THE - BORDER: FROM DEMARCATION TO C.1980

Nedson Pophiwa University of the Witwatersrand1

Paper prepared for the African Borderlands Research Network Conference on “How is Africa Transforming Border Studies?” Johannesburg, 10-12 September 2009

Abstract The paper contributes to our knowledge of African borderlands in general and the Zimbabwe-Mozambique border in particular. It pays particular attention to the demarcation of the boundary and early forms of economic and social interaction across the border among the communities astride the border by illuminating on the lived experiences of people in Penhalonga. Following Momoh (1989)’s characterization of African borderlands, the Zimbabwe-Mozambique border is categorized as a maximal borderland. It should be noted that, prior to the partition of the continent Africans had their own boundaries which differed from those that were drawn at the Berlin Conference. The drawing up of these boundaries meant that Africans were now supposedly confined to certain territorial limits either in colonial Zimbabwe or Mozambique. Africans continued to traverse the border in colonial times mainly as a way of evading tax in the first few decades and also in search of employment. However, when the liberation struggle intensified in Zimbabwe, the colonial government under deployed uniformed forces to seal the border. It was probably the first time that the state seriously regulated the movement and cross-border interaction among the borderland communities.

Introduction

The paper contributes to our knowledge of African borderlands in general and the Zimbabwe-Mozambique border in particular. It pays particular attention to the demarcation of the boundary and early forms of economic interaction across the border among the communities astride the border by illuminating on the lived experiences of people in Penhalonga. It should be noted that, prior to the partition of the continent Africans had their own boundaries which differed from those that were drawn at the Berlin Conference. The drawing up of these boundaries meant that Africans were now supposedly confined to certain territorial limits either in colonial Zimbabwe or Mozambique. Africans continued to traverse the border in colonial times mainly as a way of evading tax in the first few decades and also in search of employment. However, when the liberation struggle intensified in Zimbabwe, the colonial government under Ian Smith deployed uniformed forces to seal the border. It was probably the first time that the state seriously regulated the movement and cross-border interaction among the borderland communities. There has been a tendency for scholars to regard African borders as ‘artificial.’ Borderland scholarship initially concentrated on American and European

1 Work in progress do not cite borders, particularly in the much studied Mexican-USA border. (Stoddard 1989; Martinez 1989) The theories and other explanations established there were applied by scholars who turned to the study of borderlands in Africa. African scholars initially focused on the events that culminated to the demarcation of borders (Herbst 1989; MacEwen 1991). With time, they also became concerned with the people who lived astride borders and wrote about their lived experiences and interaction across borders (Asiwaju 1991; Bakewell 1999; Kloppers 2005; Merkx 2000). Asiwaju (1985; 5) labeled African borderlands, “special areas of socio-political ambivalence,” because of their location outside the development cores of national territory. He is among the first African scholars to apply borderland theories to African countries. His edited book has chapters that draw examples from diverse case studies across the continent contributed by several authors. Though Asiwaju popularized the study of borders in the 1980s, Warhurst (1973) had already dedicated his work on the history of the northeastern Zimbabwe-Mozambique border where he was interested in the events that culminated in the formation of a border and the immediate consequences of demarcation. The irregular migration and border crossings by borderland communities have been sometimes interpreted as contestations by Africans of international boundaries that were set up by the colonialists. Be that as it may, they might not recognize the borders but, from their activities, borderland communities seem to be ‘co-existing’ in a way with the border. In fact, some communities have begun to respect the borders and hold a sense of national identity and treat their neighbours as foreigners. Miles (2005) has written on the effect of the setting up of a customs post on the Niger-Nigerian border in the late 1990s and its impact on the local communities. He asserts that from both sides of the boundary, national control has gradually intensified, reinforcing Hausa villagers’ consciousness of, and deference to, their respective national identities. Miles argues that locals perceive the border as infrastructural development and a sign of national identity and not division. Kloppers adds an interesting dimension where state perceptions differ from local perceptions of borders; Borders are only artificial from the viewpoint of the powerless and poor who have no vested interest in their existence. Political elites who benefit from the existence of state borders do not see state borders as artificial. (2005; 7)

This argument is sustained by Herbst (1989; 657) who argues that the adoption of colonial borders by the Organization for African Unity, assured the new nationalists that “they would control resources brought in from outside, whether those resources be economic or technical assistance, or political support.” The same can be said of the differences in perceptions between the Mozambican and Zimbabwean governments and the borderland communities astride the border. From speaking with the villagers, one gets the impression that these people are conscious of the border’s existence but it does not necessarily hinder them from crossing because they have ways of beating the system. The governments particularly that of Zimbabwe, are very eager to control the movement of goods across the border. The border patrols enforce the restriction of goods across the bush tracks of the border. Thus McEwen (1991; 63) argues that the European powers adopted a fairly liberal attitude towards the regulation of colonial boundaries in contrast to the independent African states who pay closer attention to their inherited territorial limits and controlling the movement of people and goods across them, especially in situations involving the large-scale passage of refugees or contraband items. Despite the regulations imposed by governments, borders remain areas of exchange for communities that live astride them. In his study of the Sudan and Uganda borderland, Merkx (2000; 7) perceives borders as areas of economic opportunity, whereby a two-way flow of goods and workers can bring progress, but can also be “abused” for economic gain through illegal import or export or by capitalizing on different prices and markets on both sides. Despite the tougher economic environment that has developed since the 1960s, interaction between people in northern Uganda and southern Sudan continued. How would one characterize the Zimbabwe-Mozambique border? With regard to the themes and tensions that surround cross-border dynamics, Berry (1997) identified three groups of scholars: those who view boundaries as powerful and progressive—serving to define and advance ideas, activities and outcomes in many domains of social and intellectual life; those who see boundaries as powerful but oppressive, serving to limit and exclude; and a third, recently expanding group who tend to portray boundaries as permeable, contested and not so powerful in shaping the course of events. The characteristics of the Mozambique-Zimbabwean border as will be shown suit the third criterion. There are several scholarly approaches to the history of the Mozambique- Zimbabwe border. The earlier historical works concentrated on analyzing the forces that shaped a borderland society on the Zimbabwe-Mozambique border. Beach (1992) argues that the division on the frontier between Mozambique and its Anglophone neighbours was not a result of any long-term historical event but the effects of the 1891 Anglo-Portuguese treaty. The treaty brought a border that cut through larger numbers of African territories on the border areas and across long- term links between the peoples and economies of the Zimbabwean plateau links. Other pre-colonial works on the interaction of the societies before and after the demarcation of the Mozambique-Zimbabwe border include the writings of (Bhila 1976 and 1978; Blake 1977; Moore 1995; Mutukumira 1999) In his discussion of the “exclusive territoriality” of the Choa highlands in Manica province, astride the Zimbabwe-Mozambique border, Vitarnen (1999) argues that the local population of that area remains part of a larger socio-economic network, which extends to neighbouring Zimbabwe. Virtanen’s study brings interesting aspects about the interactions between the two sides of the border and how these have continued to occur, with some changes having been experienced as the situation deteriorated on the Zimbabwean side. Hughes (1996; 2003) is one of the scholars who have disputed the categorisation of the Mozambique-Zimbabwe border as soft, because, emigration, he argues, stripped off their rights and privileges which they enjoyed in their own country when Zimbabwean headmen exploited Mozambican migrants as pawns in territorial disputes with the state and private landowners. In this paper I made use of the contributions from this diverse literature, particularly for carving out themes and background information. The Penhalonga and Nyaronga communities are relatively understudied areas, and there are no scholarly works on smuggling along the border. Correspondence and primary documents from the National Archives of Zimbabwe provided useful information on the activuites that transpired during the colonial era. Oral interviews and oral histories with the people of Nyaronga and Penhalonga were collected so as to ensure that these interviewees would be given as much voice as possible.

The establishment of a border and immediate consequences

The Zimbabwe-Mozambique boundary, where Penhalonga and Nyaronga are located, was delimited through the signing of the Anglo-Portuguese treaty of June 11, 1891 (Officer of the Geographer 1971). The demarcation of the border on the ground was made by natural features such as rivers and also by artificial marks such as pillars. In the central part, the boundary traverses an area of numerous escarpments and peaks, including the Nyanga and the Chimanimani Mountains. The demarcation of the boundary was divided in four sectors from north to south as follows: (1) the Zambezi to the Mazowe, (2) the Mazowe to Honde (Barwe sector), (3) the Honde to the Save (Manica Sector), and (4) the Save to the Limpopo. But after this, there were subsequent adjustments to the boundary that were usually settled through arbitration. For example, in January 1895, a declaration was made to alter an area in dispute between Portugal and the United Kingdom which was commonly known as the Manica boundary. The final settlement made in 1897 is well illustrated in the words of the historian R. Blake; Southern thus acquired what has come to be one of its main holiday areas including Umtali, the Vumba Mountains and Melsetter, all of which would have gone to Portugal under the 1891 Treaty. In return, the Portuguese obtained a then useless area which, however, included the site where the Caborabassa dam was to be built over seventy years later and Britain renounced any claim to Gazaland (Blake 1977, 89).

However, these adjustments carried on to the late 1930s; for example, the boundary between the Honde (approximately 18˚30’ south) and the Limpopo was finalized in 1937 (Office of the Geographer 1971). In terms of the colonial state’s perception of the border, one can agree with McEwen (1999, 63) that the European powers “adopted a fairly liberal attitude towards the regulation of colonial boundaries.” As late as 1898, there was no clear indication as to where the Zimbabwe-Mozambique border lay and many chiefs were uncertain of which side they belonged to. This delay had complications in dealing with territorial issues that overlapped into disputed areas. For example, the Native Commissioner for Umtali received the following complaint in 1899: It is to be regretted that we are not yet in a position to let the natives know where the boundary is. They look up in distrust to us now. They say we have been along the border and told them that would be the boundary and now the Portuguese come on this side and collect hut tax where they have been never before. This could affect the prospecting and mining activities that have just begun (Native Commissioner’s report 1899).

Such kind of problems, which had implications on the border were not treated as a matter of urgency. However, the African risings led by Chief Mapondera that rocked the border in 1900-1901 prompted the Colonial office to remind the BSAC government about the “regrettable state of lawlessness in the neighbourhood of the independent boundary” (Warhust 1973, 2). The relations between the British Colonial administration and their Portuguese counterparts also delayed the demarcation of the border because of the dishonesty of the former: The Portuguese were not as clever as the British. They would demarcate the border by marking trees with paint. However, where the British saw opportunities for mining within Portuguese territory, they would cut the trees and burn the stumps so that the demarcations were removed. That would be their basis for operating in that area which in actual sense belonged to the Portuguese. Initially some of the territory that lay in Penhalonga was part of Mozambique but the British wanted to mine gold and after the demarcation of that border, Portuguese miners had to surrender those mines (ZEngeni 2007).

Rennie (1973) argues against giving agency to the British settlers in securing the border with Mozambique. He dismisses the claims by other scholars that the role played by the white settlers from 1893 in the Eastern Districts of Colonial Zimbabwe was a key factor which secured the border against the Portuguese. Instead, Rennie asserts that “the role the settlers played was to secure for the BSAC an area which was already effectively British by international agreement, and wanted only demarcation” (1973, 167). He further argues that there is no evidence available that the patterns of white settlement influenced the eventual demarcation of the Boundary Commission. One can thus question the colonial mind or settler thinking towards the erection of borders. It is interesting to note scholarly interpretations on this matter, where boundaries are said to have been designed for the effective extraction of taxes from colonial subjects. Writing on Asian borderlands, Hortsman (2004) argues that from the colonial perspective, boundaries were designed to restrict trade and movement of people across the inter-colonial border and to promote activities like taxation, road construction and resource extraction. He sustains the argument by stating that border formation “is a crucial part of the ambition of the colonial state to establish control over people and territory in the occupied land and to force them to produce revenues for the colonial masters.” At the same time, Africans had no voice when the processes of delimitation and demarcation were conducted. For example, the Native Commissioner for Umtali received the following complaint from an African residing in Penhalonga: A complaint has been laid by Tshitona [an African headman] against a white man to the effect that he took eleven head of cattle belonging to Tshitona , which cattle were being herded in Portuguese territory…the white man had bought some land in Portuguese territory and finding these cattle there, confiscated them. I do not know the white man’s name but the native is called Magwere and he works in Penhalonga at the Proprietary Mines Ltd (Native Commisioner’s report 1900).

Whilst the reaction by Africans to the demarcation of the border is not vividly captured in the archival documents and official reports, we learn from the official records that Africans had their own feelings towards the redrawing of boundaries. In his thesis D.S. Moore hints on the perceptions of the British white settlers regarding the setting up of the border and the African ‘preferences’ on which side of the boundary they favoured to reside. The Native Commissioner for Umtali reported, “The natives seem to be very pleased that the boundary question is to be solved at last and those living near the border say should they fall into Portuguese territory they will move over again” (Moore 1995, 184). Rhodesian administrators often saw themselves as benevolent paternalists, so they depicted Africans eager to choose allegiance to a British, rather than Portuguese, colonial state. According to Moore, forced labour east of the border was one of the undesirable consequences of living under Portuguese rule cited by Rhodesian officials. Mutukumira (1997) argues that the border was an asset for the Africans who evaded tax payments by crossing over to Mozambique, hiding in mountains and narrow valleys from the British tax collectors. He quotes a British colonial official complaining that “the people live sometimes on this, sometimes on that side of the Portuguese boundary and they possess no movable property of any sort that could be seized for the payment of taxes (1997, 35).” More interestingly, Mutukumira sums up the local African perceptions of the border when he states that most of his informants did not know that the border existed or had been laid. It should be borne in mind that prior to colonization and the demarcation of the boundary, the Manyika were involved in trade with the Portuguese and also their eastern neighbours the Gaza-Nguni. However, their relations were not always smooth, because the Gaza-Nguni attacked the kingdom of the Manyika in the early 1870s. Bhila (1977) argues that the war did not end the economic relations between the Manyika and Portuguese traders and that the latter were utterly destroyed and lost their independent identity. Instead, Bhila contends that trade flourished, especially in firearms and it was only when the British and Portuguese with their “respective commercial interests came face to face after 1890 that effective power came into the region” (1977, 37). Consequently the Manyika succumbed and were partitioned. From 1890 the British and the Portuguese began to effectively occupy these Southern African territories, which subsequently led to the demarcation of the border as already alluded to. An interesting economic activity obtaining during the early history of interactions on the border was the illegal sale and theft of guns. Africans from both sides of the border could access guns by theft and trade, a crime that colonial administrators had difficulty in combating. Mutukumira (1997, 36) augments this claim by citing British officials who admitted that the gun and ammunition trade surpassed all legitimate trade as the frontier societies preferred guns to anything else. Warhurst (1973) asserts that the immediate consequence after the delimitation of the border was the restriction on the gold trade to Tete, which flourished when the state was still independent. Traders from Tete who had collected alluvial gold extracted from the Mazowe River found it more difficult now that the sources of gold were in British territory. In this sense, the border was a barrier to the Tete traders who could no longer continue with the gold trade. Border control also served the purpose of regulating labour in some cases but the Native Commissioners experienced problems with regulating people movement. The Tete Agreement of 1913 signed as a labour agreement between Mozambique and Southern Rhodesia granted Southern Rhodesia access to recruit labour within Tete Province but efforts to control clandestine labour were fruitless: In a number of cases there are valid reasons for natives wishing to settle in Southern Rhodesia. A man domiciled on our side of the border dies; his heir and the head of the family lives on the other side and wishes to cross in order to take up his position. Marriages take place between parties living on different sides, and as all marriages are mugariri marriages either the son-in- law must move to the father-in-law or (occasionally) vice versa of natives can move from here to Portuguese East Africa but not the other way, we stand to lose, but never to gain. These instances can be multiplied almost ad infinitum. The fact is that the border does not follow any definite tribal line. (Native Commissioner 1923)

The Native Commissioner noted furthere:

Chief Chigayo’s country, for example extends beyond the Mkumvura to the Karuhwe River in Portuguese East Africa. This being so, there will always be a considerable movement backwards and forwards whether we recognize it or not, and it would be almost be inhuman to try to prevent it. At present, by refusing recognition, we are only creating a class of natives who ship over the border whenever an official policeman is within the neighbourhood. (Native Commissioner 1923)

We learn from the Native Commissioner that administration of border areas was difficult due to the prevailing set up of a border that ‘cut’ originally solid ethnic groups, for instance, the Manyika and Barwe who could easily smuggle themselves across the border. The Zimbabwe-Mozambique border stretched across ethnic groups in the two countries. As a result, some sections of the border had unrestricted movement even during the colonial period because of the interaction between the communities.

Life in the Borderland

The first mine compound in Penhalonga for Africans was called Marata which was constructed during the First World War. The name came from the structures which were made from aluminum sheets (marata) and was a temporary type of housing for African men (Zengeni 2007). It was a compound for miners who worked for Rezende Mine. Later on in the 1950s, the mine constructed a much better compound with standard housing and Marata was razed to the ground. Sylvester Mateya an informant, illustrated life in the compounds: We spent most of our time playing soccer as young boys at Marata soccer pitch where we played soccer... It entertained us very much. We would also have choirs whereby we would sing for people but in a deliberately discordant manner at night to disturb people so that they would give us money as a way of sending us away. It was a way of raising funds which we would use to buy this very sweet loaf of bread that we would eat with jam. We could go into Chadzuca on the other side of the border just to raise money through the choir (2007).

The Mozambicans came to work and shop for their basic needs in Penhalonga. This had always been the situation since the demarcation of the boundary, as Africans decided to live on one side of the border; The Mozambicans would come to the shops at Penhalonga to buy goods. The services here were better off than on the other side of the border. At Costa’s shop, children would be given a bowl of sugar and buns and sometimes sweets for buying at the shop. So we also preferred buying at the shop but of course we could also go to Nyaronga for a drink and they had their own type of bread that we liked very much. The border was open and so we could cross and buy what we wanted there. Even until to this day Mozambican women come to do vending here selling carrots and other greens (Mateya 2007).

Historically, the area was also synonymous with African nationalism in colonial Zimbabwe because a number of African politicians were educated at St Augustine’s Mission. An interesting incident occurred in the early 1950s when the African nationalist Herbert Chitepo visited Penhalonga: You see that small window on the shop? It was for Africans only. Whites would enter using the main entrance. So one day Chitepo visited Meikles’ Store, he bought a bed and a few other household goods. Now the shop assistants began to take the goods out using the main entrance so that they could load them into a car. But Chitepo refused and ordered them to take the bed out through the small window. He was persistent with his instruction until they called the shop manager. Again Chitepo ordered the manager to take the bed out through the small window since he had bought it through the window. The white manager did not recognize who Chitepo was until he was then told by his worker that this man was a freedom fighter. From that day onwards the window was sealed and we were allowed to enter through the main door to buy goods (Zengeni 2007).

The incident that occurred when Chitepo visited Penhalonga was an inspiration to some Africans who resided in the area and when the liberation struggle broke out, residents in this area were actively involved. Zengeni, who owned a store in the area, stated that he became a Commissar for ZANU and would secretly take responsibility for the welfare of freedom fighters that crossed from Mozambique into Penhalonga especially when they came to search for food and other basic needs; When youths came from Old Umtali to participate in the liberation struggle they would sometimes be arrested by the British Police for their nationalist activities. As the Commissar, I would go and plead for their release on the grounds that they were not coming for political reasons but to hire chairs that were at my shop. I also ensured that comrades who had bases in Mozambique would come and get their supplies. Tendayi and Karuru were some of their names. I made sure that at any given time I had snuff and cigarettes. They secretly came to see me at Tsvingwe. (2007)

This period saw an accelerated pace of exchange in commodities and information to and from Mozambique as some freedom fighters operated in the area. However, the period of the liberation struggle was not rosy for the residents of the mine compounds and the neighbouring villages. It is said that the curfews that were put in place were restrictive to night movement and people lived in fear especially when the freedom fighters visited the mine and the Rhodesian police or army found out about it: The next morning was trouble for us because the Rhodesian army would round us up and interrogate us. They would punish heavily those who would have given the freedom fighters hospitable treatment. The beatings were unexplainable as they could leave one for dead. At one time, I left the Nyaronga bar around eight o’clock, but to my surprise, the next morning I heard that the army arrived shortly after wards and beat up and tortured all the people in the bar for supporting the freedom fighters. You could not even walk freely, especially the time when the Chimurenga intensified in the mid-70s (Mateya 2007).

The heightened activities of nationalism in the later part of the 1970s moved the Rhodesian Government into controlling risk in many parts of the country. Resultantly, the crossing point of the Zimbabwe-Mozambique border in Penhalonga was closed and soldiers stationed there to stop movement of populations across the border: It was not until the 1970s when the war had become intensive and the government of Smith was under attacks from the guerrillas that we were banned from crossing the Muzuri entry point along the border. It was the first time to see troops manning the border and we could not even attempt to cross to the other side because they sealed the area to monitor movements of guerrillas in and out of the country. Even in the few years after independence, the border continued to have soldiers wearing Zimbabwe National Army uniforms in the new Zimbabwe (Mateya 2007).

This was the beginning of border control by the Rhodesian Army. For those who wanted to cross they now had to do so under a new set of rules, for example, a woman carrying firewood on her head and a baby on her back had now to go through the process of interrogation by a border patrol officer, explaining where she was going and ask for permission to pass with firewood. The same was true for all people who were to pass through that crossing point. The patrols were meant to monitor movements across the border by guerillas based in Mozambique since some of them would use that route. The same period also saw the planting of landmines along the border, making it a risk to cross into Mozambique through undesignated crossing points (Rupiah 1995). These points are said to have been guarded and not easy to cross: I actually remember going to Nyaronga only after the Chimurenga had ended because the situation had been calm and the number of soldiers reduced. In fact, they were becoming a bit friendlier to villagers since they now worked for a black government (the new Mugabe government) and so they were like comrades to us. We were not affected by Chimurenga in the same manner as the people in the rural areas especially Muchena communal lands located close to St Augustine’s Mission and some parts of Mutasa, who sometimes had to flee. We, therefore, did not cross into Mozambique running away from the war. Also Mozambicans did not flee into this country as refugees through this entry point in Penhalonga. They went to Chipinge and Kaerezi in Nyanga. Even if they came through this point they would be taken to the refugee camps at Tongogara in Chipinge. I suppose the activities of Renamo were not strife in that region. (Magobeya 2007)

Whilst this is undocumented, the closing of the border could have been linked to the efforts at stepping up security by the Smith regime after the historic crossing of the future Prime Minister of Zimbabwe, , the nationalist and Chief Rekayi Tangwena into Mozambique through the Nyanga side of the border. (Mugabe 1983) The few examples cited in the discussion show that interaction across the border among Africans occurred in response to the imposition of the border, and were reaction to control or regulation of movement as well as harsh treatment by the colonial governments.

References

Bakewell, O. 1999. Returning refugees or migrating villagers? Voluntary repatriation programmes in Africa reconsidered, New Issues in Refugee Research, Working Paper No. 15. http://www.jha.ac/articles/u015.htm (accessed March 16, 2006)

Beach, D.N. 1992. “The origins of Mozambique and Zimbabwe: Paiva de Andrada, The Companhia de Mozambique and African Diplomacy, 1881-91,” Seminar paper No. 89. University of Zimbabwe, Department of History

Berry, S. 1997. “Crossing boundaries, Debating African Studies,” Paper presented at the Fifth Annual Penn African Studies Workshop, Source: www.africa.upenn.edu/Workshop/sara.html (accessed June 22, 2005)

Bhila, H. H. K. 1976. “Firearms as a frontier in Manyika politics from the 16th Century to the early 20th century,” Rhodesian History, ix, 1978“Manyika relationships with the Portuguese and the Gaza-Nguni from 1832-1890,” Rhodesia History, vii

Blake, R. 1977. A History of Rhodesia, London, Eyre Methuen

Durang, T. 2004. “Access to land and other natural resources for local communities in Mozambique: Current Examples from Manica Province” Presented to the Green Agri Net Conference on 'Land Registration in Practice', Denmark, 1-2 April 2004

Flynn, D.K. 1997. “We are the border”: Identity, Exchange and the state along the Benin-Nigeria Border,” American Ethnologist, Vol.24, No.2

Herbst, J. 1989. “The Creation and Maintenance of National Boundaries in Africa, International Organization, Vol 43, No.4

Hortsmann, A. 2004. Incorporation and Resistance: Borderlands, Transnational Communities and Social Change in Southeast Asia, WPTC-02-04 Source:www.transcomm.ox.ac.uk/working%20papers/WPTC-02- 04%20Horstmann.pdf (accessed February 2, 2007)

Hughes, D. M. 1996. Disputed territory and dependent people: rethinking land tenure on the Zimbabwean-Mozambican border, USA California. Paper presented to the International Association for the Study of Common Property Meetings

2003. “Refugees and Squatters: Immigration and the politics of territory on the Zimbabwean-Mozambique border,” USA, Rutgers University, Paper presented to the Conference on Migration and Urbanisation in Comparative Perspective, Johannesburg, South Africa, 4-7 June 2003.

Kloppers, R.J. 2005. “Border Crossings: life in the Mozambique-South Africa Borderland since 1975,” D Phil Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Pretoria

Magobeya, F. 2007. Interview by Nedson Pophiwa, July 6. The history of the Zimbabwe-Mozambique border

Mateya, S. 2007. Interview by Nedson Pophiwa, July 5. Background history of the Zimbabwe- Mozambique border

Martinez, O. 1989. “Research Activity on the US-Mexico Borderlands: Trends and Challenges,” in A.I. Asiwaju and P.O. Adeniyi, Borderlands in Africa: A Multi-disciplinary and Comparative Focus on Nigeria and West Africa, Lagos, Lagos University Press

McEwen, A.C. 1991 “The establishment of the Nigeria/Benin Boundary, 1889- 1989” in The Geographical Journal, Vol.157, No.1 pp62-70

Merkx, J. 2000. Refugee identities and relief in an African borderland: a study of Northern Uganda and southern Sudan, New Issues in Refugee Research, Working Paper No. 19 Source: http://www.unhcr.ch/refworld/pubs/pubon.htm (accessed March 3, 2006)

Miles, W.F 2005. “Development, not division: local versus external perceptions of the Niger-Nigeria boundary, Journal of Modern African Studies, 43, 2

Moore, D.S. 1995. “Contesting terrain in Zimbabwe’s Eastern Highlands: The cultural politics of place, identity and resource struggles” PhD thesis, Stanford University, California

Mugabe, R.G. 1983. Our War of Liberation: Speeches, Articles, Interviews, Gweru, Mambo Press

Mutukumira, K. 1997. “History on the Nyanga-Mozambique Border c. 1800-1920, B.A. Honours dissertation, History Department, University of Zimbabwe

Native Commisioner’s Report, 1900. National Archives of Zimbabwe (NAZ) N3/1/18

Office of the Geographer, Department of State USA, International Boundary Study: Mozambique- Zimbabwe (Southern Rhodesia) boundary, No.118—November,

Pophiwa N, 2005. “The Border Moves at Night”: Experiences of Smuggling among the Penhalonga and Nyaronga Communities astride the Zimbabwe- Mozambique Border, Paper presented at the Department of Economic History Seminar Series

2007. A History of Smuggling among Borderland Communities Astride the Zimbabwe-Mozambique Border, with Special Reference to Penhalonga and Nyaronga, c.1990-2006, MA Dissertation, Department of Economic History, University of Zimbabwe

Rennie, J.K. 1973. Christianity, Colonialism and the Origins of nationalism Among the Ndau of Southern Rhodesia 1890-1935, PhD Dissertation, Northwestern University, 1973

Rupiah, M.R. 1995. “A Historical Study of Land-Mines in Zimbabwe, 1963-1995, Zambezia, Vol.22, No.1pp.63-78

Stoddard, E.R. 1989. “Developmental Stages of US-Mexico Borderlands Studies: Implication for the Study of African Borders, A.I. Asiwaju and P.O. Adeniyi, Borderlands in Africa: A Multi-disciplinary and Comparative Focus on Nigeria and West Africa, Lagos, Lagos University Press

Virtanen, P. 1999. “Evolving Institutional Framework for Community Based Natural Resource Management in Mozambique: A Case Study from the Choa Highlands,” African Studies Quarterly 5, No.3: [online] p.4. URL:http//web.africa.ufl.edu/asq/v5/v5i3a8.htm (accessed June 22, 2005)

Warhurst, P.R.1973 Anglo-Portuguese relations in South-Central Africa 1890-1900, London: Longman

Zengeni. 2007. Interview by Nedson Pophiwa, July 5. The history of the Zimbabwe- Mozambique border