; or perhaps, in line with a recent theoretical development hall-marked by the publication of the ASA volume on Regional Cults,[14] a regional-cultic mode of production. The internal structure of expropriation and control hinged on the contradiction between sect leaders and followers. This emergent, cultic mode of production, whose outlines are now becoming much clearer thanks to the work of Calmettes, defined itself vis<-vis the other modes of production represented in the area. Unauthorised settlement, claims to judicial powers and to tribute challenged the tributary mode; through unauthorised settlement again, opposition against polygamy, the mobilisation of labour for tribute work and ritual activities, and financial contributions, the Lumpa organization made significant inroads into what by the 1950s was left of the domestic mode of production.

                        While the desire for superstructural reconstruction as felt among the peasants may ultimately have been the main inspiration of the Lumpa beliefs, I must agree with the suggestion contained in Calmettes’s work that the Lumpa leadership was not fundamentally opposed to the capitalist mode of production, as long as it fell into line with their own perceived material interests. Lumpa did not issue pronouncements against wage labour or migrancy. On the contrary, it set up Lumpa branches in the industrial areas along the distant line of rail, persuaded migrants to make the pilgrimage to Sione, and maintained profitable relations with the thoroughly capitalist Copperbelt commodity markets. While I would still maintain that the original inspiration of Lumpa, and the continuing orientation of its rank and file, was against incorporation into capitalist relations of production, the conclusion is now forced upon us that the Lumpa leadership struck a class alliance with the forces of capitalism as dominant along the line of rail. Lumpa became a structure of rural extraction, and the Lumpa leadership acquired material privileges worth defending.

                        There is much to be said for Calmettes’s view that the leaders’ struggle to defend privileges as derived from the internal set-up of the Lumpa Church was an important factor in the feuding which arose in north-eastern Zambia between Lumpa and the United National Independence Party. Much as the increasingly oppressive nature of the Lumpa organisation brought up to 80 per cent of the original membership to defect in the early 1960s (so that these peasants had little reason left to resist the UNIP pressure to join the party), the fear, among the Lumpa leadership, of a further eroding of their privileges seems to have suggested the strong anti-UNIP pronouncements made by this leadership as from 1962. In fact, the Lumpa leaders had changed their attitude vis-à-vis nationalism and the colonial state much earlier than this: after having served as a nationalist platform for some years, already the 1957 Lumpa constitution virtually pledged allegiance to the colonial state.[15] I would suggest that already by that time the Lumpa leadership had come to understand that, in upholding the status quo, the colonial state (as the expression, and protection, of the totality of class contradictions existing within its territory[16]) would be an essential factor in the continuation of the very privileges the sect leaders were building up by means of the Lumpa organization.

                        Thus it could be claimed that in the final conflict leaders and followers were fighting the same enemy but for very different reasons. The peasant rank and file were still, with remarkable courage as well as occasional atrocity, fighting the destruction of their reconstructed new society; the Lumpa leadership, which de facto had acquired the status of a local religious bourgeoisie, was fighting against the annihilation of their privileges. The complexities of this situation are perhaps reflected in the fact that Lenshina and her top leadership took little or no part in the actual battles, and were in a remarkably confused state when finally apprehended.

                        In the light of this reinterpretation, it does not seem as if I exaggerated the significance of Lumpa’s striving towards new relations of production. Of course, even these new relations of production never reached maturity; I never claimed they did, and in a context of international dependency it is extremely unlikely that a relatively small peasant movement could ever succeed in escaping a structure of peripheral capitalism controlled from powerful metropoles. But notwithstanding all this, Lumpa’s attempts at new relations of production were both even more complex and more fundamental to Lumpa’s development than I claimed in my original argument.

                        Having criticised my analysis of Lumpa attempts at creating new relations of production, and having pointed out (correctly) that my analysis is only partial, Calmettes goes on to overstress the significance of the internal cleavage within Lumpa. He plays down entirely the struggle for both superstructural and infrastructural reconstruction, which I continue to see as the main inspiration of the Lumpa rank and file, up to and throughout the final conflict. For him, ‘The conflict resembles more the wars which took place when the Bemba chiefs defended their privileges.’[17]

                        Following the line of Lehmann’s early analysis,[18] Calmettes considers Lenshina to be a self-styled female Bemba chief. The fact that she surrounded herself with tribute labour and claimed judicial powers, Calmettes does not see as the selective borrowing of redefined historical institutions into a totally new set of relations of production, social relations and ritual relations: instead, he considers it a ‘return towards the past’,[19] in other words as an attempt to revive the tributary mode of production - an attempt which, without much conceptual discussion, he calls, ‘messianic sect’. Thus he becomes the victim of his own, in itself illuminating, emphasis on the internal dynamics of the Lumpa Church.[20]

                        I would rather insist on the implications of the type of relations of production which had been evolved within the sect itself. I think that they explain the ideology of the leadership of the sect and the final conflict.

                        After what I have said above I do not think we need a detailed spelling out of the tributary mode of production in Bembaland in the two or three centuries of its pre-colonial existence[21] or in its incapsulated neo-traditional colonial form[22] to make the point convincingly that the essence of the Lumpa Church was not a revival of the tributary mode of production. Moreover, the final conflict was between the Lumpa Church (with all its internal contradictions) and an outside enemy, and cannot be adequately explained by reference to the Lumpa internal structure alone.


UNIP and the state

Calmettes’s criticism has thus helped us to deepen our understanding of Lumpa in terms of relations of production, even though we cannot accept his own alternative analysis. Let us now proceed to re-examine the other quasi-monolithic block in my original argument: that of UNIP and the state, in an attempt to re-interpret both the nature and the timing of the final conflict that led to Lumpa’s annihilation.

                        We would do well to heed Cross’s warning in the context of the clashes between the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the state in Zambia and other African countries. In his view,[23]

                        The course of events would appear to be determined more by the kings of the State than by the state of the Kingdom .... The clashes and restrictions may be more accurately explained by an examination of the particular demands of politicians.

                        Towards an understanding of the party side in the conflict Calmettes has very little to contribute. He promises[24] to provide an analysis of the class base of UNIP in north-eastern Zambia in what could have been an answer to an urgent question I had raised:[25]

The crucial issue is the mobilisation process by which UNIP established itself among the peasants of Chinsali district. But new, detailed material is available on this point.

Calmettes reflects[26] on a handful of educated and politically-minded activists who passed through Lumpa (in its pro-nationalist phase), only to opt out of that organization when it could no longer identify with the nationalist cause and/or serve their personal interests. But he has hardly anything to say concerning the thousands of uneducated peasants whose allegiance shifted from Lumpa to UNIP without, apparently, any significant class differences between them and faithful Lumpa adherents being involved.

                        Studies of class formation in Africa,[27] against the background of a renewed interest in the theory of the state among Marxist general theorists,[28] have stressed how in modern Africa the struggle between classes over the control of the post-colonial state has become the major form of class conflict. This state of affairs is attributed to such factors as: the expansion of state control in all sectors of economic and social life; the decline or removal, after independence, of those classes which had firmly controlled the colonial state; and the fact that after independence the state has become political, i.e. susceptible to processes of mass mobilisation, factional strife and representational government. This insight may prove helpful to understand the timing and the impetus of the final Lumpa conflict. Thus we might be able to proceed beyond the idealist, Weberian approach as pursued in my original Lumpa study, which appears to attribute too much weight to the problem of the legitimation of the post-colonial state as if this were an independent input in the development of political processes in the Third World (or anywhere else).

                        From the point of view of Lumpa members experiencing violent persecution in rural north-eastern Zambia, the feuding as waged by local branches of UNIP, and the final battles with state troops armed with automatic weapons, all may have been part of the same process of escalating violence. UNIP’s president Dr Kaunda was leading the UNIP transition government when negotiations to give up the fortified villages broke off, and the order for military action was given. But in fact the state and UNIP had only very recently merged into one force confronting Lumpa. Nor did formal authority over the government executive and the armed forces mean that UNIP had yet gained de facto control over the entire state. The civil service was still largely staffed with people who, until very recently, had opposed the nationalist movement and had assisted in its repression. Among them, anti

                        Lumpa feelings may not have been so very strong. Thus, police officers in Lundazi (as a Lumpa area surpassed only by Chinsali district) ate their 1963 Christmas dinner inside a Lumpa stockaded village, where they were stationed in order to protect it against violent attacks from the local UNIP branch.[29] Short’s claim[30] that Lumpa ‘relations with the Police were good, as they spent much time protecting them from attack’, may only apply to Lundazi.

                        In any case, UNIP’s attainment of political supremacy with the creation of the transition government must have tipped the balance of UNIP/Lumpa feuding in a decisive way. Lumpa could no longer look to the state for protection against UNIP. State officers now had to obey orders given by leading UNIP politicians who, while not themselves involved in the UNIP/Lumpa feuding, yet had an emotional stake in the matter in so far as they hailed from Chinsali district (Kaunda, Kapwepwe) and politically could not afford to disavow the violence of their Chinsali UNIP branches. On the other hand, UNIP now had access to mobilisation methods (state troops and their automatic weapons) which before they could not have brought to bear on Lumpa. And while these methods did not prove to be persuasive (1,500 killed and 20,000 emigrated bear witness to this) they were effective none the less.

                        Clearly, Lumpa leaders were not competing with the nationalist petty bourgeoisie that constituted UNIP’s leadership, over the control of the entire Northern Rhodesian or Zambian state. However, on a more limited geographical scale, Lumpa’s rejection of UNIP in north-eastern Zambia certainly amounted to a serious challenge of that bourgeoisie’s position. My re-analysis in the light of Calmettes’s criticism has shown how overall rejection of peasant incorporation, stressed as a sole factor in my earlier analysis, may have been only one side of Lumpa. The struggle of the Lumpa leadership to safeguard its own privileged position (which depended on the continued functioning of the structure of domination that Lumpa, as a regional-cultic mode of production, had imposed upon the countryside) may be another side. If so, another dimension of class conflict in Lumpa is revealed which so far has found little mention in the literature on class formation in modern Africa: the struggle between a secular bourgeoisie and a religious bourgeoisie. The issue at stake was not directly control of the state, but on the one hand a network of economic, political and social relations as existing in a significant part of the state’s territory; on the other, the self-esteem and credibility of a political petty bourgeoisie uncertain of its recent hold on the state. Lumpa represented a threat to processes of mass mobilisation at the grass-roots level, so crucial for a bourgeoisie aspiring to control the post-colonial state; at the same time, the state contained the military means to exterminate such threats. Therefore, once having secured a considerable degree of control over the state, the secular protagonist in this conflict could effectively crush its religious adversary.



Alavi, H. (1972), ‘The state in post-colonial societies: Pakistan and Bangla Desh’, New Left Review, 74:25-39.

Anonymous (1964), ‘Postscript to the Lumpa movement’, Newsletter (London: Institute for Race Relations), September 1964: 25-8.

Assimeng, J.M. (1970), ‘Sectarian allegiance and political authority: The Watch Tower Society in Zambia 1907-35’, Journal of Modern African Studies, 8:97-112.

Balandier, G. (1965), ‘Messianism and nationalism in black Africa’, in: Van den Berghe, P. (ed.), Africa: Problems of Change and Conflict, San Francisco: Chandler, pp. 443-60.

Banton, M. (1970), ‘African prophets’, in: Middleton, J . (ed.) (1970), Black Africa, London: Collier-Macmillan, pp. 222-33

Barrett, D.B. (1968), Schism and Renewal in Africa, Nairobi: Oxford University Press.

Calmettes, J.-L. (1970), Lumpa Church: I. The Genesis and Development 1953-1964, Ilondola Mission, Chinsali.

Calmettes, J.-L. (1972), ‘The Lumpa Church and Witchcraft Eradication’, paper read at Conference on the History of Central African Religious Systems, University of Zambia/University of California Los Angeles, Lusaka.

Calmettes, J .-L. (1978), ‘The Lumpa Sect, Rural Reconstruction, and Conflict’, MSc (Econ) thesis, University of Wales.

Caplan, G.C. (1970), The Elites of Barotseland 1878-1969, London: Hurst .

Carter, M. (1972), ‘Origin and Diffusion of Central African Cults of Affliction’, paper read at Conference on the History of Central African Religious Systems, University of Zambia/University of California Los Angeles, Lusaka.

Chéry, H.C. (1959), ‘Les sectes en Rhodésie du Nord’, Parole et Mission, 2:278-94.

Chéry, H.C. (1961), ‘Visage des sectes et motifs de dissidence’, in: Masson, J. (ed.) (1961), Devant les Sectes non-chrétiennes, Louvain: Desclée de Brouwer, pp. 28-51.

Chibanza, S .l . (1961), ‘Kaonde history’, in: Apthorpe, R.J. (1961), (ed.) Central Bantu Historical Texts, 1, Lusaka: Rhodes-Livingstone Institute, Communication no. 22, pp. 41 -114.

Clairmonte, P. (1964), ‘Lumpa church based on fear’, The Times, 6 August 1964.

Cross, S. (1970), ‘A prophet not without honour: Jeremiah Gondwe’, in: Allen, C.H. and R.W. Johnson (eds) (1970),African Perspectives, Cambridge University Press, pp. 171-84.

Cross, S. (1973), ‘The Watch Tower Movement in S. Central Africa 1908-1945 ‘, DPhil. thesis, Oxford.

Cross, S. (1978), ‘Independent churches and independent states: Jehovah’s Witnesses in East and Central Africa’, in: Fasholé-Luke, E.R., R. Gray, A. Hastings and G. Tasie (eds) (1978), Christianity in Independent Africa, London: Rex Collins, pp. 304-15.

Department, 1964, Information Department of the Government of Northern Rhodesia (1964), ‘Official Description of the Development of the Lumpa Church, etc.’, East Africa and Rhodesia, 40 (2080), 20 August 1964: 940-1.

Douglas, M. (1963), ‘Techniques of sorcery control in Central Africa’, in: Middleton, J. and E.H. Winter (eds) (1963), Witchcraft and Sorcery in East Africa, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, pp. 123-41.

Douglas, M. (1964b), ‘Against witchcraft’, New Society, 4.

Eliade, M. ( 1949), Le Mythe de I’éternel retour, Paris: Gallimard.

Emanuel, P.A. ( 1964), ‘De zwarte Hemel’, Kroniek van Afrika, 4: 196-9.

Fernandez, J.W. (1964b), ‘The Lumpa uprising: Why?’, Africa Report, 9:30-2.

Franklin, H. (1964), ‘Zambia’s holy war’, Spectator (London), 213, 7 August 1964: 173.

Gertzel, G. (ed.) (n.d.), The Political Process in Zambia. Documents and Readings, Part 1: The Socio-Economic Background, University of Zambia (c. 1972).

Geschiere, P.L. (1978), ‘Stamgemeenschappen onder Staatsgezag’, PhD thesis, Free University, Amsterdam. [ vervang door Engelse versie ]

Gluckman, M. (1971), ‘Tribalism, ruralism and urbanism in South and Central Africa’, in: Turner, V.W. (ed.) (1971), Profiles of Change (Colonialism in Africa 1870-1960, part 111, general editors L. Gann and P. Duignan), Cambridge University Press, pp. 127-66.

Greschat, H.J. (1965), ‘ "Witchcraft" und kirchlicher Separatismus in Zentral-Afrika’, in: Benz, E. (ed.) (1965), Messianische Kirchen, Sekten und Bewegungen im Heutigen Afrika, Leiden: Brill, pp. 89-104.

Greschat, H.J. (1968), ‘Legend? fraud? reality? Alice Lenshina’s prophetic experience: notes from some sources’, Africana Marburgensia, 1:8-13.

Gulliver, P.H. (1972), ‘Bibliography of the principal writings of Audrey Richards’, in: La Fontaine, J.S. (ed.) (1972), The Interpretation of Ritual, London: Tavistock, pp. 285-9.

Hall, R. ( 1968), Zambia, London: Pall Mall Press.

Henderson, I. (1970a), ‘The origins of nationalism in East and Central Africa: the Zambian case’, Journal of African History, 11:591 -603.

Heward, C. (1964), ‘The rise of Alice Lenshina’, New Society, 4, 98, 13 August 1964: 6-8.

Hodges, T. (1976), Jehovah’s Witnesses in Central Africa, London Minority Rights Group.

Hooker, J .R. (1965), ‘Witnesses and Watchtower in the Rhodesias and Nyasaland’, Journal of African History, 6:91-106.

Jules-Rosette, B. (1977), ‘Grass-roots ecumenism’, African Social Research, 23:185-216.

Krishnamurty, B.S. (1972), Chachacha, Lusaka: Oxford University Press and Neczam.

Kuper, A. (1979), ‘The magician and the missionary’, in: Van den Berghe, P. (ed.) (1979), The Liberal Dilemma in South Africa, London: Croom Helm, pp. 77-96.

Lanternari, V. (1965-6), ‘Syncrétismes, messianismes, néo-traditionalismes: Postface é une étude des mouvements religieux de l’Afrique noire’, Archives de Sociologie des Religions, 19: 99-116, and (II: ‘La situation post-coloniale’) 20: 101-110.

Legum, C. (1966), Zambia: Independence and Beyond. London: Nelson.

Lehmann, D. (1961), ‘Alice Lenshina Mulenga and the Lumpa Church ‘, in: Taylor, J.V. and D.A. Lehmann (1961), Christians of the Copperbelt, London: SCM Press, pp. 248-68.

Lehmann, D. (1963), ‘Women in the independent African churches’, in: Hayward, V.E.W. (ed.) (1963),African Independent Church Movements, London: Edinburgh House Press, pp. 65-9.

Linden, J. and I. Linden (1971), ‘John Chilembwe and the New Jerusalem’, Journal of African History, 12: 629-51.

Long, N. (1968), Social Change and the Individual, Manchester University Press for Institute for Social Research.

Macpherson, F. (1958), ‘Notes on the beginning of the movement’, Occasional Papers (London, International Missionary Council), 1: 2-5.

Macpherson, F. (1974), Kenneth Kaunda of Zambia, Lusaka: Oxford University Press.

Mamdani, M. (1976), Politics and Class Formation in Uganda, London: Heinemann.

Martin, M.L. (1964), ‘The conflict between the Lumpa church and the government of Zambia (Northern Rhodesia)’, Ministry (Marija),5 :46-8.

Meebelo, H.S. (1971), Reaction to Colonialism, Manchester University Press for Institute for African Studies.

Miliband, R. (1969), The State in Capitalist Society, London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.

Molteno, R. (1974), ‘Cleavage and conflict in Zambian politics: a study in sectionalism,’ in: Tordoff, W. (ed.) (1974), Politics in Zambia, Manchester University Press, pp. 62-106.

Mulford, D.C. (1967), Zambia: The Politics of Independence 1957-1964, Oxford University Press.

Muntemba, M.S. (1972b), ‘Zambia Nzila Sect and Christian Churches in the Livingstone Area’, paper read at Conference on the History of Central African Religious Systems, University of Zambia/ University of California Los Angeles, Lusaka.

Mwanakatwe, J.M. (1968), The Growth of Education in Zambia since Independence, Lusaka: Oxford University Press.

Ofori, P.E. (1977), Christianity in Tropical Africa: a Selective Annotated Bibliography, Nendeln: KTO Press.

Oger, L. (1960), ‘Lumpa Church: the Lenshina Movement in Northern Rhodesia’, (n.p.) (Serenje), MS in University of Zambia Library, Lusaka.

Oosthuizen, G.C. (1968), Post-Christianity in Africa, London: Hurst.

Peel, J.D.Y. (1973), ‘The religious transformation in Africa in a Weberian perspective’, in CNRS/CISR, The Contemporary Metamorphosis of Religion?, Lille, pp. 337-52.

Pettman, J. (1974), Zambia: Security and Conflict, Lewes: Julien Friedmann .

Phiri, A. (1975), ‘No salute, No school’, Target, 147:4,10.

Poulantzas, N. (1974), Les Classes sociales dans le capitalisme aujourd’hui, Paris: Seuil.

Shepperson, G. and T. Price (1958),Independent African, Edinburgh University Press.

Ranger, T.O. (1968a), ‘Connexions between "primary resistance movements" and modern mass nationalism in East and Central Africa’, Journal of African History, 9: 437-53, 631-41.

Ranger, T.O. (1972a), ‘Mcape’, paper read at Conference on the History of Central African Religious Systems, University of Zambia/ University of California Los Angeles, Lusaka.

Ranger, T.O. (1975), ‘The Mwana Lesa movement of 1925 ‘, in: Ranger, T.O. and J. Weller (eds) (1975), Themes in the Christian History of Central Africa, London: Heinemann, pp. 45-75.

Report (1965), Report of the commission of inquiry into the former Lumpa church, Lusaka: Government Printer.

Rey, P.-P. (1973), Les Alliances de classes, Paris: Maspero.

Rey, P.-P. (ed.) (1976), Capitalisme négrier, Paris: Maspero.

Roberts, A. (1964),’The Lumpa tragedy’, Peace News, no. 1471,4 September.

Roberts, A. (1972), The Lumpa church of Alice Lenshina, Lusaka: Oxford University Press; reprint of: Roberts, A. (1970b), ‘The Lumpa Church of Alice Lenshina’, in: Rotberg, R.I. and A. Mazrui (eds), Protest and Power in Black Africa, New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 513-68.

Roberts, A. (1970b), ‘The Lumpa Church of Alice Lenshina’, in: Rotberg, R.I. and A. Mazrui (eds), Protest and Power in Black Africa, New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 513-68.

Roberts, A. (1973), A history of the Bemba, London: Longman

Rotberg, R.I. (1961), ‘The Lenshina movement of Northern Rhodesia’, Rhodes-Livingstone Journal, 29: 63-78.

Rotberg, R.I. (1965), Christian Missionaries and the Creation of Northern Rhodesia, 1880-1924, Princeton University Press.

Rotberg, R.I. (1967), The Rise of Nationalism in Central Africa, Harvard University Press.

Saul, J .S. (1974), ‘African peasants and revolution’, Review of African Political Economy, I :41-68.

Shepperson, G. (1970), ‘The comparative study of millennarian movements’, in: Thrupp, S.L. (ed.) (1970), Millennial Dreams in Action, New York: Schocken, pp. 44-52.

Shivji, I.G. (1976), Class Struggles in Tanzania, London: Heinemann.

Short, R. (1973),African Sunset, London: Johnson Publications Ltd.

Short, R. (1978), Personal communication, I April 1978.

Sklar, R. (1974), ‘Zambia’s response to the Rhodesian unilateral declaration of independence’, in: Tordoff, W. (ed.) (1974), Politics in Zambia, Manchester University Press, pp. 320-62.

Stone, W.V. (1958), ‘The "Alice Movement" in 1958’, Occasional Papers, London: International Missionary Council, l :5-10.

Tordoff, W. (ed.) (1974), Politics in Zambia, Manchester University Press .

Turner, V.W. (1966), ‘Colour classification in Ndembu ritual’, in: Banton, M. (ed.) (1966), Anthropological Approaches to the Study of Religion, London: Tavistock, ASA Monograph no. 3, pp. 47-84.

Van Binsbergen, W.M.J . (1972b), ‘Possession and Mediumship in Zambia: Towards a Comparative Approach’, paper read at Conference on the History of Central African Religious Systems, University of Zambia/University of California Los Angeles, Lusaka; this volume, chapter 2. 

Van Binsbergen, W.M.J. (1975a), ‘Ethnicity as a Dependent Variable: The "Nkoya" Ethnic Identity and Inter-Ethnic Relations in Zambia’, paper read at 34th Annual Meeting, Society for Applied Anthropology, Amsterdam. 

Van Binsbergen, W.M.J. (1975b), ‘Labour Migration and the Generation Conflict: An Essay on Social Change in Central Western Zambia’, paper read at 34th Annual Meeting, Society for Applied Anthropology, Amsterdam. 

Van Binsbergen, W.M.J . (1976a), ‘The dynamics of religious change in western Zambia’, Ufahamu, 6: 69-87. 

Van Binsbergen, W.M.J. (1976b), ‘Ritual, class and urban-rural relations’, Cultures et développement, 8: 195-218; this volume, chapter 6. 

Van Binsbergen W.M.J . (1976c), ‘Religious innovation and political conflict in Zambia’, in Van Binsbergen and Buijtenhuijs (1976a): 101-35; this volume, chapter 8. 

Van Binsbergen, W.M.J . (1977a), ‘Regional and non-regional cults of affliction in western Zambia’, in Werbner (1977a):141-75; this volume, chapter 5. 

Van Binsbergen, W.M.J . (1977c), ‘Law in the context of Nkoya society’, in: Roberts, S.A. (ed.) (1977), Law and the Family in Africa, The Hague/Paris: Mouton for Afrika-Studiecentrum, pp. 39-68.

Van Binsbergen, W.M.J. (1978), ‘Class Formation and the Penetration of Capitalism in a Zambian Rural District’, paper read at Seminar on Social Stratification and Class Formation in Africa, Afrika-Studiecentrum, Leiden.

Van Binsbergen, W.M.J. (1979b), ‘Explorations in the sociology and history of territorial cults in Zambia’, in Schoffeleers (1979b): 47-88 

Van Binsbergen, W.M.J . (1979c) ‘The infancy of Edward Shelonga: an extended case from the Zambian Nkoya’, in: Van der Geest, J.D.M. and K.W. van der Veen (eds) (1979), In Search of Health, University of Amsterdam, pp. 19-90.

Van Binsbergen, W.M.J. (forthcoming (a)), Ritual, Class and Urban-Rural Relations. 

Vansina, J . (1966), Kingdoms of the Savanna, Madison: Wisconsin University Press

Weber, M. (1969), The Theory of Social end Economic Organization, Glencoe: Free Press.

Weber, M. (1976), The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, London: Allen & Unwin, 2nd ed.

Welbourn, F.B. (1964), ‘Lumpa and Zambia’, Venture (London),16, 9-10 September 1964: 41.

Werbner, R.P. (1969), ‘Constitutional ambiguities and the British administration of royal careers among the Bemba of Zambia’, in: Nader, L. (ed.) (1969), Law in Culture and Society, Chicago: Aldine, pp. 245-72.

Werbner, R. P. (ed.) (1977a), Regional Cults, London: Academic Press, ASA Monograph no. 16.

Willis, R.G. (1970), ‘Instant millennium: The sociology of African witch-cleansing cults’, in: Douglas, M. (ed.) (1970a), Witchcraft Confessions and Accusations, London: Tavistock, ASA Monograph no. 9, pp. 129-39.

Wilson, B.R. (1964), ‘Peril in martyrdom’, Observer, 16 August 1964.

Wilson, B.R. (1975), Magic and the Millennium, Frogmore: Paladin/ Granada Publishing (reprint of 1973 edition).


Archival materials consulted

All files cited below are in the Zambia National Archives, Lusaka. For a general description of the organization of these archives, and an explanation of file numbers, see Graham and Halwindi (1970).


KDD 1/2/1                                            Mwepya Witchdoctor (Kasempa District)

KDD 1/4/1                                            Kasempa Province Correspondence: Watchtower Movement

KDE 8/1/18                                           Mankoya District Annual Report 1926

KSX 1/1/1                                             Mankoya District Correspondence 1931-5

SEC/NAT/393                                      Watchtower 1931 -2

SEC/NAT/66A                                     Barotse Annual Report 1935,1936 (includes Mankoya Annual Report 1935,1936)

ZA 1/9/62/1/6                                      Watchtower from 4 September 1934

ZA 1/9/181/(3)                                     Witchcraft

ZA 1/10/file no. 62 Watchtower (includes: ‘Quarterly Report for the Period Ending 30th September 1926, Confidential Annexure, Kalabo’)

ZA 1/10/vol 3 no. 4 Watchtower Movement

ZA 1/15/M/1                                        Deportation of Watchtower Natives

ZA 1/15/M/2                                        Mchape

ZA 7/1/16/3                                          Barotse Annual Report 1933 (includes Mankoya District Annual Report 1933)

ZA 7/1/17/5                                          Barotse Annual Report 1934 (includes Mankoya District Annual Report 1934)

homepage | index page Lumpa | Part I | Part II | Part III

[1]                        Calmettes (1978)

[2]                      In its emphasis on political, economic and class issues Calmettes’s latest work also represents a remarkable step for ward as compared to his earlier Lumpa pieces (1970, 1972).

[3]                      Van Binsbergen (I 976c): 109; cf. p. 275 above.

[4]                        Calmettes (1978):193.

[5]                      Rey (1973,1976).

[6]                        Calmettes (1978):195.

[7]                      Report (1965):9;cf. Roberts (1972):39.

[8]                      Roberts (1972):39.

[9]                      Short (1973) :267.

[10]                        Calmettes ( I 978) :193; cf. Oger ( I 960): 17.

[11]                        Calmettes (1978):172.

[12]                   Van Binsbergen ( I 976c): 121; cf. p. 292 above.

[13]                   Roberts ( I 972) : 3; cf. Van Binsbergen (1977a: 161, this volume, p. 202  ).

[14]                        Werbner (1977a).

[15]                   ‘Lumpa Church is an organisation in which to worship God and his son Jesus Christ. It is not an organisation to make unruly behaviour with the laws of the Country’, Laws of the Lumpa Church, Lehmann (1961):253; my italics.

[16]                   Cf. Poulantzas (1974).

[17]                        Calmettes (1978):197;it would be interesting to know what specific pre-colonial wars or primary resistance movements Calmettes is referring to here.

[18]                        Lehmann (1961)

[19]                        Calmettes (1978):196

[20]                        Calmettes (1978):198

[21]                   Roberts (1973)

[22]                        Richards ( I 939,1969); Brelsford ( I 942,1944); Werbner (1969)

[23]                   Cross (1978):307

[24]                        Calmettes (1978):109f

[25]                   Van Binsbergen (1976c):126;cf p 297 above

[26]                        Calmettes (1978):145f

[27]                        Mamdani (1976); Shivji (1976); Alavi (1972); Saul (1974); Geschiere (1978); Buijtenhuijs and Geschiere (1978)

[28]                   Cf Miliband (1969) and especially Poulantzas (1974)

[29]                   Short (1973) :267

[30]                   Short (1973) :267

homepage | index page Lumpa | Part I | Part II | Part III

page last modified: 2000-05-17 16:17:32