VI

CHANGES IN LAND TENURE AND LAND USE INA BAMILEKE CHIEFDOM CAMEROON, 1900 - 1980: AN HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF CHANGES IN CONTROL OVER PEOPLE, LAND AND PRODUCTION

J.H.B, den Ouden

Essays in Rural Sociology in Honour of R.A.J, van Lier Department of Rural Sociology of the Tropics and subtropics Agricultural University, Wageningen, the Netherlands, 1981 172

CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION 173 1.1 The problem 173 1.2 Traits of Bamiléké society 182 1.3 The Ngyemba land-tenure system 188

2 THE CONTROL OVER PEOPLE, LAND AND PRODUCTION IN 196 TWO TSA AGNATIC FAMILIES, 1900-1980 2.1 The Letsi case 196 2.1.1 Principal heir X 196 2.1.2 Principal heir A and his first successor All 200 2.1.3 The present principal heir 209 2.2 The Latchuet case 233 2.2.1 The principal heir in ca. 1900 233 2.2.2 Principal heir A and his brothers 237 2.2.3 'Principal heir' All: events after 1967 241 2.2.4 Latchuet: concluding remarks 243

3 RETROSPECT 245

REFERENCES 260 173

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Theproble m

The high Bamiléké plateau (1000-2000m )o fwester nCameroon ,wit ha po ­ pulationdensit y insom earea seve nsurpassin g30 0pe rkm 2 (Ouden,1980 : 42), iseconomicall y theobjec to fmuc happraisal ,surpris ean dfear .

J.L.Dongm owrite s (1974:46): 'Alorsqu ele sforte sdensité s depopulation ,1'éloignemen tpa rrappor tau xdeu xgrand s centresd ypay s (Doualae tYaoundé )e tl esuccè séclatan td e lacaféicultur e semblaientcondamne rl'Oues tà consomme rlui-mêm e sesproduit svivrier se tpeut-êtr emêm eà importe rde sdenrée s alimentaires d'autres régionsd upays , cetteprovinc ees tactuelle ­ mentl'un ede sprincipale spourvoyeuse sde sville sd uSud-Camerou n endenrée s alimentaires.C'es tl egrenie r àmaï sd etou tl eCameroun , laprincipal erégio nmaraîchèr e dupay s (enquantit ée te nvariété) , uned eno szone sd'élevag e dupeti tbétail. '

During 1977 and 1978 Iwa s research professor for ayea r inth e Department of Rural Extension and Rural Sociology of the 'Ecole Nationale Supérieure Agronomique' of the University of Yaoundé (since197 9par to fth e 'CentreUniversitair e deDschang') .M ywor k in Cameroon took place within the frameworko fth ebilatera lpro ­ jecto fth eAgricultura lUniversity ,Wageningen ,an dth eUniversit y ofYaoundé /Ecol eNational e SupérieureAgronomique .I wa sthu si na position to do anthropological research in theBamilék é regiono f Cameroon.Sinc eOctobe r 1978m ycontact swit hth eresearc hare acon ­ tinued through investigations carried out under mysupervisio nb y two Dutch research-assistants from the department ofHom eEconom ­ ics,Rit aJoldersm a andNik iDieckmann , fromJun et oDecembe r1979 , andb ytw oresearch-assistant s fromth edepartmen to fTropica lAgri ­ culture, July Leesberg and Connie Witte, from January to October 1980. InMa y and June 1980 Irevisite d 'my' chiefdom st ocollec t further information. Ia mgratefu l tothes estudent swh ocollecte d very valuable data. Ia mals ogratefu l toStephe nAnderso nwho ,i n 1980, solved many linguistic problems inNqyembaan , the Bamiléké languagespoke ni nth earea . I am very muchindebte d toth eparamoun tchie fo fTsa ,H.H .Tatan g Robert, to theparamoun t chief ofNgang ,H.H .Zang eMom oJoseph , and to the Cameroon authorities for their permission to work in their territories and for the help theygav eme .I a mver ygrate ­ ful for the assistance given to meb yFouodj iDieudonn é (Tsa)an d NgouanéSimo n (Ngang)durin gm yresearc hi nth eBambouto s area.Th e successo fm ysta yi nBatcham , aswel la sth esucces so fth einves ­ tigations by the four students of the Agricultural University, Wageningen, was furthered greatly by the good care of the Roman Catholic mission inTs a under the excellent 'herdsmanship'o fth e Reverend FatherFon sHuisken . Allth emap si nthi sarticl ewer edraw nb yP .Hollema no fth eAgri ­ culturalUniversity ,Wageningen . 174

Coimei»oor\- TSCL 175

In this region, the Cameroon government isdirectl yintervenin g inth e economic andpolitica l fieldnamel ydurin gan dafte rth etumultuou sperio d ofth eBamilék é rebelliono f1957-196 3 (Ouden,1979 :17-26) ,no tonl yb y itspolic y toenforc e itsadministrative ,militar y andpolitica lgri po n theregion ,bu tals ob y intervention inquestion s oflan dus e (thepromo ­ tiono fcoffe eproduction )an do flan dtenur e (thegradua lbu tinevitabl e impositiono fa syste mo findividua l land titles). Inorde rt ounderstan d what is going on in this region,wit ha neconomi c importanceeve nsur ­ passing national frontiers forth eproductio no fcoffe e andfood-crops , iti snecessar y toanalys eth eproces s ofeconomic ,politica l andsocia l changeinstigate db ymarket -an dinstitutiona l incorporationint onationa l andeve ninternationa l co-ordinating systems (theterm s Itoo k fromPears e 1968/1971:passim) .Thi sanalysi swil lb econcentrate d onth elan dtenur e system and the useo flan di norde rt ounderstan d theright so fcontro l overpeople ,lan dan dagricultura lproduction .Onl ythe nca nw eas kour ­ selvesquestion s aboutfurthe rdevelopment s inth e futurean dabou tstep s which could be takent ocorrec tbottle-neck s resulting fromth eproces s ofincorporation .

The material presented inthi spape rwa sclearl y obtained tosatisf ym y anthropological curiosity inth esubject sindicate d andi ti sa questio n whetherthi s 'knowledgefo runderstanding 'ca neasil yb etranslate d into 'knowledge foraction ' (Ia mreferrin gt oScot tan dShore ,1979 :Appendix , 224-238).Thoug hth e fieldo fproblem s Iwa sinvite dt oanalys ewa sals o a policy-maker's problem -bottleneck s in theagricultura l system -m y questionwa s 'whatd ow eknow 'an dno t 'whatd ow edo' .Perhap si twoul d bebette rt oconside rth emateria lpresente d inthi spape r asbackground - information useful for an 'applied anthropologist' (notme! )whos ere ­ search is directed towards advising government agencies inpreparin ga regional development plan. Inm y opinion, researchaime d at 'knowledge forunderstanding 'create sa pictur eto ocomple x andto oconfusin gt ob e used for formulating policy-decisions directly.However , suchresearc h mightb e important inwarnin g 'appliedanthropologists 'fo rsimplifica ­ tions. 'Knowledge for understanding' and 'knowledge foraction 'ar et o some extent contradictory but certainly can alsob econsidere d ascom ­ plementary inwhic h 'pure'anthropology ,no ttie du pwit ho reve nmanip ­ ulatedb ypolitica l andeconomi c forces,ca nwar n 'appliedanthropologists ' orinterdisciplinar y actionteam s formodel so fdevelopmen ti nwhic honl y fewvariable s from the complex human world are taken intoaccount .I n 176

Short,i fi nth e 'Retrospect'I discus s futurechange san deventua lway s of intervention Ia m advising 'applied anthropologists'o rdevelopmen t teams not thepolicy-makers ;I ait( .unabl et ogiv e feasiblesolution sfo r agriculturalproblem s inthi sBamilék éarea .

My research in 1977/78 and 1980 in the two Bamilékéchiefdom sBatcha m and Bangang (people themselves speako frespectivel yTs aan dNgang )wa s concentrated on the political,economi c and socialconsequence so fth e process of incorporation, a subjectmuc h wider than the onecommente d upon in thispaper .Par to fm yresearc hwa sth eanalysi so fth ehistor y andpresen t situation of dead and livingmember so fsi xminima lpatri - lineages, three inTs aan dthre e inNgang .Som eo fthi smateria l Iwil l uset oillustrat e theproces so fchang econcernin g landtenure ,lan dus e and, in general, the rights of control (Iintentionall y avoidth eter m 'ownership' so clearly associated with what Eric Wolf, 1966:53,call s the 'mercantiledomain' )ove rpeople ,land ,cattle ,trees/bushes ,annua l crops,an dth enon-agricultura lproduce .I ti sclea rtha ta nanalysi sa t micro level cannotb edon ewithou ta thoroug hknowledg eo fth edevelop ­ mentsa tth emeso -an dmacr olevel so fth echiefdom ,th eBamilék éethni c community/the West Province of Cameroon and theCameroo ncolony/state . Nevertheless, Idecide d todedicat eth emajo rpar to fthi spape rt oth e discussion of two families (with some comparative remarks). Situation and developments atth emeso - and macrolevel swil lb etouche dupo nt o some extent in sections 1.2 and1. 3 on 'traitso fBamilék é society'an d 'the Ngyemba land tenure system', and in (3)a 'retrospect'.Anothe r paper inwhic h thedevelopment s atth emeso -an dmacr o levelswer eana ­ lysedi ngreate rdetai l (Ouden,1979 )wil lb epublishe d separately.

If in the titleo fthi spape ran di nformulatin gth eproble m Ispea ko f 'land tenure and land use', Id ono twan tt osugges ttha ti nthi spar t ofAfric a or elsewhere, in situations characterizedb y 'War(re)',lan d wasth emos timportan tscarc egood . Inth eus eo fth eterm s 'War(re)'an d 'Peace'I follo w M.D.Sahlin s (1968:5)wh owrite sabou tth emeanin g ThomasHobbe sgav et othes eterm s: 'I nth esocia lconditio n ofWarre ,forc ei sa resor tlegitimatel y availablet oal lmen . Therenee dno tb eviolence ,bu tneithe ri sther eassuranc et o thecontrary' .Societie swit hPeac e 'have" acommo npowe rt o keepth eal li nawe" ,a Government ,whic hpreclude s thatanyon e taketh ela wi nhi sow nhands ,. . . ' . With 'War(re)' themos timportan tscarc e 'good'wil lb esafety ,a situ ­ ationi nwhic hpeopl eca npropagat ethemselves ,i nwhic hsafet yo fwome n 177

and children, thematrifoca l households, is somewhatguarantee d andi n whichpeopl eca nsta yaliv eb yth eobtainmen to ffoo dan dother ,cultural ­ lydictated ,necessitie s inon ewa yo ranother . Insuc hsituation s 'good' and 'useful' relations with other people will be ofutmos timportanc e and 'our land' will mean the area where we defendourselves ,whic hw e usea sbasi s foroffence ,wher ew ebur you rdea d andcar e forthei rpeace , whereou rwome nar ean dwher ew erais eou rchildren ,wher ew eproduc eo r store food, in short,wher e we try to stay alivean dkee pu pwit hth e culturally defined conditions of life. In fact,i nthi spape r Itr yt o analysewha thappen swit hth erelevanc eo fscarc e 'goods'an despeciall y with land whenpeopl e enter a situation of 'Peace'wit hit simmediat e concomitantso fimprove d infrastructure overwid eterritories ,commercial ­ ization of crops and other produce, andth eproces so fmonetarization . Ofcourse ,her ew eremembe rremark sof ,fo rinstance ,V .Turne r (1957:113): 'Farmhead swer edisencumberin g themselves ofman yo fth e obligationso fkinship ,an dretainin g forthei row nus ean d forth eus eo fthei relementar y familiesmone ythe yearne d aswage s andb yth esal eof-cashcrop s orsurplu s subsistence crops.', oro fJac kGood y (1976: 20): '...thescarce rproductiv e resourcesbecom e andth emor ein ­ tensivelythe yar eused ,the nth egreate rth etendenc y towards theretentio no fthes eresource swithi nth ebasi cproductiv e andreproductiv eunit ,whic hi nth elarg emajorit y ofcase s isth enuclea rfamily. ' Literature suggests that theproces so fmarket -an dstat e incorporation into co-ordinating national and international systems impliesth edis ­ integration ofbroade rcorporat e familygroups . CompareGuyer ,1980:371 :'Thi spose sth ewide rquestio no f whetherAfrica nsmall-scal eproductio ni sevolvin g fromver y differentindigenou s structurestoward sth eclassi ctyp eo f peasantorganisation ,wit hth ehousehol d asa neconomicall y undifferentiated unit.Man ystudie so fWes tAfrica nhousehol d economies suggestt oth econtrar y thatmal e andfemal esphere s ofactivit yremai nrelativel yindependent. ' Moreover,w e see anincreas ei nth eeconomi cvalu ean dus eo fland ,in ­ dividualization of land titles and other rights ofcontro l anda ten - 2 dency towards whatGood y (1976:7)call s 'divergingdevolution ' .Le tu s seewha thappene d inth erea lsituatio no fa Bamilék éregion .

SeeGoody , 1976:7: '..'divergingdevolution' ,th epropert ywhic ha n individual disposes isno t retained within the unilineal descent groupo fwhic hh ei sa membe rbu ti sdistribute d tochildre no fbot h sexes andhenc ediffuse doutsid eth ecla no rlineage' . - 178-

If in thispape r Itr yt oanalys echange sa tth emicro-level , Ii nfac t chose the 'residential agnatic family group', one of the household groupings, as point of departure. To me 'households' are the small residential groups in which people live together for thepurpos e of defence, offence, production, consumption, the care of children and others who cannot look after themselves properly, and for the socialization/enculturation of children. The relevant household func­ tions in a specific society are usually not united in one household: it isver y normal to find a series of overlappinghouseholds .Fo rth e Bamilékéon eca npoin tt o fivelevel so fresidentia lgroupings : the matrifocal household of mother and children, the 'cooking- unit'; the monogamous or polygynous household consisting of ama nwit h one or more matrifocal households plus, possibly, unmarried brothers,fathers 'wive s andothe r additionalpeople ; theresidentia l agnatic familygrou pi nwhic hth ehouse so fmember s lieclos eby ,thoug hno tinsid ea nenclose d compound or 'kraal'; the quarter, or sub-quarter, the nucleus ofwhic h ismos t often formed by the residential agnatic familygrou po fth echie fo fth e quarter; the greater chiefdom witha clos ekni tinterna l familynetwor kan d as some maximal unito fproduction ,consumptio n (seeth eprincipl e of 'redistribution' andth eequalizin gmechanism swithi nth echief ­ dom), defence,etc.. .

Inth eman' sworl dth eter m 'village'i suse d forthre eo fthes e fivegroupings .On esay so fa youn gman : 'Ila déj àso nvillage' , meaningtha th ei salread y separated fromhi s father'san d mother'shousehold s andha shi sow nhouse .Thi s 'village'the n becomesth emor erea l ifh elive sther ewit hhi swife . Ifsomeon ewithi nth egreate rchiefdo m isaske dt onam ehi s 'village'h ewil lmentio nhi squarter ,sub-chiefdo m (aquarte r ofsomewha thighe r status)o ra quarte rwithi na sub-chiefdom . Ifa Bamilék émigran ti saske dwher eh ecome s fromh ewil lsa y thathi s 'village'i s ...,followe db yth enam eo fth egreate r chiefdom towhic hh ebelongs . 'Village'i sals ouse d forth enucleu so fa quarte rwher eth e housesar ean dwher eth eplot so flan dar eenclose db yimpene ­ trablewall so fnkyup-nkuyuh , 'l'herbed el apaix' ,a dracaen a deisteliana,o rb ybarrier s ofstrip so fraphia-palm .Thi s inhabited areafo rwhic hth eter mnka ' (field)i suse di na loosesense ,i sthe ncontraste dwit htswa ,uninhabite dareas . Wheni n198 0 Ifoun dtha ta nare aborderin gth eBanso a frontier (tswaland )wa sno tcultivate db ywomen ,i ncontras t toth esituatio ni n1978 ,m yinforman tanswered : 'Nosfemme s cultiventmaintenan te nvillage' ,ou rwome nshifte dcultiva ­ tiont ofield si nth enka 'are ao fth equarter . - 179-

For my analysis ofchangin gright so fcontro l Ichos ethre eresidentia l agnatic familygroup si nTs aan dthre ei nNgang .Firstly ,fo rbot hchief - doms, Ithough t Iha d selected families with a low,moderat e andhig h land scarcity. Of course -thi s always happens to ananthropologis t- reality appeared tob e more complex. For two reasons Itrie dt oge ta 'three generation perspective', for those families.Firs t of all,i n this way Iwoul d normally be able to obtain as starting point the period around 1900,th ebeginnin go fth e 'modern'incorporatio nprocess . 3 A starting point in about 1900 often means that wear edealin gwit ha grandfather who 'saw thecomin go fth eGermans 'an dwh o acted frompre - colonial situations and attitudes.Hi s sonthe n 'reigned'i nth etransi ­ tional French period, andhi sgrandson ,th epresen thea do fth efamily , 'saw'th eBamilék érebellio no fth e fiftiesan dsixtie san dth eprofoun d changes after Independence. A 'three generation perspective' inth e Bamiléké situation very often stands for threeperiod swhic hdiffe ri n thepolitical ,economi c andsocia l fieldsan dwhic hca nb echaracterize d by the terms 'tribal authority', 'indirect colonial rule' and 'direct rule' with heavy state intervention. Dealing with two family-cases in the second part ofthi spaper ,i tappear st ob eto odifficul tt ointro ­ duce three periods in the developments at amicro-level .There ,th e maincaesur abetwee nth e 'old'an d 'new'situation s appearst ob emarke d by thebeginnin g of the fifties when, amongst others,coffe ebecam ea cash-crop foralmos tal lme ni nth eregion . In192 4th efirs tcoffee-nurserie swer eestablishe d inDschang . Thecultivatio no fArabic acoffe ewa sstrongl y regulatedan d controlled tosafeguar d thequalit y (Illy,1974:283) .A n authorizationfo rth ecultivatio nwa sonl ygive nif ,amongs t others,on epossesse d fertile landan di fa ma ncontrolle da n importantlabou r force (Tchouamo,1980:18) . Infac talmos t onlychief swer e accepted ascoffee-growers . Itwa sonl yi n about1950 ,durin gth econfusio naccompanyin g Independence thatcultivatio nwa sliberalize d andcoffe ebecam eth emai n cashcro po fsmal lproducer s allove rth eBamilék éarea . Buyingu po fcoffe ei sth eofficia lmonopol yo fUCCA O (Union Centralede sCoopérative sAgricole s del'Ouest )an dit scoope ­ ratives,th eproduce rpric ebein g fixedb yth egovernment . Farmerswit ha coffe eare ao f0. 5 haan dmor eca nan dofficiall y havet ob emember so fth eUCCA Ocoffe eco-operativ e inthei rare a (Tchouamo,1980:31 ,112) . Secondly, with a 'threegeneratio nperspective ' Iwa sabl et otrac eal l the living men who,a sdiscusse d later,ca nb eacknowledge d asan dnor ­ mally feelt obelon gt oth esam epatrilineage .

In 1899 the thenGovernor ,th eGerma nJesk ovo nPuttkamer ,create d the 'Gesellschaft Nordwest Kamerun' to exploit the Bamoun and Bamilékéregions .Se eVicto rLeVine ,1964/1977:26 . 180

Aswil lbecom eclea r inth esecon dpar to fthi spaper , Ibroad ­ ened theagnati c familiesto .som eexten tb yals opayin g attention toth ebrother so fth e familyhea d inabou t190 0an dt othei r descendants.Onl yi nthi swa ycoul d Iestablis hth emeanin gan d 'depth'o fth ecorporat epatrilineage ,an da tth esam etim eI increasedm yknowledg e about 'other'bu trelate dfamilies . When through thepresen t head of the family Itrace d the name ofhi s paternal grandfather; Itrie d to obtain thename so fal lhi smal edes ­ cendants. Of course thispar t of the research was full of traps,no t leastbecaus e of apolicy , especially in former times,t oincorporat e strangers (perhaps even slaves)int o the family. Inman y genealogies we can find inconsistencies between the 'de jure' agnatic ideology andcognati cpractice . I welcomed all possible information about the individual descendants, deado ralive ,o fth epaterna l grandfather,bu t Iconcentrate don : theiroccupations ; theirright si nland ,cattle ,tree s andbushes ; thebuyin g and sellingo flan dan dth eleasin g andrentin go flan d ortrees/raphi apalms/bushes ; thewives ,ho wman ywive sthe yhad ; permanentan dtemporar ymigratio nincludin gth ereason .

These questions were mainly put 'onth e spot' on the land, where at the same time measurements were taken ofth e various plots ofland , the extent of raphia palm possessions, etc.Becaus e the investigation in the sixmicro-region s took place over aperio d of severalmonths , it was possible to obtain and verify contradictory information from thesam epersons ,fro mdifferen tmember so fth efamil yan d from 'strange' neighbours (notbelongin g to the family), whichmad ei tt osom eexten t possible to approach 'reality'. I not only tried to contact people living in the chiefdoms, but also migrated lineage-members visiting theirhome-chiefdo mo r (some)livin gi ntown so rcolonizatio nareas . Askingpeopl equestion s aboutothe rpeopl eappeare d tob e difficultfo rm yBamilék é informants (theanthropologist' s nightmare!). Iofte nobtaine d answerssuc has : 'Youpleas e askhi myourself' .People ,eve nthos epresentin g themselves as 'non-believers',fea rtha tneighbour s andrelative scoul d sellthe mt oth esecre tan dimaginar yorganizatio nFamla.o r Nkongi norde rt obecom eric hsuddenl y andmysteriously .

Seefo ra semi-scientifi c discussion ofFaml ao rNkong :Dongmo ,A. , 1980:e.g .20 :'.. .un esociét ésecrèt ed emagicien squ is'enrichi ­ raient en tuantmystérieusemen tle sgen spa rl amaladi eo u1'acci ­ dentpou r lesvendr e dans unmarch é magique oupou r lesutilise r commemanoeuvre sdan sleur splantations' . 181

Inth efirs tfamil yt ob ediscusse d (2.1)man ypeopl ewer e soalarme db ym ymeasurin gplot so flan dtha tthe yinsiste d thatth emos teducate dmembe ro fth efamily ,a hig hrailwa y functionaryi nDouala ,mak ea statemen ttha tm yinvestigation s couldno thar mthe m (see2.1: A IV). Oneelderl yma naccompanie d met oDoual a (AIII) .Afte rou rretur nnex tda yw elearne dtha t hiswif e andothe rwome no fth e familymourne dhi mal lnight : thewome nwer econvince d that Iha dtake nthei rrelativ et oth e Famlaan dtha th ewoul dneve rreturn . Iti squit eunderstandabl e thati nchiefdom swher e landi sver y scarcei ttoo km e longhour s oftalkin gwit hEuropean-educate dmember so fth efamilie sconcerned , oftenmigrants ,t oexplai nth epurpos eo fm yresearc h andt ole t themexplai nt oth eother stha tI reall yha dno tcom et otak eawa y their land. Iti sworthwhil enotin gtha tth eeffort so fthes e educated relativeswa so fmuc hgreate rhel ptha nth eassistanc e whichwa ssincerel ygive nt om eb yth etraditiona lchiefs .I n land-questions Icoul dascertai na nundeniabl e suspicion vis-a-vis someo fth echiefs . And what about the women? I admit thatbecaus e of great distrustI failed to havemuc h contactwit h them. Itrie d to find out aboutth e female descendants of thepower-holder s of 1900,bu t this information was mostly transmitted by men.Tha t iswh y after January 1979 Isen t four female students to Tsa to concentrate on contacts withwomen . This resulted in valuable additional information, though itdi d not change fundamentally my original interpretation of the situation. I should mention here that these girl-students were also oftencon ­ fronted with a discouraging averting behaviour by many of thewomen . In 1978 inbot h Tsa and Ngang it appeared to be fruitless toas kfo r mediation of influential female functionaries of the greater chiefdom orsub-chiefdoms/quarter sa twhic hleve l Icarrie dou tm yresearch .

Of the six 'residential agnatic familygroups ' Istudie d insom edetai l inTs aan dNgan g Iwil lonl ydiscus stw ocase s fromTsa .I wil lhowever , dos owit han d froma furthe rknowledg eo ffamilie san dth edevelopment s at the chiefdom, provincial and state levels. Ichos e a family where patterns are still rather traditional, in spite ofman y changes,an d another family which is disintegrating and fast losing power, notne ­ cessarily because of theproces s of incorporation. Inth e context of this paper Icanno tpossibl y pay attentiont oth eothe rdetaile dcase - studies.Wha t canw e learn from thetw ocase-studies ?The ybot hdepic t 'normal' situations because they concern Bamiléké families. In fact thetw ocase scove rquit e anumbe ro fpeopl ean devent s inorde rt ogiv e an idea of thesubject sw ear ediscussin ghere ,whic har esummarize di n the Retrospect (3).A s the reader will understand I amwritin g these lines because Ia m aware of theproble m of 'representativity'. Incon ­ nectionwit h this question Ihumbl y state that the historyo fth etw o 182

familiesca nonl yexplai nth eeffect so fth eproces s ofincorporatio na t thehousehol d leveli na ver y limitedway .Th etw oexample snevertheles s can illustrate the tendencies already known,o nth ebasi so ftw orathe r arbitrarily chosen families. Inadditio nt othes eremark s Ishoul dlik e to give a (more)seriou swarning :th ereade rha st ounderstan d thatth e information aboutth etw o families isver ylimite d andperhap sno talway s correct.Th enumbe ro finformant swa s alwayslimite d andthes e informants may have intentionally givenwron ginformation ,ha d a 'wrong'notio no f thehistorica l andpresen tevents ,wer e ignoranto rwer eno tinterested .

1.2 Traitso fBamilék ésociet y

The Bamiléké traditionally areorganize d inabou ta hundre d independent chiefdoms (Illy, 1976:38). TheNgyemb a chiefdoms aresubdivide d intoa great number of quartersan dsub-chiefdoms ,eac hwit hthei row nheredi ­ tary chiefs. The coreo fa quarte ri sforme db ymember so fth eagnati c familyo fit schie fan dstranger swh ohav epu tthemselve sunde rhi scon ­ trolbecaus eo fthei rconfidenc e inhi spolitica l andeconomi cstrength . Formerly strong chiefs also managed to control anumbe r ofslave san d now also inman y quarters we can trace people who areprobabl y their descendants. Quarters consisto fa numbe ro fpolygynous ,monogamou s andone-ma nhouse ­ holds (adultboy s leavethei rparents 'household ,eve ni fno tmarried) . The houses were and, after the rebellion of 1957-1965,t o a lesser extent, are hidden in thevalleys ,onl yapproachabl e fromth eroad so n thehill-ridge sb y anetwor ko ftwistin gpathway spassabl e topeopl ean d goats, bordered by thick hedges of evergreenplant s andwicker-wor ko f strips of raphia palm. An unexpected and unknown 'intruder'woul db e observed immediately without knowing that his penetration into the guarded area had already been noticed. Here,th ewome n whocultivate d plots of land were quite safe.Land-scarcit y of course often existed even inpre-colonia l times: female farming outsideth eprotecte d areas was onlypossibl e ifwell-guarde d by men,becaus ether ewa s alwaysth e risk thatwome n and children would be kidnapped by slave-raiders from other chiefdoms.Th e hills outside the protected areawer emainl yuse d byme nfo rstoc kbreedin g (especially goats).

The fiveNgyemb a chiefdoms -Ngang , Tsa,Mougong ,Latch ian dLes ­ sing -constitut e alinguisti centit ywithi nth eBamilék écultura l province notwithstanding slight differences in dialect and even attitudes andbehaviou r (Ouden,1979 :3-4) . Hurault (1970:236) is of the opinion thatth e elaborateraphia - palm plantations came into existence only in the second half of the nineteenth century and that the enclosures before thattim e weremad eprincipall y from 'sissongograss' . 183-

Inth eeaster nan dsouther npart so fCameroo nth eGerma ngovern ­ menteffectivel y forcedth epeopl et osettl ei nvillage salon g thene wroads .I nth eBamilék éare ath ever ydisperse dsettle ­ menttyp econtinued . Itwa sonl ydurin gth erebellio ni nth e fiftiesan dsixtie stha tth eCameroo ngovernmen t (independent since1960 )force dth epeopl et oliv ei n 'regroupements',nu ­ cleated settlements,i norde rt ob eabl et ocrus hth eBamilék é rebellion.Whe npeac ewa srestore d inabou t196 8peopl ewer e freet oleav eth e 'regroupements'an dretur nt othei r 'conces­ sions' .Man ypeopl etoo kth eopportunit y (mosto fth ehouse s werecompletel y destroyed)o fleavin gth eorigina l sitedow ni n thevalley s andconstructe d theirhouse s alongth eroads .Th e 'regroupements'di dno tdisappea rcompletely :th eproces so f institutional-an dmarke tincorporatio n stimulates thedevelop ­ mento fcentre s fore.g . administrative,policing ,educativ eo r medicalpurpose s anda smarkets .Thes ecentre sattrac tpeopl e fromth esurroundin gchiefdom san dstranger s from faraway . In order to understand the changes which took place between 1900 and 1980i ti snecessar y tosummariz erelevan telement so fBamilék ésociety . Inadditio nt oth epolitica l structure andth esettlemen tpatter n Ishoul d liket ostres sth eimportanc e offiv eothe rtraits ,th elan dtenur esyste m beingdiscusse d ina separat e section (1.3). 1. Bamiléké society isfundamentall y inegalitarian. IfI compar eattitude s andbehaviou r ofth eBamilék éwit h 'my' south Indianvillagers ,i nbot hcase sth efirs tproble mwhic h hast ob esolve d incontact swit hother s is:'Wh oi ssuperior , heo r I',o ra sa Bamilék é inTs afuriousl y shouted atanothe r man: 'Quies tl epatron ,mo io utoi ' .Thu si nth eBamilék é areai npersona l communicationsw e finda linguisti c and,eve n more important,extra-linguisti c etiquettewhic ht osom eex ­ tenttake s accounto fequalit yan dinequalit y instatus .Fo r south Indiase eOuden ,1979 :e.g .34 ,37 . Inth estratificatio n system,ascribe d statusplay sonl ya ver yrestricte d role. Or,perhap s we should say that ascribed status in the explicit ideology is important,bu ti sver ymuc hconteste d ina counte r ideology whicha tth esam etim ei saccepted . Ifa ma ndie sh enominate shi sprin ­ cipalhei rwh otake shi spositio n (seepoin t 3). Thesame ,t osom eextent , canb esai d forwome n (Ouden,1980:46,47 ;Dieckmann/Joldersma :1980:138 , 139). Fromthi sgenera lrul eon eca nconclud etha tascribe d status ist o acertai nexten timportant .But ,th esuccesso ri son eo fth echildre no f the deceased and it is not atal lprescribe dwhic hchil do fwhic hwif e will succeed;her e some scope for achievement is apparent.A s acon ­ comitant we often findmuc hrivalr ybetwee nbrother s andpotentia lcon ­ flictsbetwee n fathers andsons . Inpractic ehoweve r ama nca nonl y

CompareLeVine ,R.A. , 1976:120: 'Givingorder s anddiscussin gwhethe r orno tthe yhav ebee ncarrie dout ,lik edeferenc e andrespec tbeha ­ viour,accoun tfo rmuc ho fth econten to fsocia linteraction sbetwee n unequalperson s inAfrica nsocieties' . 184

succeed ifh e is strong enough to fight his way into thepositio no f his predecessor. During this struggle he hast ocop eno tonl ywit hhi s brothers, but also with the 'neighbours'wh o wait for an opportunity to annex people and other useful control-rights. Only strong people manage to enforce their rights and ifpossible , get evenmore .Peopl e who cannot be trifled with are respected ('On ne peutpa s semoque r de lui!' )whethe r they acquired their position by inheritance orb y usurpingpower . Theoretically speakingw eca nsa ytha twit hth eBamilék éno t onlyth e 'chieflymodel 'i srelevant :als oth e 'big-manmodel ' shouldb euse d forth einterpretatio no fth erea lsituation . Here Irefe rt oSahlin s (1968:88,89).A 'bigman 'wit hhi s 'calculated generosity' 'ison ewh ouse san dcreate ssocia l relationstha tgiv ehi m leverageo nother' sproductio nan d theabilit y tosipho nof fa nexces sproduct .H erequire s specialskill s andpersona l qualities sucha smagica lpower , oratorical ability,perhap sbravery ;bu tth eeconomi cmanoeu ­ vresar eusuall ydecisive' .Thi si squit edifferen t fromth e situationi nwhic h 'reciprocitybetwee nchief s andpeopl e follows fromestablishe d rightsan dprivileges' .Her eth e existingran korde revoke scertai neconomi c relations,where ­ aswit h 'bigmen 'economi c relations areuse dt oevok ea n ordero frank .Now ,i nm yopinion ,i nth eBamilék é situation principalheirs ,an deve nparamoun tchiefs ,canno tb eunder ­ stoodproperl y ifw ed ono tals oinclud eth e 'bigman 'mode l inou rconsiderations :thos ewh oobtaine d theirposition svi a thelega lrule so fsuccessio ncanno tfunctio na stru eleader s without forcingthemselve s intoa 'bigman 'position .I fthe y donot ,thei r 'rights'wil l fadeawa yan deve nthei rlive s willb eendangere db yopponent s and 'rebels'wh o fearth e degenerationo fth eexistin g socio-political structure. 2. Traditionally, individual achievementi spromote db yth eorganizatio n ofth echiefdom . Inthi srespec tto oth eBamilék éhav emuc hi ncom ­ monwit hthei rcultura lrelative sth eNigeria n Ibo (e.g.Gosselin ,1970 : 129-139). Geographically andculturally ,th etribe so fth eBamend aare a ofWes tCameroo nare ,o fcourse ,muc hcloser .I fw eloo ka t theexcellen twor ko fPhylli sM .Kaberr y (1952: 'Womeno fth e Grassfields'),resemblanc e inth eeconomic ,politica lan d social fields isobvious .I nfact ,fo rman yremark s inthi s article itwoul dhav ebee nnecessar y todra wattentio nt o Kaberry's findings amongth eNsa wan dothe rtribe so nth e othersid eo fth eol dcolonia lfrontier . Each chiefdom knows a range of secret society (k33h)wit h their own houses in the chief'scompound .Thes ewer eresponsibl e formatter scon ­ cerning dangerous sorcery, religion,medicine , defence,maintenanc eo f order, the dealings withsuicide ,an dadvisin gth echie f (alsoHurault , 1962:70-80; 1970:4-9)an d even controling the chief (e.g.Ouden ,1979 : 29-32). Normally they are stratified on the basis of the prestige of membership. Even if it is quite normal fora principa lhei rt osuccee d 185

his father in these societies, one has to prove himself capable of bearing the expenses of entry and membership: the costs ofmembershi p and entertainment of the members during the meetings vary with the standing of the society. Vertical mobility in theprestig e andpowe r scale ispossible ,bu t one has to fighthar d forit ,especiall y ifon e isno ta principa lheir .

The Ngyemba chiefdoms Istudie d no longer gave aclea rpictur eo fth e situation of the women's societies, but Delaroziere states for the Bandjoun-Bangou area that (1949,11:129): '...toutes les femmes de la chefferie sont également groupées en Associations, qui fonctionnent parallèlement aux Associations des hommes'.Als o for Tsa and NgangI got the idea that 'expensive' and 'less expensive' women-sodalities existed/exist. 3. Inth e third place Ihav et ocal lattentio nt oth edescen tan din ­ heritance system.Th eBamilék éhav ea limite dpatrilinea l descent system inwhic hever ynon-hei r isth epotentia l foundero fa ne wlineag e and (Illy, 1973:297): '.. .establishe s his individuality from agrou p which in genuine patrilinear societies isofte nver y large'.I nsectio n 2.1.2 we will discussth erelativit y ofthi sstatement . InBamilék éso ­ ciety this type ofdescen tsyste m iscombine dwit ha for mo fimpartibl e inheritance inwhic ha ma n (and,somewha tles simportan tpoliticall yan d economically, awoman )chose s one ofhi s sons (daughters)t otak ehi s (her)'office 'afte rdeath .Th esuccesso rbecome shea do fth efamil yan d guardian of the 'familyproperty' . The heir to the heado fa nagnati c family, a minimal patrilineage, also becomes the new leader of that lineage, normally loosing any control over the descendants of his father's father's brothers.T ob e successor does notmea n toge tful l control over the undivided (the control was not accorded tobrothers , sons and others by the deceased father) family property. Asa for mo f lateral inheritance a successor has to look after the well-being of his brothers. He has to give them land and, ifpossible , has topa y the bride wealth for awife .Traditionally , and inman y familieseve n now, this is as important as the help for their own children;al l non-heirscal lthei rbrother-hei r 'father'. It iswit h the coming of 'mercantiledomain' ,greatl y furtheredb yth e commercialization of crops,tha tsom eprincipa lheir s startconsiderin g themselves andbehavin g as 'owners'wit h fullcontro love rth eundivide d land and other goods inherited fromthei r fathers (compareOuden ,1980 : 58-60, example IV).I ntha t case we findtha tprincipa lheir sar eonl y preparedt ogran ttin ybit so flan dt obrother s andsons ,jus tenoug ht o -18 6

build ahouse , and in fact drivethe m away fromth echie fdom . Id ono t want to suggest thatformerl yprincipa lheir s 'suffered' fromaltruism , but what canb e foundi nthes e few 'modern'familie smus tb econsidere d asrevolutionar y inthi ssociety . As mentioned, adultbrother s and sons settle apart,bu t often inth e vicinity of the principal heir, and startthei row nliving , 'economic' activities included.However , the dependency ofbrother s and sons and even father's brother's descendants on theprincipa l heir should not be underestimated. Inth e two examples discussed insectio n2 w eshal l try to find outth eexten tt owhic hno nprincipa lheir swer edependent / independent in former and present dayspolitically , economically and socially. About the process of lineage fission Illy (1973:297) writes: 'This splintering process would ultimately lead to thedisintegratio n ofth e social fabric,bu t it is counteracted by other factors. Thesear eth e Q chief ,th e (secret)societie s (sociétés coutumières),whic hcreat ene w links'. Isuspec t that this 'splintering process'wa s very functional during the Bamiléké tribes' colonization period inthei rpresen tdwel ­ ling region after their arrival in the eighteenth and nineteenthcen ­ turies (Delaroziere,I ,1949:12-16 )an dno wgreatl y furthersmigration . 4. From the three points mentioned it follows that structurally, levellingmechanism swer e andar erestricte d inspecifi cways . First, a strong man is someone who resists others from appropriating too much of his wealth. If envy and hatred feelings make others to accuse him of sorcery, then hewil l try to turn this 'valued stigma' in his favour; all important men in Bamiléké society are supposed tob e 'complicated', tob e sorcerers.T odefen dhimsel fan dt orestric t somewhat the circuit of the 'ceremonial fund' he has toproduc e (the costs of participation in social relations; compare Wolf, 1966:7) , a strong man will also try to enter ahig h secret society which,t o some extent, places him apart from 'the others'.Fo r this he has to 'pay' considerable gifts, but being a member he will share inth e giftso fne wcandidates .Furthermore ,i nBamilék é societyw ed ono tfin d clansan dmaxima l lineageswit hhig hclaim so nsocio-economi c assistance and hospitality for greatnumber s of people. Id o notwan t tounder ­ estimateth e 'danger'o flevellin gwithi nth ecircl eo fth e familyan d

8 CompareHurault ,1962 :127 : 'Maisl asociét éBamilék érepos eentière ­ mentsu rl echef .L apoussièr ed epetit slignage saggloméré ssu rl e territoire d'une chefferie n'ontd'autre s liensreligieu x queceu x qui les unissent à la personne du chef, détenteur d'un pouvoir d'essence suprahumaine'. 187

9 .. of 'patrons-clients' .I a mwarne d sufficiently if Ionl y rememberm y Tsa assistant whose trouser pockets were gone through in themarke t place by his father'sbrother s inorde rt o findou twhethe rh eha dsom e money forthem . Still,w eca nspea ko fanothe rkin do flevelling .Her ew ehav et odiffer ­ entiate between commoners dependento nan d followerso fchief so fmini ­ mal lineages, and those inpowe r in quarter and chiefdom.A s we will see in section2 ,befor e the start of large scale migration commoners experienced difficulties inimprovin gthei rpolitico-economi c andsocia l position:thei rdependen tpositio nwa s accompaniedb ysom esor to flevel ­ lingbecaus eo flesse rlife-chance s (they,fo rinstance ,i nnorma lcircum ­ stancesmarrie d lateo rno ta tal lwit hconsequence s fora neconomi can d political take-off) and the appropriation of surplusvalu eb ythos ei n power.A ta highe r levelw e findsom elevellin go fhead so fminima lline ­ agesan dthei rdependant swithi nquarter s andwithi nth elarge rchiefdom . Inthes e instances,however , Ispea ko f 'levelling'a sa consequenc eo f asymmetric relations andno to flevellin g amongstequals . 5. Tounderstan d thespecifi cchange si nth eBamilék éare ai ti simpor ­ tantt oremembe rthat ,a salread y suggested,th epolitical ,econom ­ ic and social worlds ofme n andwome nwer e andar erelativel y strongly separated in this Guineansociety . Ius ethi sindicatio no fth ebroade r Africanare ao npurpos et opoin tou ttha ti nthi srespec tth eBamilék é form part of a groupo fsocietie seac ho fwhich ,o fcourse ,present s itsow n variation on this theme (compare Kaberry, 1952:145-154 ,an dBoserup , 1980: passim). Without becoming too specific, in thepolitica l field one can or could establish that traditionally theparamoun tchief san d their important sub-chiefs, the fuj and the fuj-ntyj', ha d a female counterpart,th e 'queen-mother,ma-fuj ,wit hgrea tinfluenc eo nth ewome n ando nth ewomen' s societies ofth echiefdom .Th e femalepower-structur e isweakening ,a tleas ti nth eNqyemb aarea ,partl ybecaus emoder nadmin ­ istration does not incorporate thefemal e functionaries init sadminis ­ trative machinery. In the economic field, women hold and control an autonomous sector inth eagricultura l chainincludin gproduction ,distri ­ butionan dconsumption .Elsewher e Iargue dtha tth eeconomi c independence might have increased by the commercialization of food-crops, men's decreased control over the utilization of the land and, ingeneral ,a growingdisintegratio no ffamil ylif e (Ouden,1980 : 61).

For 'patron-client' relations compare e.g. R.A. LeVine,1976:124 : 'Every African of relatively greatwealt h isbesiege db ypotentia l devoted followersseekin g financial assistance andhospitality' . 188

This might also be true of the social life of thewomen : the threat of coffee-cultivation to female agriculture, the urgent need ofmone y forman y goods,service s an.d 'taxes'me twit h by men and women might be related to a situation of growing mutual distrust inwhic hwome n try to defend themselves by agreate r social isolation.Thi s isolation then not only springs from the original differentiation,bu tmor etha n before is also connected with separation in order to avoid strong male-domination.

At the time thatlan dbecam escarc ebecaus eo fdemographi c andecologi ­ cal crises (Ouden, 1980:49 ,referin gt oWolf ,1969 :280 ,281 )an dgeo ­ graphicalmobilit ybecam epossibl eb yth e 'peace'enforce d ina wid eterri ­ tory, the factors mentioned created an 'eruption'o fth eBamilék épopu ­ lation causing them to stream from theirplateau s intoth e surrounding plains and in fact into thewhol eo fCameroo nan deve nGabon .Th esam e factors, combined with the close contact the Bamiléké keep withthei r home-chiefdoms (structurally and culturally Bamiléké migrants maintain their ethnic identity), enable these migrants to dominate populations with other ethnic backgrounds in the economic field, especially soi n a country developing ina capitalisti cway .Dugas t (1949:122 )recorde d inth eFrenc hperio dtha tth eBamilék émigrant s: 'Débutantave cpe ud echose ,comm esimple smanoeuvre so u marchands ambulants,il son tl'ambitio n etl avolont éd e réussir.Aucu ntravai ln ele sarrête ,e tréellemen til s réussisstentdan stoute sleur sentreprises .I ln e faitaucu n doutequ'il sson tl arac ed el'aveni r duCameroun ,qu e bientôtil stiendron tserr édan stou sle s filsd eleu rtoile' .

1.3 TheNgyemb aland-tenur esyste m

Inthi s introduction Ia m discussing thelan dtenur esyste m separately because of its special relevance inunderstandin g the intertwining of thevariou scontrol-right s andeve ni nunderstandin gth eBamilék é society as a whole. This separate treatment also has apragmati c reason: it enablesm et oexplai nth esyste m andth erelevan tterm ss otha tth ereade r canmor eeasil yunderstan dth ecase sdiscusse d insectio n2 .

Inth e traditional land tenure system the unity of theagnati c family is very important: the principal heir of the minimal patrilineage should guard 'his' territory, acquire land,bu tcertainl yno tlos eit . Land, like trees,i s thematerializatio n ofone' sbon dwit hth echief - dom. Iti s aplac e to live,t o make one's living, to hide,t odefen d -18 9

and to die and where one will be remembered and pacified inritual s andceremonie sb yon e*s descendant supt oan d including one'sgrea tgrand ­ children. Paramountchief shonou ral lth eskull so fthei rfamily-prede ­ cessors:the yal lremai nimportan t forth ewell-bein g ofth e living. If one of the family is threatened inhi s dreams he gives apresen t to the head of the family who takes some earth from 'thevillage 'i n a gourd, fromth eplac ewher eth efounde rha dhi s fire-place,an dtouche s theroo fan dwall so fth ehous eo fth etrouble d relativewit hit .Femal e relatives can alsomos t certainly go to 'the father'whe n in trouble and hewil l take the necessary steps to restore 'peace'.Her ew ewil l have to remember that the 'God ofth echildren ', th eGo do ffertility , is situated on the concession of awoman' s parents.A s an informant indicated tome : 'Thewoman' s family ismor e important than the hus­ band and his family and therefore iti sals onecessar y forhe rt ohav e somelan do nhe r father'sconcession' .

Ifw e want todra wa mode lo fth etraditiona l land-tenure system,i ti s best to startwit h a somewhat importantma nwh o isth econtroller ,>iw a of ankw j 'J-ntart ,o f an independent concessionwit hit sow nGo do fth e children, of fertility, and probably also with the cop of his grand­ father and father (the places where those men had their fire-places and where now earth is taken for the rituals to restore peace inth e family and pacify those forefathers).Perhap ssuc ha concession ,mbyua , evenha s a fjm, aplac e whereth eabandone dhouse so fth e founderwer e situated and where the family rituals takeplace .Perhap sthi sconces ­ sion is even considered the lesa'a b y agrea tman ypeople .Th elésa 'a is the concession wheregrandfathe rwa sborn .Everybod yha stw olesa'a , theon ewer eF Fwa sbor nan dth eon efro mwher eM Moriginated .Sorcerer s may advise an offering tob e madeo nthes econcessions ,bu tno to nth e concessionswher eFF Fo rMM Mwer eborn .Further ,i ti spossibl e thatth e concession is situated in an area whichwa swo n fromanothe rchiefdom : insuc ha case ,th eparamoun tchie fmigh thav egive ni ta spermanen tnna , gift.O rth eparamoun tchie fma yhav ealread yconveye d theare at oa chie f of a quarter and he granted ita sa permanen tnka'-nn a (gifto fland) . Sucha nn aca nonl yb etake nbac ki fsomeon eleave sth echiefdo mwithou t leavinganybod ybehind ,o rca nb econfiscate d ifsomeon ei sevicte dfro m thechiefdom . - 190-

Such a concession mightinclud e specialplot so flan dwhic har ebought , nka'-ju, and forwhic h the 'owner' stillposses sth eshyu' ,a piec eo f raphia-bambooaccepte d asinvoice . Ifsomeon econtest sth elegitimat e ownershipo fth eland ,som e powder isscrape d fromth elittl epiec eo fbamboo ,mingle di n raphiawin ean ddrun kb yth etw oparties :h ewh olie dwil ldie . Thebuyin go fland ,th eobtainmen to fa nka'-ju ,i sno tonl y arecen tdevelopment . Ieve nfoun dshyu 'indicatin g landbough t bygrandfathers . Iwa s alwayspuzzle db ythi sbuyin go flan d intime swhe nther ewa s stilla grea tdea lo ffre eland ,tswa . Theanswer sgive nb ym y informantswer eno tver yconvincing : 'Strangerswante d tobecom erea l inhabitants ofTs aan dth e quarterwher ethe ylived' .However ,i twa sno tdifficul tt o findexample so frea lnative swh obough tland .Fo rinstance : 'Inabou t192 5m ywidowe dmothe rbough ta piec eo fland ,o f somethirt yb ytwent ymetres ,fro mhe rlat ehusband' selde r brother.Thi sma nwen tt oliv ei nanothe rquarte r andneede d moneyt obuil d ahouse .M ymothe rpai dtwent y 'mark'fo rit . Itwa sa nka'-j u andno tlan dgive ntemporaril y assecurit y fora loan .Bein gth eeldes tso no fth echie fo fa quarter , nobodydare d tosto pthi sma n fromsellin gthi sland' .A s mentioned, Ia mo fth eopinio ntha tals oi nforme rtime s scarcityo flan dexiste d inth ewell-protecte d nka'lan do f theresidentia l areao fa quarter . Wemigh tals o findlan dobtaine d asnka'jyJ' ,a ssecurit ywit hth erigh t of usufruct for a loan,o r transferred to another persona snka'-jyj ' until the loan ispai d back.Wit h anka '-jyj ' iti spossibl etha tth e creditor only obtains the usufruct of the coffee-bushes andpasture - land; in other cases also the creditor's women start the cultivation of crops (seeOuden ,1980-60) . Inth ecas eo fnka'-ju ,formerl y andno w an act that is condemned if the land is inherited,th eseller' swome n havet oleave .

Now the nkwj'j-ntah, the estate directly controlled by the principal heir, is surrounded by concessions ceded from the main estate to brothers and sons ofth esuccessiv eprincipa lheirs .Thi s landi sgive n asnty^ gan dcanno tb esold . Whena brothe ro rso nreache smaturity ,th e 'father' (thebrothe r who succeedshi s fatheri sals ocalle d 'father'b yhi sbrothers ) askshi mt obuil d ahous ei na particula rplace .Th e 'father' willno turg eth ebo yt oleav ehi shous e (whereth eboy sliv e afterabou tthei r fifthyear) ,bu ti na diplomati cwa ywil l askno wan dthe nwhethe rh eha salread ygo tth enecessar y stones,etc .I fth ebo yha scomplete d this 'examinationo f maturity'h ewil lgiv eth e 'father'som e firewood 'towar m himself'.Th efathe rwil lthe nstak eof fth eboundarie so f thentyj qh ewant st ogiv ehi mwit hsom eboundar y trees.Th e boythe ni sya , controller ofthi sterrai ncede dt ohim ,i fh e staysan dstart sagricultura lproductio no nhi sland .Obtainin g antyj gi sa righ to fth egrow nboy ;i tdoe sno toblig ehi mt o offer specialtoken so fgratitud e apartfro mth enorma lrespec t heha st osho wt oth e 'father'.I nman ycase sw e findtha tth e principalhei rtake sbac ka ntyj gwhic hi sno tused . 191

A strong principal heir can take back antyj gwhic h is abandoned and he can stop the selling of antyj g if it concerns land given tode ­ scendants from his paternal grandfather.Mos tprobabl y the paramount chief of Tsa formulated the law in abette r way when he stated: 'My successor, likemyself , can stop the selling of land Igav ea sntyjg , but his successor cannot'. Here , of course, is much scope forth e demonstration ofpowe r by aprincipa l heir.T omentio nonl yon ediffi ­ culty: is antyj ggive nb you rgrandfathe r tohi s son,o rb you rfathe r to his brother? But, in the question of selling land,w eca nals oes ­ tablishth edemonstratio no fpower/authorit y byth echie fo fth equarte r orsub-chief . In198 0i nsom esub-chiefdoms/quarter sth esellin go flan dwa s madeextremel ydifficul tb yth echief s asthe yeagerl yadmi t theclaim so fprincipa lheir st oa ntyj gwhic hthe ysa ythe y control,o ri nusin gthei row ninfluenc e andpowe rt osto p thesellin go fland .Th eeasies twa y fora principa lhei r tosto pth esellin go fa ntyj gi st oas khi schie fo fth e quartero reve nth eparamoun tchie ft ole thi sme nplan tth e wele,a bambo owit hth ebranc ho fa plan tforbiddin gan y persont oente rth e fieldconcerne dunti lth echief' sverdic t isgive ni nthi sland-dispute .Thi swil lo fcours ecos tth e principalhei ra tleas ta goat .Th echie fca ndecid etha t thetroubl e arosebecaus ea nka'-jyj 'wa sconfuse dwit ha nka'-ju.Th esolutio ni sclear :th eprincipa lhei rrepay s theamoun to fmone yobtaine db yth evendo r andthu sregain s the family-landwhic hwa sthreatened .Bu ther ebuyer sca n alsomak eus eo fth eweaknes so fchief so rthei rrepre ­ sentatives:wha td othe yhav et opa yan dwha tca nthe ypa y fora verdic twhic hi si nthei rfavour ? The grandfather'sbrothers ' descendants will have theirow nGo do fth e childrenan dothe rsanctuarie s onth econcessio no fthei rprincipa lheir , which does notmea ntha tfo rspecia lmatter sthe ywil lno tas kth ehel p ofth eprincipa lhei ro fthei rpaterna lgrandfather . It is not clear when aperso n feels strong enough to starthi s own nkwj'j-ntaft and tomanag e his own ritual affairs,an d then, offering presents (asheep ,oil ,etc.) ,beg sth eprincipa lhei rt oplan tth etre e whereth e 'Godo fth echildren 'wil lb esituated .Thi si softe nrequeste d byth egrandfather' sbrothers ,o reve nth efather' sbrothers .

In Tsa, daughters or sisters cannot usually obtain antyj g if there are sons or brothers.Her e theprincipl e 'men own the land' isver y strong. If a man should decide to give a ntyjg to a woman, his brothers or sons will take the land back upon his death. Land cannot be taken back if the ntyjg is given to adaughter' s son.A ntyjg, however, is given to a ma-fuj, a 'queen-mother'; this land can only be inherited by a son (never by a daughter) who isbor n 192

during her reign asma-fu jan dotherwis e itwil l fallt oth echie fwhe n thema-fu jdies . Somewhat contrary to Tsa, in Ngang it is more normal to find women who possess a ntyjg where they cultivate their owncoffee . This difference can be due to the population-density being less inspecifi c areaso fNgang . In the families of the paramount chiefs of Tsa and Ngang it is not uncommon to give a ntyjg to 'daughters'. Not only do chiefs control more land than commoners or even chiefs of quarters, political factors may also play a role, namely, by giving a ntyjg to a sister or daughter, it is her husband and his family who 'profits' (economically, politically and socially) and the act can therefore be seen as the creation ofa relationshi pwit hspecifi cme nan dthei rfamilies . Inadditio nt oth entyj gs 'surrounding'th enkw.?' J-nta ho fa nimportan t principal heir,w e also find some nka'-nnagive nt ostranger swh ohav e requested it.Th e plots of land ceded by principal heirst ostranger s are now,becaus e of the land scarcity,normall yver ytin yan dca neve n be restricted to ancyo-nda ,a foundation ,o rnda ,house .Th e immigrant will call the principal heir ta, father, and the latterwil lcal lth e stranger mu_, son.Th e receiver of anka'-nn awil l normallypa ymone y for this favour, contraryt oth ereceive ro fa ntyj gwh oonl ycontinue s giving the small gifts to the fatherexpressin ghi srespect .Obtaining , a nka'-nna or antyj gdoe sno tinvolv especia lon eside deconomi crela ­ tions: loyalty and goodwill to theprincipa l heir ismor e important. Id ono tinclud eher eth echief so fquarter swh oar estil l ina positio n to give ann a of tswa, ofuninhabite d land,t ostrangers .No rd o Iin ­ clude important nna s formerly granted by principal heirs,chief s of quarters or the paramount chief topeopl e (often refugees) fromothe r chiefdoms or quarters,o r to pu', slaves . Inchiefdom swit harea sbor ­ deringth eNou nvalle ynka'-nn as t ostranger s arestil lquit enormal . A nka'-nn a to a stranger,b e it area l field or only ancyo-nda ,a foundation, cannotb e takenbac k as long as theperso no rhi sdescen ­ dants livether e andbehav enormally .

Incontras tt oth enka'-nn at oa stranger ,th enka'-nn at owome ni sles s permanent: anjjn , field controlled by awoman , canb e taken back by the hwa, the controller of the estate,thoug hnormall y inconsultatio n with the women cultivating on the concession. The >wa, forinstance , will make new arrangements or demand them for the cultivationrights , if he marries another woman. Minor border-questions can be settled by thewome n themselves,bu t major problems have tob e settledb yth e controllero fth eestat eo reve nb yth echie fo fth equarter ,th ehighes t authority always being the fuj, theparamoun tchief .Naturally , ifth e controller of the estate concerned isweak , thepositio n ofth ewome n - 193-

cultivating on the estate becomes stronger. Contrary to the situation priort o1960 ,th eholder so frelativel y largeconcession sn olonge rkno w all the women cultivating on their estate:sinc eth eliberalizatio no f coffee-growing, thewome n do not give menpar to fth eharves to fmaiz e (often sold by the men to pay taxes), macabo, ground-nuts andsweet - potatoes,an dproduct swhic hca nb edrie d andstore dwel l sucha stsets e mekuo, the indigenous blackbeans ,o rspecia lya mvarieties .Sinc e196 0 thewome n have looked after the men'scoffe eb yclearin gth efield so f badweed s andharvestin gth ecoffee-bean s (oili ssometime s givent oth e women as arewar d for this work).O nsom econcession swher eth ew a is greatly respected/feared we may findtha tpar to fth efood-cro pharves t is given to him by those womenwher eh ema yno tea tfreel yan dnothin g is given by womenwher eh eca neat ,suc ha shi swives ,father' swidows , sisters,daughter s andothe rver yclos erelatives ,an dwive so ffriends . Except for these traditionalbu trapidl ydisappearin gcustom so fgivin g parto fth eharves ti nretur nfo rfavours ,w e also findexceptiona l cases where the controller ofth econcessio ndemand stha tth ewome ncultivat e food-crops exclusively forhi sbenefi ti n (a)specifi c field(s)(se eOuden , 1980: 58,5 9an d 60).I found examples of this situation inNgan gan d Nsoa.

Inth eabov e Ih=v eonl ydepicte d theidea lmode lo fth eland-tenur e system, apictur ewhic hi smor eo rles scorrec ti fth ehea do fth eminima l lineage is a strong man.No t only chiefs have followers, ahea do fth efamil y also has his men.I fi tappear stha tpeopl eca nliv ei npeac eunde rhi s leadershipman ypeopl ewil lchoos e andemphasiz e their 'dependency'upo n him. Here living in peace means:goo d health, low infantmortality , reasonableharvests ,n ointrusion sb yneighbours ,n ounreasonabl eappro ­ priation ofmovabl e property by notables and,i ngeneral ,a concer no f theprincipa lhei r forhi speople' swelfare .A wea kleade ro fth efamil y wasan di sa threa tt oth efamil yi nman yway s andwil lhav ea centrifuga l and fissioning effect upon thepolitical , economic, social and ritual familyentity . The traditional land-tenure system is nowbein g severely threatenedb y thegovernment' s desiret operfec tth e 'mercantiledomain' ,t oenforc ea systemo fpersona lland-titles . Accordingt oa la wo fAugus t197 4peopl ei nth erura larea so f Cameroonshoul d apply forpersona l landtitle swithi nfiftee n years (forurba narea sthi sperio d iste nyears) . Ifafte rthi s periodpeopl estil lha dno tapplie d forthes eindividua ltitles , theprocedur e forth e 'bornage',th eofficia lmarkin gou tan d registrationo fth eland ,i sn olonge r freeo fcharg ean dth e landwil lb econsidere d asbelongin gt oth e 'domainenationale' , 194

national domain (not 'domaineprivé 'lik eth estrip so flan d withdepth so f2 5metre sborderin gth eroads )an dca nb eex ­ propriatedwithou tan ycompensatio n (thegovernmen tthe nonl y pays forbuildings ,tree san dbushes) . Theprocedur e toobtai nindividua l landtitle s isa sfollows . -Th e 'bureaude sdomaines' ,domania loffice ,o fth edivisiona l headquartersgive s formso nwhic hlan dboundarie s andth e valueo fbuilding s andcrop shav et ob eindicated . -Thes e formshav et ob epresente d toth eoffic eo fth esub - divisionaloffice r (sous-préfet)wher e anofficia l receipt issen tt oth eoffic eo fth edivisiona l officer (préfet). -Fo ron emont hth ereques tfo rth eofficia l landborderin g isposte du pi nth eoffice so fth esous-préfe tan do fth e paramountchief .Afte rthi smonth ,th eparamoun tchie fis ­ suesa 'certificatd'affichage' ,certificat e ofnotice . - Ifnobod yraise sobjection st oth erequest ,a dat ei s fixed fora non-the-spo tmeetin go fth ecommission ,whos e task iti st oestablis hth eofficia lboundarie s (hereth e 'chefd epost e agricole',th eloca loffice ro fth eMinistr y ofAgriculture ,seem st ob ea nimportan tco-ordinator) . Thiscommissio nha sth e followingcomposition : 1.a nofficia l ofth edomania loffice , 2. anofficia l ofth elan dregistratio noffice , 3.a functionar y representing thesub-divisiona lofficer , 4.th eloca loffice ro fth eMinistr yo fAgriculture , 5.th erepresentativ e orsecretar yo fth eparamoun tchief , 6.th echie fo fth equarte rconcerned . -Durin gth eon-the-spo tmeeting ,al lth eneighbour shav et ob e presentt ogiv eevidenc econcernin glan dboundarie s andth e ownership ofth eland .Question s ariselik e 'didth efathe r divideth elan damon ghi sbrother s and sons?',i fh edi d notth eprincipa lhei r isth eowne ro fth eundivide destat e onth eunderstandin g thatth efather' sson san ddaughter s arename d asco-heir s inth e 'jugementd'héridité' , judgment ofinheritance ,whic hth ecommissio n alsoha st odra wup .

In 1980,official s ofth edepartmen to fAgricultur e estimated thatsom e tenpe rcen to fth econtroller s oflan daske d fora 'bornage',a nofficia l marking out and registration of their land.Ever yeffectiv econtrolle r of land can ask fora persona l land-title,thi smean stha tholder so fa ntyjq are also included. This will undoubtedly result in land being sold more frequently, which can no longer be prevented by principal heirs or chiefs of quarters. Land will become more and more area l commodity. Land as family-property and the position of head ofth e family as guardian ofth epatrimon y arealread y affectedb yth eproces s ofmarke t incorporation and its concomitants,bu t the new legislation willdea lth efina lblo wt oth etraditiona l land-tenure system. Oneca ndoub tver ymuc hwhethe rth eregistratio no fpersona l landtitle s will end the numerousdispute s aboutland . Ihav e alreadymentione dth e frequentnamin go fco-heir s inth e 'judgmento finheritance' ;i flan di s sold,o rtransferre d tobrother s and sons,th eco-heir sca ncreat e alo t oftrouble ,no tt ospea ko fextr adifficultie s ifth etransfe ro flan di s - 195 -

not properly documented with the official authorities concerned. It is also a question of whether banks will be in a position to give loans with land as security to holders of official titles; the problem of the co-heirs is still present and it may not be certain whether land, if necessary, can be auctioned by a bank at a reasonable price. If the government remains as strong as it is now, neighbours or members of the family will have greater difficulties to get hold of plots of land in the case of the 'owner' being a weak man or during the insecurity of succession. But what if corruption can turn wrong into right? It will take several years before the effects of the new land laws can be evaluated.

At the end of this section Irecapitulat e the most important terms used in relation to the land tenure system. »jwa : ama n who controls land. nkwj'j-ntart : independent estate (concession) symbolized by its own God of the Children and controlled by a^w a who is fully independent. ntyjg : land given to a relative, a male member of the patri- lineage, who is then/hw ao f the terrain, but cannot sell the land. y nka'-ju : land which has been bought. nka'-jua' : land given or obtained in usufruct, as security for a loan. nka'-nna : gift of land; to foreigners rather permanent, to women not (or less)permanent . n^an : plot of land where awoma n cultivates. ncyo-nda or nda: respectively 'foundation' and 'house'; a minimal gift of land (nka'-nna) to a stranger who is given 'aplac e to live'. lesa'a : estate from where we originate, where FF was born and the one from where MM originated. nka' : land; in a more specific sense land inside the inhabited area. tswa : uninhabited area. - 196-

2 THECONTRO LOVE RPEOPLE ,LAN DAN DPRODUCTIO N INTW OTS AAGNATI C FAMILIES,1900-198 0

2.1 TheLets icas e

Inthi s section Iwil l analyseth esituatio nunde rth ethre esuccessiv e heads of the family, X, A andA I (seeth egenealogy) .A sn olivin gma n hasknow nX ,th einformatio nfo rhi s 'reign'ca nonl yb ebrief .Th e'pre - coffeeera 'wil lb eanalyse dwhe ndiscussin gA .Th eright so fwome nove r land and produce can only be discussed in some detail forA I's perio d (2.1.3.5.); Iwa sno tabl et otrac eth ehistor yo fth ecultivatio nright s ofwome ni nspecifi cplot so fland .

2.1.1 P£i2£iE5i_heir_X

The firstresidentia l agnatic familyt ob ediscusse dbelong st oth erar e categorywher e there is still aconsiderabl eamoun to fsparsel yculti ­ vated tswa land. The founder of the family,grandfathe r ofth epresen t oldprincipa lheir ,hel da hig hpositio ni nth echiefdo mo fBaleveng .H e quarrelled with his chief, left and offered his services toth egrea t Tsa chief and warrior Fomekong, great grandfather ofth epresen tpara ­ mount chief.Thi s founder had a special skillt ooffe rt oth echie fo f Tsa: hewa sa famou sblacksmith . Infac th ecam etogethe rwit htw oothe r men. At thebeginnin g ofm y research,member s of the family spoke of these men as 'brothers',bu t after sometim ethe ywer eno ts osur ean d spoke about 'dependants'.Paramoun t chief Fomekong offeredth efounde r thecontro l overa trac ko flan da snka'-nna .Thi slan dstretche d froma riveri nth einterio rove ra hil l asfa ra sa rive rwhic hi sth efrontie r with the chiefdo m of Bansoa. On thehil lther ewa sa nobservatio npos t of zunzu, amandjo h (age group)o fwarriors . Ifw e look atthi ssub - chiefdo m Letsi as awhole ,the n thefamil yo fit schie fan dsom eothe r lineagesals ooriginat e fromBaleveng .Fomekon gsettle dne w followersi n a territory he conquered fromBansoa .Eve ntoday ,th epresen tprincipa l heir after the indication of a sorcerer visits the lesa'a where his paternal grandfather was born inBaleving , tobrin goffering s inorde r tosto pa curs eo nth efamily .

In the firstma p of the area concerned Itrie d tomar k the original nka'-nna given by Fomekong to the founderX (seeth egenealogy )i nth e 197

H ^^ H i—1 3 H w

CS] TTM '

^-s M 3 ^3^

CM

>H i-i

H -1 i-t r-l Ç" M •*s

H H i-i es

ss, H 3 3 > M H ^.-l M u o H y—^^ H »* s

h-t I-(

,-N b M I—1

•O M n c o> H ^O 41 Si •o r-l Ol /~CT4\ M T-H •«-•

M H H CO

CM

i-t CM

" H X < M d "•^ro r-l

•60 >X> «1 in

^-M * •*3- m 3 es t-t

M ^ a wen

u M H

m E 198 199

second half of the nineteenth century. Thedivisio no fth eterrai nbe ­ tweenX an dhi s 'brothers'Y an dZ wa sarrange db yhim .Th epresen tprin ­ cipal heir AI,thoug h very much interested inth eneighbourin g lando f the descendants ofY and2 o n 'his'sid eo fth eriver ,ha sn osa ywhat ­ soever over these areas:afte r the deatho fX' s successorA ,thi slan d no longer has thestatu so fa ntyjq .Nevertheless ,I trace dth ehistor y of theseplot s onth esouther nsid eo fth erive r (mainlylan dbelongin g to Y) because this offers supplementary information about the events since 1900 in thecollatera l lines.I nthi s firstma p Ials omarke dA' s nkwj'J-ntar ian dth enty^ gs cede dt ohi sbrother sB ,C ,D ,E ,F an dG .

Duringth ereig no fX andhi ssuccesso rA (Adie d in1938) , thehil lsid e was used aspastur e forgoat s andsheep .I nX' s timeth enka 'area ,th e enclosureso fplot s forfood-crop s and forkeepin ggoats ,di dno texten d furtheru pth ehil ltha nth eterrain so fG ,D andF and ,durin gA' srule , theportio ngive nt oB .Goat swer e freet ograz eo nth ewhol e concession during the dryperiod , fromth e food-cropharves ti nSeptember /Octobe r until sowing inMarch . From March toSeptembe r theywer ekep tenclose d on special plots in the area around the houses andwer e fedwith ,fo r example, chopped leaves. Chickens were similarly confined to a small space from March to the end ofMay . Inth etsw aare ao nth ehil lside , plots were used by women to grow 'blackbeans' ,tsetse-mekuo ,onc ei n threet ofiv eyears . Iti ssai dtha tth ehil lsid ewa sneve rcommuna l land.However , ama nwithou tsufficien tgrazin gground scoul d askth eprincipa l heirt oinclud ehi sgoat si nth e flock.H e 'paid'fo rthi swit ha smallgoat .I fw efollo wth erive rborderin gBanso adownstream , toth eeast ,w ecom et oa nare awhic hwa scommuna lunti labou t 1964.A i (principalheir )an dAII I (aliterar yman ,protestan t preacher andforme rsecretar yt oth eparamoun tchief )manage dt o obtaina plo ta tth etim eth esub-chie fo fLets idivide dthi s landamongs ta doze no fhi s 'nobles'(se eMa p II,plot s4 8an d 49). Thislan dwa sneve rcultivate db ywome ni nspit eo fit s high fertility.Th eBanso aswamp y sideo fth erive ri sstil l communal land.Whe nI visite dth etw oplot si n197 8togethe r withAIII , itappeare d thatbot hh ean dA Iha dno tsee nth e area forfiv eyears .Som ehundre dmetre su pth eslop efro m thisforme rcommuna l landw e founda nare awhic hha dals o lostit sforme r functioni nca .1960 .Here ,girl sfro mth e sub-chiefdomwh ower enearl yadul tbu tstil lno tmarrie d hadth erigh tt ogro w food-crops.I ti ssai dtha to nthes e plotsgirl s learnedho wt ocultivate ,a tth esam etim e theireffort sprovide dthe mwit ha smal lincom e (which isals otru ewhe nthe ystar tcultivatin gwit hthei rmothers) . Theylos tthi srigh tcompletel ywhe nthe ymarried . Ithin ktha tth ehighl y fertilebu tmarsh y landborderin gth erive rtha t separates Tsa andNso a (theborde r of the chiefdom ofLessin g isals o nearby) was in those days almost a 'noman' s land' without clear-cut 200

boundaries,a so-calle d 'campagne' (Hurault,1970 :246 ,247) ,'u nterrai n communal soumis au seul contrôle du chef,...mis e àl adispositio nde s femmes de tous les habitants du groupement, sans distinction derési ­ dence'. Evennow ,becaus e of the unhealthy environment, no housesar e builti nthi stsw aland ,eve nthoug hth estrategi creason s aren olonge r relevant.

In former days houses were built close together: the distancebetwee n the houses ofX , Y and Zwa s about 250metres ,o nbot h sides ofth e raphia palm belt, an excellent hiding place. The distance between the residence of the principal heir A and five ofhi sbrother s (C, G,D ,F an dE )wa sa grea tdea lsmaller . Tom ei ti sstrikin gan dobviou stha tth eeldes tbrother ,B (whodie d in1910 )ha dhi sresidenc e relatively farawa yfro m theprincipa lhei ran da ta noutpos twhic hwa srathe rdanger ­ ous. InBamilék ésociety ,th eeldes tbrothe ri softe na perso n tob e fearedb ya younge rprincipa lheir .H e isals oth eon e whoact sa srepresentativ e ofa mino rprincipa lhei ran dwh o oftenrathe rcunningl y triest oeliminat ehi syounge r 'father' (thesuccesso rt ohi s father). Inth ecas eo fB , Imus tad d thath ewa sa ver ystron gma nan dtha thi ssol e 'occupation' wast ob ewarrio ro fchie fFomekong . Fordefenc ereason shouse swer ebuil tclos etogethe rdow ni nth evalley s of the chiefdom. Itwa sonl ywhe nFrenc hdominatio nwa sestablishe d and slave raiding was really over thathouse-site s spreadu pth ehil l(in ­ cluding the enclosures of certain plots)reachin gth ehillto p inabou t 1950 (map II,plo t30) .

2.1.2 Principalheir_ A andhi s firstsuccesso rA I I

X had six sonswh oreache dadulthood ;a sevent h 'son'wil lb ediscusse d separately. As his successor,X nominated theso no fa princes so fTs a (probablyhi s fourtho r fifthlivin gson )give nt ohi ma sbrid eb ypara ­ mountchie fFomekong .T ochoos eth eso no fa clos erelativ eo fth echie f strengthened thepositio no fth eprincipa lhei rwh owa sthe na ma nt ob e fearedi nth equarte rwher eh elived . Kaberry (1952:36,37 )describe s situations inwhic hlineage s witha semi-independen t statustr yt oavoi d anincreas e inth e chief'sinfluenc eo nthei rterritories .Suc hlineage sd ono t nominate asprincipa lhei rth eso no fa clos erelativ eo fth e chief. InTs ao rNgan gthi sca nb eexpecte dwit hlineage so f sub-chiefs ando fmember so fth ehighes tchiefdo mcouncil ,th e Nine,nkem-lepfj' jo rkamv u (seeOuden ,1979 :20-32) . These authoritiestr yt oavoi dnominatin g assuccessor s sonso f womencomin g fromth eparamoun tchief' spalace . 201

2.1.2.1 Principalhei rA

A was a blacksmith and trader (according to his descendants, inhi s younger years even inslaves )wh oi nth eBal iare anea rBamend alearne d to manufacture rifles.H ewa sals oa breede ro fgoats ,pig s andhorses , andagriculturis t (palmwin ean dtre e fruits),wit hhi sclai mt opar to f the food-crops grownb ywome no nhi sow nconcessio n (maize,blac kbeans , groundnuts, some yam varieties,etc.) .Wit hth ehel po fdependen tmale s ofhi s family,A coul dver ywel lpla yhi spar ti nth eexchang esyste mo f thechiefdo man deve ncreat esituation s inwhic hothe rperson scoul dno t reciprocate.H e obtained control over land outsideth econcessio na sa nka-jyj', a s a security for loans,an denlarge d theraphi a areai nth e north-easta sa nka'-j u (seeplot s3 an d5 o fth esecon dmap) .A appear ­ edt ob e astron gma nwh okep thi sbrother sunde rcontro l inth ewa y 'it should be done',whic hmean tno tcomplet esubjection .Leavin gasid eth e ntyjq sX ceded toY andZ ,A kep tth epatrimon y undivided andmanage d totransfe r ita sa whol et ohi ssuccessor .Whe nA die d in193 8h easke d hisbrothers ,thei rdescendant s andhi sson swhethe rthe yha deve rgive n himoi lo rothe rpresent s forth elan do rraphi ah eha dgive nthem .The y allkep tsilen twhic hmean ttha tthei r landha dneve rreache dth estatu s of complete independence, never became ankwa '3-ntaft.A , likeX ,stil l got the lower parts of the cuttree s and someo fth eraphia-win ethe y tapped, from the territories belonging to Y and Z, indicating the latter'sdependen tposition .Thi seconomic ,political ,socia lan dritua l tiecam et oa nen dwit hA' sdeath .

Inth e genealogy ofLets i iti sstrikin gthat ,i fw eonl yloo ka tsons , thelif eexpectancie s ofth enon-principa l heirswer e lesstha nthos eo f the successors.Principa l heir A (elevenwives )ha d fourt ofiv eadul t sons and twenty fivegrandsons .Tw obrothers ,B (onewife )an dE (three wives)di d nothav e sons or lostthe mal lbefor eadulthood ;C ,D andF (onewif eeach )produce d oneso neach .T ofollo wthes eside-line s inth e genealogy, CI (only since 1979 two wives)ha s one son,D I (onewife ) three sons and FI (twowives )on eson .Onl y 'brother'G (twowives )di d somewhat better:h e has four sons and already has six grandsons;hi s heirGi l (onewife )alread yha sfou rsons . Amongstth esi xresidentia l agnatic families Istudie d inTs a andNgan g Ials ofoun dtha ti ngenera lprincipa lheir shav e moreoffsprin gtha nnon-heirs . 202

Table 1. Sons of two generations of heirs and non-heirs in six agnatic families of Tsa and Ngang, 1900-1980. Place no.of sons Average no. of sons of brothers of heirs of heirs and ()no . of brothers Letsi (Tsa) 4 0,6 (5) 10 5 (3) Latchuet (Tsa) 6 1 (1) 4 1,6 (5) Toula (Tsa) 5 1,8 (9) 25 2,5 (4) Menguéa (Ngang) 5 2 (1) 6 3,25 (4) Tomego (Ngang)* - (-) 5 0 (1) Biété (Ngang) 16 1,5 (2) 12 3 (7) Average no. of 8,9 (11) 2,2 (42) * Because of irregularities in the succession, migration took place and therefore figures for the older generation of princi­ pal heirs cannot be given.

If Imentione d that a non-heir is the potential founder of a new lineage, it now becomes clear that we have good reason to suspect that non-heirs have many difficulties in starting a flourishing new line. If Idefin e a flourishing new line as a situation in which a non-heir produces at least three sons who reach adulthood, then of the 18 non-heirs of the older generation mentioned in Table 1, only 4 can be taken as such, whereas of the younger generation of non-principal heirs (numbering 24) only 12 reached a similar stage. It is important to note that in the younger generation of non-heirs the average number of sons is always higher than in the older generation; moreover the percentage of non-heirs producing three sons or more in the younger generation is much higher than in the older generation of non-heirs (50%t o 234%) due to the better 'life expectancy'.th e process of incorporation has given them (especially by means of migration). An analysis of the individual male members of the family can throw light on their dependency on principal heir A (and X) and the difficulties in getting a start in life. In certain cases Iwil l continue the history of plots of land and people up to the present time. In naming the various men, Ihav e taken as 'ego' the present principal heirAI .

2.1.2.2 Father's brother B

We have already noticed that B resided at some distance from his brothers. He married very late and died in about 1910 without living descendants. B was a warrior of the paramount chief and he helped his father breed goats and pigs. Later, X's successor A gave his ntyjg to AIII who in about 1955 ceded half to AIV with the consent of the then principal heir 203

AI. A gave hishu tt oa strange r fromBalessin g asnna .Thi sma nbecam e a good friend of the family becausedurin ga figh twit ha thie fh ese ­ riously injured ahand . His son lived in the hut until the rebellion of ca. 1960. In1970 ,anothe r sonreturne d toLets ian daske dA I for' a place to live'.H ego ta terrai no ftwent yb ytwent ymetre s asnka'-nn a where he built a house (plot 27). Along the road (only constructed during the rebellion) strangers were regularly accorded ann a fora ncyo-nda in order to build ahouse : 'Theyar elik eth ebird swh obuil d theirnests ;afte rsom etim ethe yleav eagain' .

2.1.2.3 Father'sbrothe rC

C made baskets and mats and was also a sorcerer.H ei stalke do fa sa lazyma nwh o did notwan t toloo kafte rmuc hland . In193 0ther ewa sa serious trial of strength between him and the ageing A,whic hC lost . He wanted to take the widow of the lateD ,bu tA refuse dt oallo whi m and took her ashi s ownwif ebecaus ea sprincipa lhei rh eha dpai dth e bride-wealth forthi swoman .Wit hhi swif e andchildre nC fle dt oBamen - kombowher e he asked theparamoun t chief for some land.Ther ehe ,an d allexcep thi swif ean don eo fhi schildren ,die do fcholer ai n1947 . Iunderstan d thatth equarre lbetwee nC an dA wa sth e lasto fa series .C ,fo rexample ,trie d tostea lcertai n paraphernaliawhic hbelonge d toX , sucha sa drinkin ghorn , always aver ymagi c and 'dangerous'objec ti nthes eareas . My informants concludedthei r storywit hth efollowin gre ­ mark: 'NowC ha dt o flee,bu ti fh ewer ea stronge rperso n anda mor eseriou s hqaft-shyua,dangerou s sorcerer,the nh e wouldhav etake nth econtro love ra grea tpar to fth econ ­ cessionan dwoul dhav ecause dother st oflee. ' C'swido w andso nreturne d toTs aan dbegge dprincipa lhei rA It oaccep t themo nth econcessio n andt osto pth ecurs e fromwhic hthe ywer esuffer ­ ing.

2.1.2.4 Father'sbrothe rD

D died before 1930;a sw e havesee nhi sdeat hcause dth e finalruptur e between C and A. D was only a smith-hand who handled thebellow sfo r a smith in the neighbourhood who was not amembe r of the family.H e only had atin y ntyjq (plot 11). Afterhi sdeath ,hi sso nD Iwa stake n care ofb y his eldest sisterwh o senthi m toschoo laide d financially by the principal heir AI. DI, now headmaster in avillag e east of Mbouda, before the rebellion of 1958-1962 planted coffee 'onth eothe r side of the road', near the top of thehil l (26-29)bu t during the riots he fled and never started cultivating in that area again.D I stillha sa hous eo nhi s father'slan d(11) . - 204 -

LETSI-TS A 205 206

2.1.2.5 Father'sbrothe rE

E, likeB ,C an dD ,wa s a 'little',rathe rpoo rman .H ewa s ablacksmit h who made tools used in agriculture.Whe n Iaske d whetherh eha dgoat s the answer was thath emigh thav eha d somehidde nbehin dhi shut ;i fh e had goats openly, notables would have askedhi m 'Whoar eyou ' ('Tu est qui') and would have taken them away. The principal heir, himself a notable and son ofa princes s ofTsa ,woul dno thav ebee ni na positio n to stop his noblecolleague s ina naffai ro fthi snature ;i twoul dhav e beenhi smistak ebecaus eh eha dno tcontrolle d oneo fhi speopl ean dha d allowedhi mt obecom esomeon ewh odi dno tkno whi splace .

Starting with a small plot of land in thevalle y area (9),afte rsom e time he asked his father for abigge r parcel and gotplo t 17.A the n added plot 9t ohi s 'own'lan di nth evalley .E ha ddie d in1929 ,afte r his sonsha ddie do fsmallpox .Hi sthre ewive s (oneo fthe mwa sa slave ) weretake nb yA ,A I andAll .No wther ear etw oson so fhi stw odaughter s inGarou a (NorthCameroon )an dBalessing :th e familyi nLets iknow sthe m very well and feels that if they do not succeed in the regionswher e theyno wwork ,the ycoul das kthe m forsom elan da sa ntyjg .E possesse d some raphia palms in thevalle y (plot 8). Thesewer elate rsol db yAl l and bought againb yA I1 1wh o now holds thisportio no fmarsh y landa s nka'-ju.

2.1.2.6 Father'sbrothe rF

After aperio d of forced labour forth eGerman si nwhic hh ewa sa roa d construction worker, Fbecam e a small trader inpalmpit s andsalt ,an d also worked as ablacksmith .F die d someyear sbefor eA' sdeath .A gav e him a female slavea sa wif ewhe nh ewa s alreadyrathe rold .Thi sgirl , kidnapped inBahoua n (nearBandjoun) ,wa sbough tb yA whe nsh ewa sstil l very young. F onlycontrolle d atin yplo tdow ni nth evalle y area(12) . His only sonwa s born just afterhi sdeat han dtha ti swh y friendsde ­ stroyed all his possessions, including hut, trees and raphiapalms , saying: 'Whoi sgoin gt oliv ether enow? ' Ifa ma ndie dwithou tgrow nu p children itwa s quitenorma lt odestro y allhi spossession s andfo rhi s nty^q to be taken back by theprincipa l heir (plot 12).Hi s sonwa s taken care ofb yAII Iwh osen thi m toschool ,taugh thi mt ob ea black ­ smith (atth etim eincludin g themanufacturin go frifles )and ,i nconsul ­ tationwit hAI ,gav ehi m aplo to flan dwhic hAII Icontrolle d (13).Afte r a quarrelwit hhi s 'step-father'AIII ,F Ishifte dhi shous e fromplo t1 3 to25 , upth ehill . 207

2.1.2.7 Father's 'brother'G

G was in fact a son ofA' ssister .S oi ti sunderstandabl e thath ewa s muchyounge rtha nhi s 'brothers';G onl ydie di n1960 . Gwa salway spointe d outt om ea sA' syounges tbrother .I t wasonl yafte rfiv emonth stha tth e 'real' familyrelatio n becameclearer .A sistero fA marrie d aprinc eo fTs aan d theyha dtw osons .Durin ga famin eth emothe rdie dan dth e fatherthe ntoo kcar eo fth eelde rso nan dsen tth eyounge r onet ohi swife' sbrothe rA wher eh estaye d forth eres t ofhi s life. Inthi scas ea ntyj gwa sgive nt oa sister' s sonan dwhe n Iaske dwhethe rthi swa salrigh ta ninforman t answered: 'Sis amèr eétai tu nhomm eell eavai tquand-mêm e aussiobtenu ede sterrains. 'I twa sa si fI hear dM .Fortes ' Tallensi informants (inFox ,1967:231) . Insectio n1.3 , Iargue dtha ti ti squit epossibl e togiv ea ntyjqt oa sister' s son.O nth eothe rhand ,i ti sno tun ­ commonbu ti sdisapprove d ofan dals o feared asson str yt o takelan dcultivate db ythei rmothers .O nsom econcession s wherelan dscarcit y isver ygrea tthi si seve nth ereaso n whydaughter s aren olonge r allowedt ocultivat eo nthei r father'so rbrother' s estate (seeOuden ,1980:60) . Ithin k iti sto ofar-fetche d torefe rher et oth ematrilinea ltribe s of, forinstance ,th eKo mare ai nth enearb yBamend aregio n (Kaberry,1952:17 ,se eals o1 4fo rth epatrilinea lNsaw : '....ama nha sright so fusufruc to nlan dbelongin gt oth e mother'slineage...'. ) G was pointed out to me asbein g himself afarme ran da nassistan tt o womeni nthei rcultivatio no ffood-crops .Thi sma ysee m somewhatstrange , because men in this region state without reserve that they dono td o agricultural work.W e will have to remember thatno t sover y longag o heavy clearance of fields,guardin g the crops againstbeast s andmen , fencing plots of landan dperhap seve nhelpin g inharvestin g themaize , fingermille tan dguine acor nwa snormall ya man' stas k (compareKaberry , 1952: 55,87 ,89) .Men' sagricultura l activitieswoul d andwil l include the growing of raphia palms,kola-nut s andothe rtree-fruit s andplan ­ tains (the banana is a woman's product). I take it for granted that a 'dependent' person such as G, did notposses s a considerable herd ofgoats . Nowan di nth epast ,w eofte n findtha tbrother s andson s ofth eprincipa lhei rperfor m tasks forwhic hthe yar eno t remunerated ina direc twa ybu tthei r isa nunderstandin g thatthe ykee ppar to fth eproduce .G , forinstance ,tappe d raphiawin efo rhi s 'father' (mother'sbrothe rA an dmother' s brother's sonAI )an dchoppe draphi apoles .I twa saccepte d

10 InTs a andNgan gman yexample sca nb e foundwhic hbea rou tth eol d (1864), and of course exaggerated, statement ofRichar d Burton: 'Truly it is saidtha twhils tth epoo rma ni nth eNort hi sth eso n of apauper , the poor man in the Tropics isth eso no fa prince ' (In:Goody ,1976/1977:99) . 11 Insectio n 2.2.3 Iwil l pay some attention to tendenciestoward s perstirpe sinheritance ,referrin gt oGood y andBuckle y (1973). 208

thath euse d someo fth ewin e forhi sow nhousehol d andtha t heuse d raphiapole s forth econstructio no fhi shouse san d thefence saroun dhi s fields.A sA I said: 'Perhapsh eeve n soldwin ean draphi apoles ,bu ti ftha twa s soh ewa s cheatinghi s father'.Tha tsuc hregulation sbetwee nth e principalhei ran dhi srelative sca nproduc econfusio nap ­ pears fromth estor yA Ian dA I1 1tol dm ei n1980 .Af/te rth e deatho fG i n196 0hi swido wsen tsomeon et oth eraphi aplan ­ tationo nth enort hsid eo fth econcessio nt o fetchbambo o poles.A Ithe naske dhe rwhethe rhe rhusban dha dgive nhi ma sheepan doi l forth eraphi abushes .Sh ecoul dno tconfir mthi s andgav eA I achicke nbecaus e aneighbou r alsotol dhe rtha t sheha dmad ea mistake .A Iconclude d 'Gha dnothin g intha t area;h eonl yworke dther e form y fatheran dme' .

2.1.2.8 Father's firstsuccesso rAl l

A's death in 1938brough t about aperio do fdisorde r inth e family.H e left five sons theyounges ttw oo fwho mwer ever y smallboys .Th ethir d sonwa s twenty two and quite welleducated ;h eha d alreadybee nsecre ­ tary/scribe toth eparamoun tchie fan dwa straine da sprotestan tevange ­ list. This man could not succeed his father because asa Christia nh e wouldno tb eabl et operfor m thesacrifice s toth e 'gods'o fth econces ­ sion, including the skulls of the deceased forefathers (see Kaberry, 1952:37 for a similar case). There remained, therefore,A I andAl la s adultme n and the two little boys.Afte rA' sdeat hhi shouse swer eat ­ tacked by ahig h 'noble'o fth eLets isub-chiefdom ,wh oha dmarrie don e ofA' sdaughter swh o appeared tob ebarren .H euse dthi sa sa pretex tt o sendhi swome nt odestro yA' shouses .H ei nfac ttrie dt otak epossessio n ofpar to fth econcessio nbu tdi dnot•succee dbecaus eo finterventio nb y theparamoun tchie f (a 'maternalgrandfather' )wit hwho mAII Iwa so ngoo d terms.The nA' s friendsarreste d ('captured'an dinstalle d assuccessor ) the laziest and least healthy son asprincipa l heir; theysai dtha tA orderedthe mt onominat eAl la shi ssuccessor . Veryoften ,i fpeopl e speako ffather' s 'friends'the ymea n hisco-member so fa k33»i ,a chiefdo morganizatio no fwhic h hewa sa member .S o 'friend'canno talway sb etranslate db y theEuro-America n 'friend':i tma yb ehi senemy . Immediately after the nomination AI andAII I fled,A I toBamess a and Bansoa where heworke d asa blacksmith ,AII Iwen ta sa nevangelis tt oa number ofplace s in the Bamiléké area.Nevertheless ,A Iwa s 'poisoned' byenemie san dgo t 'leprosy'bu teventuall y recovered.All ,however ,A' s successor,wa s also 'attacked'an dh ego ta tumou r inhi sside ;h edie d six months after his installation. Because of his illness,Al lha dt o sellraphi apalm san dlan di nth enorther nare againe ddurin gA' sreign , 209

alsoE' s raphia (plot8 )wa ssol dt oa strange rbu twa sbough tbac klate r by AIII. Moreover, the land outside theconcessio nwa sregaine db yth e debtorswh opai dbac kth eorigina lgift/loan . Ifsomeon e isdyin go ralread ydea dbu tstil lno tburied ,every ­ bodyca nexplai nt oth e familyth eclaim sh eo rsh eha so nth e family'spropert y ('parlersu rl atête' , 'tospea ko nth ehead') . Theclaiman ti sthe naske dwhethe rh espeak sth etrut han dwil l havet oea tsom ehair scu tfro mth ehea do fth edyin go rdea d mano rwoman . Ifa perso nwer eno ttellin gth etruth ,h eo rsh e woulddie .I nth ecas eo fth elan doutsid eth econcession ,th e debtorexplaine d thesituation ,pai dbac kth eloa nan dregaine d hisland .Thi scoul dno tb estoppe db yA' s family: 'Ifw eha d notaccepte d therewoul dhav ebee nkillings' . Thepatrimon yremaine dpracticall yundamage d inthi speriod . Aperso nma ydie ,bu tstil lconstitute s aforc et ob ereckone d with.Al lha da daughte rwit htw ochildren ,a bo yan da girl . Thebo y isblin d andi n197 6a sorcere rpointe d outAl l asth e angryperso nwh ocause dth edisasters : 'Theskul lo fyou r fatheri slef ti nth egrass ,i nth erain' .Th ebod yo fAl l wasdu gu p andth eskul lha ssinc ebee nkep ti nth ehous e ofAll' swido w (andno wwif eo fAI) , grandmother ofth e blindboy .Me no fth efamil yno wdiscus swhethe rth eskul l shouldb eburie d inth e 'houseo fth egods ' (onplo t1 ) withth eskull s (orstone srepresentin g theskulls )o fX , X'smother ,A ,A' smother ,an dAI' smother .Thi swoul dno tb e correct,becaus eonl yth eskull so fsuccessor swit hson san d themother s ofthes eprincipa lheir sar eburie d intha thouse . Iti spossibl etha ti twil lb edecide dt obuil d aseparat e smallhous e forAll' sskul lbecaus eapparentl yAl l isstil l activean dno tver ypleased .

2.1.3 The_gresent_grincigal_heir

2.1.3.1 Principalhei rA I

In 1939 AI,th e present principal heir, at the ageo ftwent ysi xtoo k over the leadership of the family.Accordin g to theprinciple so fth e area this meant the end of thelineage-lin kwit hth efamilie so fY an d Z: theprincipa l heir has some control over the land ofhi s father's brothers and their descendants, but not over his father's father's brothers descendants' land. AI, 'lepère ' (ta)a sh e iscalle db yth e members of the X family, has seenman y changes in his life.Whe nh e started, the old agricultural system still existed with maize asth e main crop on the fertile soils near the stream in the north, sweet potatoes somewhat higher (near the road)an d black beans in thehil l area. At the timeanima lhusbandr ywa s stillver y important.Coffe eha s caused a drastic change inth esystem .Becaus eo fth epossibilit ysinc e 1950 for every man to grow coffee (coffee is abush-cro p and thus a man's affair)eve n 'small'peopl e wanted to have abi g plot only for -21 0

themselves and were no longer contentwit hplot slik e9 ,10 ,11 ,1 2o r 14whic h belonged originally to C,D ,E ,F an dG .Now ,o fcours e iti s an inexcusable simplification to 'blame' coffee for the changes which took place:th e end ofwarfar e and raids,th e increase inpopulation , commercialization of food-crops and the process ofmonetarizatio n are also important.W e can speak about a 'modern fund ofrent ' whenth e 12 government in one way or another drainsmuc ho fth eprofi tproduce db y coffee growing. But still,i na situatio ni nwhic h food-crops aregrow n by women in amixe d cropping system, the extensive coffee plantation means a 'deuse xmachina 'fo rme ncompare d toanima lhusbandr ywit hit s concomitant large scale enclosures,th e growing ofplantain s (youhav e to control andprotec tthi scro palmos tdaily )o rtre ecrop slik ekola - nuts (ittake sman yyear st oge tan yprofi t fromthi s crop). Coffeedoe s not require much hard work if it isbein g growni na careles swa yan d thewome nhel pwit hit .

After AI's succession many changesoccurre d inth edivisio no fth econ ­ trol over plots of landwithi n theA concession ,no tonl yi nth e 'old' areabu tals onea rth ehil ltop .I ngeneral ,on eca nsa ytha tmember so f the family make ashar pdivisio nbetwee nth eterrain snort ho fth eroa d (plots1-21 )an dthos esout ho fth eroa d (22-45):the yemphasiz e thati n the latter area there are nopermanen tntyj qs an dtha trearrangement s will have to take place especially becauseolde rpeopl eclai mto omuc h land andno tenoug hi slef tfo rth eyoun gmember so fth e family,whethe r migrated ornot .Whe n Itrie dt oge tsom eide aa st oho wth eraphi aare a on the north side and on the land south ofplo t 25wa sdivide d Iwa s given only very indefinite indications andthe nonl yi fnobod yels ewa s around.

DuringAI' sreig non econsiderabl eextensio no fhi sterrai noccurred ,i n 1963o r196 4h eobtaine d aportio no fsom e5 5b y20 0metre so fth ecommu ­ nalare awhic hwa sdivide d amongstLets inotables .O nth eothe rhand ,A I suffered several attacks onhi s patrimonium and newly-won land. Iwa s toldabou ttw olan ddispute s andfoun dth estorie sconfirme db yth eoffi ­ cialdocument so fth eparamoun tchie fconcernin gthes ecases .

12 Apart from 'taxes' inwhic hsom emoder n 'redistribution'principl e should be visible, Idistinguis h amoder n 'fundo frent 'b ywhic h the rural population has to contribute to the well-being of the urbanelite ,th edevelopmen to fstat ebureaucracie s orth ecreatio n of stateprestig e symbols such as anationa l aircompan yo rspor t stadiums. For instance I consider as such, the surplus value drained fromproducer so fcas hcrop sb ysom emarketin gboards . -21 1-

Iti s interesting totak enot eo fbot hth enatur eo fth elan dquestion s and theparamoun t chief'sjudgmen to fth ecases .Th ereade rwil lnotic e that the process of institutional incorporation isvisibl e in thetw o documents from the chiefdom: the firston eca nb echaracterize d asin ­ formal and not exact and was written by traditional highpalace-offi ­ cials, the second document was drafted by a young paramount chief, clearly educated in the writing of official letters.Bot h documents werewritte ni nFrench . 1. The first document concerns aconflic tbetwee nA an da 'neighbour ' aboutlan dborderin gth erive rwhic h formsth eboundar ybetwee nTs a and Bansoa (plots 45-47) which was tried before the cyj'-nta' (high palace official, 'grand serviteur') and representative of chiefDjiati o (oftenawa ya sa membe ro fth enationa lparliament) .

Amicable settlemento fth echiefdo mb yTedjeukeng , representative ofth eparamoun tchie fan dKamou-Tatchioffo ,Notabl eo fBatcham . Concerning:A Io fth evillag eBatcham-quarte rBalets i contra:Moh oTafouetsop ,o fth evillag e Batcham-quarter Batchouèti. Subject :A I accusesMoho-Tafouetso po fwantin gt ooccup y withoutreaso nhi sland .Th e forefathersha d al­ readydivide dth elan db yplantin g somebanan atree san dsettin g polesan dther ewa sneve r anyquestio nabou tpropert y rights. Theterrain so fA I andMoho-Tafouetso p areseparate db ylan d ownedb yDouobie . Conclusion:Th edelegatio ninstalle db yth eparamoun tchie ft o judgeth eaffai rme tbot hpartie s inth edispute d fieldsi nth epresenc eo fwitnesse s fromth equarter so fBamele u andBaletsi .Moho-Tafouetsop ,th edefender ,arrive dpresentin g inpubli calmos tal lhi smagic ;hi sbrothe rFout e Isaaccarrie d abi gol dba gcontainin gvariou spoisonou s objects anda rhino ­ ceroshor nwhic hi nindigenou s lawi so fgrea tsymboli cvalue . Moho-Tafouetsop askedAI ,th eaccuser ,t oea tth emedicine si n ordert oprov etha tth edispute d landbelonge d tohi m andtha t hewa sno ttellin ga lie .Thi slan dextend su pt oth eriver , thatmark sth efrontie rbetwee nth evillage so fBanso aan dA I ofBatcha mvillage . Considering thecrimina l attitudeo fth edefende rMoho - Tafouetsop,toward sAI ,th eaccuser ,th eterrai nca nonl y beassigne d toon eo fthe mafte rtestimonie sb ybot hth e neighbourso fth edisputant san db yth epeopl eo fth e quarter. Inlan ddisputes ,customar y lawdemand stha teart han dtin y partso ftree s fromth edispute d landb eeate nt oprov e ownership.Instea do fdrinkin gth ewin efro mth erhinocero s hornan deatin gth epoisonou sobjects ,a sdemande db yth e defender,th edelegatio nnominate db yth echie fpreferre d toreceiv etestimonie so fth epeopl eo fth equarte ran d neighboursrathe rtha nhavin ga cadave ro nthei rhand s duet oth econsumptio no fmalevolan tmedicines . 212

Twome no fth eBamele uquarter ,neighbourin g thedispute d land, thechie fan dpeopl eo fth equarte r inwhic hth edispute dlan d issituated ,publicl y ando nth espo tcertifie d thatA I isth e ownero fth edispute d land. Inaccordanc ewit hth etestimon y ofth epublic ,th edelegatio n ofth eparamoun tchie fgive sth e terraint oit sowne rAI . Inou rpresenc eth epartie shav e agreed tothi sdecision . DjatioEtienn eRober t- Paramoun tChie fBatcha m assistedb yTantan gJea nPierr e Batcham Chiefdom the1s to fAugus t196 5 TheParamoun tchie fo rhi srepresentative .

AI hesitated to eat any earth or parts of the trees andbushe s in the disputed area.Member s of the family alsowarne dhi mno tt od oso , because ofhi s bad health atth etime .A Ian dhi s familywer emor ein ­ terested inreachin g an agreementwit h thenotabl eo fth eneighbourin g Batchouèti quarter who opposed them. It isquit epossibl etha th eals o doubted ifth echief' sverdic tcoul db ecarrie dout .A Itherefor edecid ­ edt ogiv eportio n47 ,tha ti sth egreate rpar to fhi s forestan draphi a possessions on the river side,t o his opponent.Nevertheless , itgoe s without saying that disputes about the southernsid eo fth econcessio n did not end with this indulgence. Eveni n197 8 Ifoun dtha tth eneigh ­ bour was trying to take over the raphia palms plantedb yAI' sson si n the section Ihav e indicated as 46 and that his wives were tryingt o startcultivatio nthere . Thelan ddispute so nth eterrain snea rth erive rborderin g Bansoa arecertainl y encouragedb yth efac ttha tme nd ono t reallyus etha tarea .Here ,a si nplo t4 8 (seefollowin g paragraphs), itwa sAI' sthir dso nwh oa sa youn gbo y atth e endo fth esixtie swa saske dt ostar tcultivatio ni norde rt o someexten tsto pth echallenge s fromoutside :AI. 3plante dsom e raphiapalms ,plantain s andeve nsom ecoffe eo nhi sfather' s behalf.Sinc ethi sso nlef tTs ai n1974 ,however ,ther ear e nolonge ran yme nactiv ei nthi sregion .Eve nth etappin go f theraphi apalm sA Ipossesse s therei sno wlef tt oa strange r andi ti sno tclea rwhethe ran yo fth eprofi ti sgive nt oAI . Fromth eforegoin g andfro mth efurthe rdiscussio no fth e X family,i ti sclea rtha tsinc eabou t197 0 therear en o youngme nlef twh oar ereall y interested inth eexpansio no f agriculture inthi sarea .I nfac t 'after'plot s24/2 5 (withth eexceptio no f38/39 )w eente r anexclusivel y 'women'sdomain 'wher eth eresiden tan dleadin gol dme n ofth e family (AIan dAllI )ar eonl ytryin gt odefen dth e family-property 'froma distance' .I n1978 ,wome nwoul dno t co-operatewit hm e andexplai nwh ocultivate dth eare a marked45 .I mus tsa y Iwa sdumbfounde dwhe nth ewif eo f AIIIbluntl ystated : 'Wed ono tcultivat eo nth eothe rsid e ofth ehill ,behin dth ehous eo fAIV ' (plot30) . Itwa sa sono fA Iwh ogav em esom efurthe rinformatio no nth eare a southo fth eneglecte dwel li nplo t45 ;a sa youn gbo yh e oftenaccompanie dhi smothe rt ohe r fieldsthere .Whe nI 213

revisited thistsw ai n198 0 Iaske dm y informantswhe nth e meno fth e familyha d lastvisite d thisremot epar to fth e concession andthei ranswe r illustrated thesituatio nclear ­ ly: 'Wewer eher e in197 8whe nw ewer e accompanyingyou' . Ithin kth estudent swh ower ether etogethe rwit hm ewer e rightwhe nthe ycommented : 'Theywil l fearyou rreturn' . Some other trouble arosewhe n after the rebellion of the fifties and sixties several 'strange'wome n from Tsa triedt ostar tcultivatio no f food-cropsi nth ehighl y fertilelan dalon gth eriver ,arguin gtha tthi s was a free tswa (undivided 'campagne')belongin g to all thepeopl eo f Tsa. Itwa s AIII who stopped the women: 'Theybecam e very frightened when Istarte d writing their names downan daske dwh o sentthe mhere' . The following remark in this respect isinteresting : 'Now,i ncontras t to the Bansoa side of the river, all the Tsamarsh-lan d is clearly divided and only your "own"wome n haveth erigh tt ocultivat eo nyou r land'. A s Ihav e said before, iti spossibl etha tthi sswamp yare aan d part of the slope of the hill were,no t so long ago, some type of 'campagne' formilitar y andmedica lreason s (malaria!)an dbecaus ethes e remoteterrain swer eno treall yneeded . 2. In 1964,th e remaining unoccupied lands of Letsi were dividedb y the sub-chief of Letsi and theparamoun t chief.Th e latter must havebee no fsom eimportanc e inthi saffair ,becaus eth ene wowners , notableso fLetsi ,pai dhi mconsiderabl e sumso fmone y (upt oCF A12.000 , depending on the quality of the land). AIII helped todivid eth elan d and managed to obtain for himself aver y stony plotfo ronl yCF A200 0 (plot49) . To begin withA I was notver y interested in enlarging his lands, but nevertheless was given a second chance when a son ofth e sub-chief of Letsiwa s prepared to sellhi mhal fo fhi sow nver ylarg e portion.A Ipai dhi m forthi slan d (plot48) . WhenA Iwa si nhospita li n Doualaa tth een do f196 8a figh ttoo kplac ebetwee nhi swome nan da gan g ofme n and women led by theso no fth esub-chie fo fLetsi .Th edisput e isdiscusse d inth efollowin gofficia ldocumen t fromth epalac eo fTsa .

Amicable settlemento fth eChiefdo mo fBatcha m March31 ,196 9 Subject:Lan dquestio n AI sono fth elat eA an d ...(mother )o fth evillag eBatcha m quarterBalets i accusesKuet éKenn eso no fFouodjioga po f thevillag eBatcha m quarterBalets i ofwantin gt ooccup y histerrai ni nth equarte rBalets iillegally . Discussion Afterreceptio no fth ecomplain to fAI , ITatan gRober tpara ­ mountchie fo fBatcha mhav e sentt oth edispute dterrai na -21 4-

delegationcompose do fth efollowin gmembers : Tatcheukeng,notabl eo fth evillag eBatcha m TatangAndré ,municipalit y councillor TanfoAbraham ,municipalit y councillor TaniyoSamuel ,presiden to fth eloca ldivisio no fUN C (party) YemefackMartin ,secretar yo fth eparamoun tchie f DjouDavid ,committe eo fself-defenc eo fBatcham . Afterhavin g senta circulator y lettert oth echie fan din ­ habitants ofth egive nquarte r inwhic h Iaske dthe m't ore ­ ceivem ydelegatio no nth edispute d landt ogiv e clarification concerningth eownershi p ofthi sland . Declarationo fth edelegatio n Wewen tt ose eth edispute d land. Itconcern sa terrai nwhic h Fouodjiogap,chie fo fBalets i quarter,gav et ohi sso nKuet é Kenne.Si xmonth slate rh edivide dth esam eterrai ni ntw o portions andwit hth econsen to fKuet éKenn einstalle dA Ii n oneo fthem .Becaus eA Iplante d coffeebushes ,raphi apalm s andman yothe rplants ,thre eyear s laterKuet éKenn ewante d totak ebac kth eland . Declaration ofth ewitnesse s MeoTadjiotio :A I spoketh etruth .Ou rchie fonl ywant st o createdisorde r inth equarte rwithou treason .H ehimsel f sentu st odivid eth eterrai ni ntw opart so fwhic hon ewa s forhi sso nKuet éKenn ean dth eothe r forAI . Theda yo f therepartitio nw ewer ewit hthre epersons ,Teffou oManang , NantsaMarti nan dme . TeffouoManang :Everythin g thatMe oTadjioti o saidi strue , wedivide d theland . NantseMarti ndeclare sth esame . Result Afterhavin ghear d allth edeclarations , ITatan gRobert , paramountchie fo fBatcha mhav edecide d thateac ho fth e twoperson sha st otak ehi sportio no fth efiel dgive nb y thechie fo fth equarte r andthat.hereafte r Id ono twan t tohea ran ymor estorie s aboutthi sland .Eac hshoul dre ­ ceivehi sow npart .Th epartie shav eagreed . Thisquestio n issettle d atth echiefdo m ofBatcha mbefor e usTatan gRober tparamoun tchie fo fBatcha m assistedb yhi s secretaryYemefac kMartin . Givena tBatcha m 31stMarc h196 9 Theparamoun tchie fo fBatcha m Chiefo fth equarte r TatangRober t (signature andstamp ) Baletsié (fingerprint)

Now, of course,muc h remains tob eexplaine d inthi scase ,suc ha sdi d AI only lend money to the Letsinotabl e forwhic hh eobtaine dth eusu ­ fruct of the land, or did he really buy theland ? InLets ither ei sa great deal of faction fighting since the old chief's standi nth ewa r between Tsa and Ngang in the forties (hewa s imprisoned togetherwit h Djiatio, theparamoun t chiefo fTsa) . Ica nimagin etha tsom epeopl ei n 215

Letsi would welcome achanc e togiv e evidence againstth ethe nrulin g chief ofth equarte r whoha dreplace dth erea l sub-chief.Th eopponen t in this case diedi nabou t197 1an dhi swive saccuse dA Io fkillin ghi m by sorcery. After 1969ther ewer en ofurthe rtrial so nthi sterrain .W e should remember, however, thatth eme no fA' sfamil yhardl yeve rvisi t this plot of land which lies some kilometres from their homes.Onl y AI.3,wh oha sworke di nDoual asinc e1974 ,ha sshow nan yinteres ti nthi s landwher ehi smothe r stillcultivate s aplot .

Finally Ishoul d liket omentio nanothe r landconflic tbut ,unfortunatel y Iwa sno tabl et ochec k thedat asufficiently . InJun e1980 ,I notice d thata neighbou rha dtrie dt oanne xpar to fth eNorther nraphi apal mare a (seeplot s3 an d 5). 'Ofcourse 'A Iimmediatel y informedhi s 'bigbrother ' AIV inDoual a andaske d hisinterventio n (thepositio n ofAI V isex ­ plained below). AIVpromise d to look intoth eaffai r duringhi svisi t to Tsa/Letsi inJun e 1980.Hi seffort s signal toth eneighbour s that they will have tob ever y careful.Again , Ithin ktha tth eabsenc eo f active young men on the estate (ando nman y concessions ofTs aan d Ngang!)i sa nope ninvitatio nfo rneighbour st otr ythei rluck .

AI isno wa nol dma nan dwhe nh ei sno tto oil lh emake swoode nbutt - ends ofrifles ,perform s theritual s forth egod s andforefather san d talkswit h people.Afte r thebreakdow n ofth etraditiona l men'sacti ­ vities (hutbuilding ,constructio no fenclosures ,small-cattl ebreeding , etc.)he ,lik eman yothers ,neve rreall ybecam einvolve di nth emai nne w task, thegrowin g ofcoffee .Wherea s in former days aprincipa l heir could recruitth ehel po fbrothers ,son san dothe rdependen trelatives , such help no longer exists:yo uhav e tod oth ewor k yourself ifyou r women cannoto rrefus e tod oth ejob .Hirin g people towor k isstil l not the acceptedway ,no ri si teas y torealiz e because ofth enon ­ existenceo fa rea lclas so fagricultura l labourers (hereI d ono tspea k of young boys ando fschool-childre nwh ohav et operfor mpractica lwor k in agriculture, often a lucrative business forschool-directors )wit h a 'work formoney ' tradition andbecaus e ofth e financialburde nthi s helpwoul dmea n (aboutCF A50 0pe rma npe rda yi n1978-1980) . Inabou t197 3A Ihire da bo y('stranger' ,no tbelongin gt oth e family)t ohel phi mcultivat ehi sne wplo t48 :th eboy/youn g manha dt ota pth eraphi apalms ,collec tth eplantain san d sella tth emarket .Th eprofi t fromth eagricultura lproduct s wouldb eshare dequall ybetwee nA Ian dthi s 'labourer'an d AIthough ttha ti nthi swa yh ecoul dpa yfo rhi sparticipa ­ tioni na rotatin gcredi tassociation .Afte r sometime ,A I brokeof fthi sassociatio nbecaus ei tappeare d thatth ema n soldmuc hmor eraphia-win ean dplantain stha nh ereturne dt o -21 6-

AI.N ocontro lbein gpossible ,productio no nplo t4 8wa s stoppedwit hprobabl y somewome no fth efamil yprofitin g fromth eman' sinabilit yt omanag ethei raffair san d 'thieves'makin gus eo fth euncontrolle d situation. Help from sons is almost impossible because this would increase the rivalry between the sons and between their mothers;thi s assistance would be suspect, asi fthe ywer e alreadytakin gawa ypar to fth eland , or assuming tob e the future principal heir. Furthermore, it appears that nome n want tô stay to help their fatherbecaus e of thefea ro f blackmagi cb yclos erelative s andbecaus ethe yar eunwillin gt osta yi n 'thevillage 'wher e thecompensatio n forwor ki ssom e food:a business ­ like contractbetwee n close relatives is stillunthinkable .Thi smean s that - just as in the caseo fal lth eol dme n Ikno wi nTs ao rNgan g- AI'spropert y intrees ,bushe san dcattl ei si na stat eo futte rneglect . It is striking that even women's agriculture is neglected in his nkwj'j-ntaft (plots 1, 2,9 an d12 ;se ema p4 )wher eabou thal fth elan d lies fallow. AI is no longer capable of demanding that 'his'wome n continue cultivation and atth esam etim eloo kafte rhi scoffee-bushes . The principal heir, like thewome n who cultivate in this terrain, is growingold .

Toconclude ,i tshoul db enote dtha tnon eo fhi sadul tson sar eresiden t inTs a atth emomen t (1980).AI.l ,bor ni nabou t1943 ,lef tth echiefdo m in1961 ;h eno wwork s inth epor to fDoual a asa supervisor .A sa littl e boy he accompanied AI1 1 to other partso fth eBamilék éregion . In196 1 AIV took charge of him and managed togiv ehi m astar ti nDouala .Som e temporary land-reservation is made forhi m (plot 35). The second son left in 1968 and isno w arailway-laboure r inDouala .Als o AI.2wa s taken care ofb yAIV .Lik eAI. lh estil lha sno tconstructe d ahous eo n the concession: his ploto flan dmigh tb e40 .AI. 3i sno wa laboure ri n a factoryi nDoual atha tmake sbatteries .A salread ymentione dh edevel ­ oped some interest inagricultur ebefor eh elef ti n1974 .H estil lown s coffee onplo t 37,looke d afterb yhi smother .Her ehi scoffe ewa sonc e burned by women ofhi sow nfamil yo rneighbours ,eithe raccidentall yo r on purpose: the real situation was kept secret from me.Thi s burning down of coffee alsohappene d toA I inth evicinit yo fth elittl ewater - sourceo nplo t44 ,an dt oAII Io nplo t4 1 (and 18). Onthi salmos twast e land (as far asth eme nar econcerned )wome nbur ndow nbushe san dgras s beforestartin gth ecultivatio no ffood-crop s andthe n 'unhappilyenough' , ifth ewin dcome s fromth ewron gdirection ,the yca ndamag emen' scrops . AIII assured me that this canhappe n accidentally; he onceha dt opa y foursack so fsulphat e fertilizerbecaus ehi swif ecause dth eburnin go f -21 7

a neighbour's coffee inthi shil l area.AI. 3 alsomad eeffort st ostar t cultivation onA I's ne wplo t48 .Her eh eha dt oovercom eth eresistanc e of women of the family who refused the cultivation of coffee; in an angrymoo dAI. 3destroye d thewomen' s cropswhereupo nthe y leftth eare a and refused to clean the ground around the coffee-bushes, topic kth e coffee-beans, etc.No w it appears thatA I obtains the profit fromth e plantains and from coffee produced onplo t4 8an dtha tonl yth emothe r ofAI. 3ha ssom elan dwher esh ecultivates . As Imentioned ,th easpiration s ofAI. 3t ocultivat e inTs a haveno wstoppe dt osom eextent ;hi smothe ri si ncharg eo fhi s remainingcoffe e andplantains .H e alsolef tfo rDouala ,bu t Ias kmysel fwhethe rh elef to fhi sow nfre ewil lo rwa ssen t awayb yhi s father.Thi s lastpossibilit y impliesthat ,pro ­ bably,h ewil lb eth esuccesso rnominate db yhi s father.Tim e willtel li f Ia mcorrect .I nTs a Ifoun dsevera lcase si n whichi tappeare d afterwardstha tprincipa lheir s sentthei r futuresuccessor s away fromth echiefdo m inorde rt oprotec t themagains tth egrowin g suspicionan denv yo fbrother san d theco-wive so fhi smothe rwhic hcoul dthreate nhi slife .I n thisNqyemb aregio ni ti squit echaracteristi ct ose eol d principalheir swithe rawa ywith ,perhaps ,onl ya 'neutral ' cousino rnephe w inthei rimmediat eproximit y 'toloo kafte r thefir ei nhi shouse' ;thi sbo ymigh tb egive na ntyj gb y theol dma nt othan khi m forhi sassistanc e duringth elas t yearso fhi slife . AI.4wa s taken toDoual a as a little boy byAI V inth eearl ysixties ; AIVfoun dhi m ajo ba sa laboure r inth erailwa ydepartment .Som eprovi ­ sional land-reservation has beenmad e for himo nth eLetsi iconcession , but AIV wants himt obuil d ahous enex tt ohi sow nbungalo wo nplo t31 . In 1980A I reacted very prudently. 'Ihav emad en oregulation s intha t area;h eha sno taske dme' . AI.5i sa studen ta tth euniversit y ofYaound éan dAI. 6a college-studen t inNkongsamba . so far no land-provisions have beenmad e forthem .Th e fourremainin gson sstil l attend aprimar yschoo l inTsa .

2.1.3.2 Thedescendant so ffather' sbrother s

Beforediscussin gAI' sbrother sAII Ian dAI Van dthei rdescendant s Iwil l paysom eattentio nt oothe rmember so fth eagnati c familywh oca nb econ ­ sidered asAI' s traditional dependants.Her e -a si nth ecas eo fsons , brothers and brother's sons- w ewil lhav et oas kourselve swhethe ran d inwha twa ythe ystil lar e 'dependants'. CItogethe rwit hhi smothe rreturne d fromBamenkomb oou to ffea r forthe . curse which apparently threatened them (see 2.1.2.3).Afte rth esacri ­ fice to the forefathersX an dA ,A I allottedt oC Ia plo t formerlyman ­ aged by B and afterwards controlled by AIII. CI refused because he -21 8-

wanted the ntyjq where his father had lived (plot10) ,thi s was then given to him. He took up his father's profession ofbasketmakin g and themanufacturin go fbambo obeds . Nowth eplo to flan dcontrolle db yC ,ha dha da complicate d history since1930 .Afte rC ha d leftTsa ,A installe da nkwate (adjunct)o fth eparamoun tchie fo fBalevin gwho , likeX ,ha dt ofle eafte ra quarre lwit hhi schief .Afte rhi s returnt oLevin gsom eyear s laterA gav eth eterrai na s nka'-nnat oa frien do fD fromBalessing .Thi sma nha dt ofle e whenh eabducte d amarrie dwoma n fromBaleveng .D tol dhi mtha t his 'father' (=brother )woul dhav e agoo dplac et ohide .Som e timelate rthi sma ntoo kth ehu to fY I (plot50 )wh orefuse d topa yhi s father'sdebt s (four 'pagnes',traditiona l clothes) andfle dt oth echiefdo mo fBafounda ;no wi twa sth estrange r whopai dth edebts .Thi sha d infac trecentl ycause ddiffi ­ culties.Afte rth edeat ho fth estranger ,YIII. ltoo kth ehu t inca .195 5an dplante d coffee.The ni nabou t196 5a daughte r ofth estrange r (whoreturne dt oLets i formarriage )argue d thathe r father 'bought'th elan da snka'-j u includingth e hutan dtha tsh eha dth erigh tt oliv ethere .Sh easke dA I tointerven ebu th ei ssai dt ohav eanswered : 'Tonpèr ea ramassét amèr epou rveni rdan sl echam pd eYI .S'i ll'avai t acheté jen'étai s pastémoi nd eto npère .V at'e ndevan tmoi! ' AnyhowA Idi dno tthin kh eha dan ysa yi nlan dcontrolle db y theY family . Afterth etw ostranger swh ooccupie dplo t1 0ha d left,thi s landwa sgive nt oon eo fA' syounge r sons, AIV'stwin-brothe r wholate rdied .Whe nC Iregaine dhi s father'sntyaq ,thi sso n (notmentione d inth egenealogy )move dt oplo t20 ,wher ehi s survivingtwin-brothe r isno wi ncharge .Plo t2 0wa scede d tohi mb yAII Iwho ,a sa protestan tevangelist ,wa sstatione d mosto fth etim eelsewher e inth eBamilék éregion . Nowtha tcoffe eha dbecom ea nimportan tcro p formen ,C Iaske dth eprin ­ cipal heir for an additional plot, forcultivatio nb ybot hhimsel fan d his wife.A I agreed to let himus ea plo to nth ehil l side (38an d39 ) in the area wheren odefinitiv edivisio nha dtake nplace .M y informants did not like it at all when Itrie dt omeasur eCI' slan di nthi sarea , because it is considered only as. atemporar y nna and not as antyjq . CI's only son (so far),a tailo ri nFoumbo t (theBamou n area),ha ssom e coffeebushe so nplo t39 . In 1978,A I developed apla nt oshif tC Icompletel y toth ehil lside ,I think in order to enlarge theplo t of land AI's futur esuccesso rwil l get in the old valley area. This might have been a reaction tom y question as towha t land his successor would receive afterhi sdeath . He found that aver y interestingquestio nindeed ! Inth eperio dbetwee n 1978an d198 0nothin gha dchanged . Whereas CI's land in awa y still forms part ofth egreate restat e (he cannot sell land), aswit h the otherntyj gs i ti sn olonge rtru etha t theprincipa l heir hasan yrigh tt opar to fth eagricultura lproductio n (wood or raphia wine)o r labour.A I only gets giftsi fh ei saske dt o 219-

perform certainrituals .Livin go nth egreate rconcessio nC Iparticipate s inal ldiscussion s onfamil yproblems . Whereascontact swit hD I arefriendl y andrathe rintensive ,participatio n inth efamil yaffair so fthi sheadmaste r inanothe rvillag e isles scom ­ pared with, for example,C Io rF I (see2.1.2.4) . Inhi s functiona sad ­ viser,D I isles simportan ttha nAIV . FI'spositio ni sver ymuc hcomparabl e totha to fC I (see2.1.2.6) . The special family relationwit hG (FZ S )wa sdiscusse d in2.1.2.7 .W e came to know him as ama n who was moreintereste d inagricultur etha n his other 'brothers'.H e also started toplan thi sow ncoffe eimmedi ­ ately after 1950. In 1949,G obtained anka'-j u fromYI V (anotoriou s squanderer of family land)wh o could notpa y his taxes (plot 55). G's eldestso nwa stake nt oKoumb a (theMung oplantatio n andsettlemen tarea ) in194 5b yhi smother' sbrother ;h ewa sneve r interested inhi sfather' s land. Gossip says that GI left forKoumb awit ha wif e forwhic hh edi d not pay the bride-wealth. Gil was much more interested in the Letsi affairs and after 1950,wit hth econsen to fAI ,starte dt oplan tcoffe e in thehil l area (plots 30-37). Hebuil ta hous eo nplo t3 0 (destroyed inth esixties )where ,i n1978 ,AI V started tobuil dhi s luxurybungalow . In about 1960,Gi lwa snominate d assuccesso rb yhi s father.Durin gth e rebellion his life wasonc ei nseriou sdange ran dh efle dt oKoumb aan d subsequently became driver andowne ro fa tax ii nDouaia .A tpresen th e owns ahous e on the tinyplo t 24 (in fact only ancyo-nda , near his mother's ncyo-nda onplo t 22 (where thecoffe ei sowne d byAI.3) . G's ntyog (30-37)wa s takenbac k by theprincipa l heir AI inth esixties . When I asked AI whether this was correct he answered: 'Ifyo u offer someone wine and he does not drink itthe n youals otak ei tback '. A t the end of the sixties, aprovisiona l reservation of raphiatree swa s made for CI,D I and FI aswel l asfo rGi l (seeplo t 3-6). Icoul donl y guess the size of these plots becausem y informantswoul dno tallo wm e tomeasur ethem . In197 8o r198 0thes etiny ,bu tvaluabl eplots ,becaus e of the raphia, didno teve nhav eth estatu so fa temporar ynna .A Ionl y agreedthat ,fo rth etim ebeing ,th erelative smentione dma yprofi tfro m theraphi apalm sgrowin gthere . GUI also fled to Koumba in 1960an dha snow ,wit hsom ehel p fromAIV , got a job inDoual a asa railway-labourer .GI Vi stake ncar eo fb y GUI and isno w acollege-studen t inBue a (sout-west province). Thismean s that thewhol e G family has leftth eare aan dwil lprobabl yno tretur n before old-age.G' s widow isstil l incharg eo fth elan dan deve nlook s after men's products sucha scoffe ean dplantains .Sh elive si na hous e (onlya ncyo-nda )o nplo t22 . 220

2.1.3.3 BrotherAII I

AIII, born in about1916 ,wa sth efirs teducate dma ni nth efamily .Ad ­ visedb yhi steache ra ta protestan tprimar y school inBalessing ,h ebe ­ came an evangelist and was stationed invariou s parts ofth eBamilék é area. Though not aprincipa l heir,hi s financial independence enabled him to marry inhi searl ytwentie s (monogamous)an dt obu y somelan da s nka'-ju (plots8 ,1 6an d 49). Onplo t2 ,AII Iplante d anumbe ro fraphi a palms,althoug hth eplo tbelong s toth eAI' snkwjj-ntaft ,AII Ii sth eowne r of the palms andma yeve nsel lthe mo rus ethe m assecurit y fora loan . Here is anexampl e of the lawwhic hstipulate stha tth econtroller so f thelan dan do fth etree sca nb edifferen tpeople .Th ehistor yo fAIII' s estate isver y complicated and in factprove s his lacko finteres ti n agriculture and his interest in the well-beingo fth efamily .Th ecor e ofAIII' s ntyjq is formed by the former ntyjq ofB an dE (18an d17) . From A orA Ih ego tplo t1 3which ,a sw esaw ,h elate rcede dt oF Iwit h theconsen to fAI .AII Ino wceded ,i na temporar y arrangementplo t4 1t o his fourth son and the coffee grownther ei sfo rth elatter' sbenefit . Plots 20 and 21wer e alsoa ntyj go fAII I (after B), buth ecede dthes e terrainst oAI Vafte rC Iregaine d controlo fplo t1 0wher eAIV' sdecease d twin-brother had planted coffee.Plo t 8belonge d to E and,th eraphi a palms included, was sold by All toa strange r in1939 .A I1 1manage dt o buy thisportio n andth eraphi a in1947 .Plo t1 6originall ybelonge dt o theestat ebu tZ' s womencultivate d there.2' ssuccesso rZI Igav eit ,i n 1929, as nka'-juj' to the husband of a sister ofA I andhi sbrothers . Here againw e see the danger that sons of thewome nar et oa nestate : ZII argued that hewa s hwao f the terrain because his father's women cultivated there.AI' s sister's husband used theplo t as anenclosur e for his goats/sheep. In 1934AII I stopped the legal uncertainties by paying twenty 'mark' to his affine and taking theplot ,thu srescuin g the honour of the family and increasing his control over themiddl e section of the Xestate .I n1980 ,i ti sstil lno tobviou st oa nanthro ­ pologistwha t rights AI1 1 acquired by paying thisamount .I ti ssuffi ­ cient that everybody in theX and Z families considers the rights of this honourable and influentialma nt ob enka '-ju .No wA I1 1ha splante d coffee-bushesher eo nbehal fo fhi s sonAIII.4 . In spite ofhi s Christian faith and contacts with Europeans,AII I is very loyal to the old Bamiléké values concerning the unityo fth eag ­ natic family. He treats his brother AI in aver y respectful way (he also always calls him 'father') and completely accepts his control over the land of theX concession. He never forgot to inform AI and -22 1-

ask his consent whenh ewante dt oexplai ncertai nparticular s aboutth e X concession tome .H eeve ncontinue shi s father'sprofessio n and,lik e A andAI ,h e is a skilledblacksmit h andrifle-maker .Lik emos to fth e otherme n of the family he has some coffee,bu t like the resto fth e family he isno t at all interested ina maximalizatio n ofth eagricul ­ turaloutpu twhic hwoul dmea n 'hard'wor ki nagriculture .Th etappin go f raphia wine is sufficient agricultural work for aday .A s formos to f the men, agriculture is an irksome affairan dth ewa yA I1 1manage shi s agricultural interestsca nhardl yb ecalle dserious . Aftermuc hdiscussio n('I ti sreall yto o faraway ,I hav eno t beenther e forth elas tfiv eyears' )I ,togethe rwit hA III , visitedhi splo t49 .Ther ei tappeare d thathi sneighbour' s womenha dstarte dcultivatio no na stri po fhi slan do fsom e 10b y13 5metres : 'Iwil ltel lm yneighbou rtha tthi sactio n isno tcorrect' .Th esam eattitud ew e findwhe nwome nbur n downhi scoffee-bushe so rd ono tobe yhi sdeman dt oleav e someplot s fallow forhi sgoats : 'Bemor ecarefu l infuture ' and 'Youwil lhav et oliste nmor ecarefull y towha t Ihav e tosay 'i sal lh ewil lsay . AIII'sadul tson sal lmigrate d asworker so rstudent st oregion soutsid e Tsa and, aswit h AI's sons, the much appreciated helpo fAI Vi sagai n remarkable. The eldest son,AIII.l ,i s foremani nth etextil eindustr y inDouala ; after his failure at thesecondar y schoolh ewen tt oAI Vi n Douala in 1968,wher e he started asa cart-drive r inth emarke tplace . AIV helped him to get a jobi nCICA M (textiles).A littl eplot ,mor ea ncye-nda,ha sbee naccorde d tohi mb yA It obuil d ahous e (plot26) , but so far he has not started construction.AIII. 2 leftfo rDoual ai n197 1 and likewise was helped by AIV; he is now atrai ndriver .N olan dre ­ servation hasbee nmad e forhi m becauseh eha sstil lno taske d forit . AIII.3 and 4 arestudent s insecondar y schoolsi nBafoussa m andDouala . Theybot hlef tTs ai n197 0t oliv ewit hthei rbrother so rothe rrelatives . As we saw,A I11. 4alread yha s somecoffe eo nplot s1 6an d41 .AI11. 5i s abo yo ftwelv e (1978),h ewa stake nt oBalessin gb ya siste ro fAII Ii n 1975.

2.1.3.4 BrotherAI V

AIV is the youngest of the Abrother s andwa sbor ni n1936 .H eha dal ­ readylef tTs ai n1957 ,befor eth erebellion .H ewa sabl et oprofi tfro m the Cameronian and French efforts to create a Cameronian intellectual élite.H econclude dhi stechnica l training inFranc e andgo ta hig hpos t in the rolling-stock department of Cameroon railways.H egre wric han d in197 8owne dthre ehouse si nDouala .O nth eLets iconcession ,hi sntya g is formed by plots 20 and 21. In 1977,h estarte dbuildin g abungalo w 222

on the hill top (30),o n thespo twhere ,prio rt oth erebellion ,Gil' s house was situated.A s a rich man,on ewh ohelpe dman yyounge rmember s ofth e familyan da sth esupporte ro fth e family-interestswheneve rmem ­ berswer ei ntroubl ewit hth e 'outside-world',h ecoul dpermi thimsel ft o choosea sit ewithou tconsultin g anybody.H ejus tbrok ethroug hth epro ­ visional arrangements AI had made for the area.Th e attitude of the family versus AIV isver y ambiguous:h ei sfeared ,envie d andhonoured . Whereas AI is the traditional leader ofth e family,AI V isth eadvise r in all those matters with which the family is confronted during the rapid changes connected with theproces s ofincorporatio n intoth ene w state of Cameroon.A s members of thefamil ysay : 'Wear eblind ,h eha s totel lu swha tt odo' . Noww eca nas kourselve swh o isth e 'leader',wh o isth emos t importantperson ,A Io rAIV ?Thi squestio ncanno tb eanswere d ina simpl e 'blackan dwhite 'wa ybecaus eo fth e 'dualistic nature'o fBamilék ésociet y atpresent . IfBamilék éar easke d questions ina direc tway ,the yar e forcedt otak ea traditiona l viewpoint.A sth einfluentia l chiefo fa neighbourin g quarter saidt om e in1980 : 'Duringa meetin g inth ecour to fth e fua-ntyj' (sub-chief)o fLets io ri nth ecour to fth ef u (paramountchief )A Iwil lb e seatedo nhi schair/stool ,whil e AIVwil lhav et osi twit hth ecommoners .A Iwil lb easke dt o speako nimportan ttopic san dAI Vwil lhav et ob esilent .AI V canneve rb ea membe ro fa kjJ h(chiefdo morganization )whic h ismor e importanttha nth eon eo fwhic hA I isa member .O f coursewit hhi smone yh eca nobtai n fromth efu ja titl ean d positionwhic hmake shi m independento fA I andenable shi m tostar thi sow nnkwo'3-ntaft .I ntha tcas eh eca neve nbecom e more important' (seeHuraurt , 1970:10 forth e 'segmentation dansl elignage ,quan du nindivid ues tdeven unotable'.) .Th e point,however ,i stha tAI Vstand sabov eth etraditiona lchief - domsituation ,h ei sto omuc h amembe ro fmoder nCameroo nsociet y to feelth enecessit y ofobtainin g anindependen tan dhonourabl e positioni nth etraditiona lorder ,regardles so fhi sinteres ti n thewell-bein go fth emember so fth eagnati c familyt owhic hh e belongs.O nth ebasi so fhi s 'modern'politico-economi cposition , AIVwant st ob ehonoure d inth efamily ,i nhi sBamilék éhomeland , inth eBamilék é societyo fDouala ,Yaound éan do fCameroo ni n general,an di nth ene wCameroo n 'urban'world . Thisi sth esituatio ni na numbe ro ffamilie swh ohav ebee nluck yenoug h toproduc e afairl yimportan tma ni nth ene weconomi c and administrative world,wh oca nan dwishe st opla yth erol eo fprotecto r ofth efamily . Withsom ebitternes sA Iremarked : 'Idi dno tmar kAIV' snty^ garoun dhi s newhouse ;I wil lhav et od oi twhe ni ti sready .Meanwhil e Id ono tmin d if hewant s some coffee there'.Now ,arbitrarily ,AI Vwant son eo fhi s protégés, AI.4, to construct ahous e nextt ohis .Th efamil yha stake n on awaitin g attitude in thismatter ,bu twil lcertainl yno tobjec tt o thisarrangement .AIV' ssi xson sar estil lyoun gan dal lliv ewit hthei r parents inDouala .N o landreservatio nha sbee nmad e forthe m inLetsi . 223

Mostprobabl y in the future they will not even feel the necessity of having ahous e inth echiefdo mthe yonl ykno w fromsummer-holidays . Comparedwit hman yothe r familieso fTs aan dNgang ,th eX familydescribe d canb ecalle d atraditiona l (inth esens eo f followingth eol drules )an dwell-discipline d group.The yhav e managed toovercom e formerperiod s ofweaknes s andth eol dme n nowi ncharg eo fth eaffairs ,assiste db ya muc hyounge rhig h Cameroonofficial ,succee di nmaintainin g astatu squo .How ­ ever, Ia mrathe rpessimisti c aboutth eunit yo fth eX estat e whenA Idies . In1979 ,h eregroupe d thehouse so fhi scompoun d andbuil ta hous ebac k fromth eroa do nplo t1 8 (withth e consento fAIII) , thuscreatin g aconsiderabl ecourtyar d suited toa dignifie d funeralceremony . In1980 ,A I saidt ome : 'Ia m oldno wan dil lan d Iwil l soondie ,s o Iha dt omak eprepara ­ tions form yfuneral' .

2.1.3.5 Women'spositio ni nagricultur e

So far, Ihav eonl yspoke no fmen' sright si nlan dan donl ya sa nasid e mentioned the rights ofcontro lb ywomen .A smentioned ,wome n (excepta 'queen',ma-fuj )canno tobtai na ntyjq :thei r landright sar echaracter ­ ized asnn a whichca nb eretake nb yth ehw ao fth eland .Wome nma yonl y grow food-crops and are forbidden toplan tcoffee ,plantain so rfruit - trees inthei r fields (withth eexceptio no fbananas) .O nth eX-concession , we find aver ytraditiona l attituderegardin gth eland-right so fwomen . Moreover,wome nhav ea grea tdea lo ffreedo m insettlin gthei row naffairs . There are important reasons forthis : (1)lan di sstil lno tver yscarc e onth eestat ean d (2)me nar eno tver y interested oractiv ei nagriculture , allhavin goccupation swhic hthe yconside rmor eimportant . Evenbefor eth etumultuou syear saccompanyin g Independence, thegrea tindependenc e ofwome ni nthi sspecifi c familywa s alsoa fact .Whe nAII Imarrie d inabou t1940 ,h ewante dhi s wifet ocultivat e inhi sdea dmother' s fields,i tthe nap ­ pearedtha tth ewome no fth e familydi dno t 'remember'th e situationo fthos e fields.I na diplomati cway ,AII I advised hiswif et oassis tth ewome no fth eX concessio nwit hthei r agricultural activities. 'Shewa swel l accepted andafte r sometim ewome nindicate d theplot st ohe rwher esh ecoul d startcultivatio nherself ,but ,eve nnow ,I d ono tkno wex ­ actlywher eth e fieldso fm ymothe rwere' .No wAIII' sonl y wifei sfull yincorporate d inwha tth eme nher ecal l 'the secretworl do fth ewomen' :i twa s shewh o answeredbluntl y thati nth etsw aarea , 'after'plot s30/3 1n owome no fth e familycultivate d andsh erefuse dt oaccompan yAII I andm e totha tarea . Contrary to the tswaare asout ho fth eroad ,th eme no fth efamil yhav e a fairly good ideaabou tth ewomen' snjj ni nth enka 'are anort ho fth e road:ther ethe yappeare d tob e ablet oindicat emos to fth ewomen' stin y plotsan dthe yofte neve nkne wwhic h friends,mothers ,sister so rdaugh - 224

EXAMPLE I V 60 m / LET5I 1,2,9,15 los 13

Temporary fallow 'ut «TS

ä . Situation tfftk* compound '&•* i»»,^^. Lof the prince«! hcii-<4«troy»o(

J,.— •—• 225-

Example1 .

Cultivation rightso fwome no nAI' splot s 1,2 ,9 an d12 . The family relations of the women withA I and theplace s where the womenactuall y livedi n197 8ar eindicated . B =brother ;D = daughter; F = father;M = mother ;S = son ;W = wife ; Z =sister .

Wiveso fth eprincipa lhei r 1-5 Samequarte r 1-2 WM Otherquarter so fTs a Z 1 w Otherquarte ro fTs a 1 z Samequarte r 2 Otherquarte ro fTs a 3 Balessing 4-5 Otherquarte ro fTs a 0 Z Sw 1 D Samequarte r 2 Otherquarte ro fTs a

1 B w Samequarte r 0 B wz 0 B D 0 B SW W 1-3 S Douaia WM 1 S Otherquarte ro fTs a

F BD 1 Otherquarte ro fTs a 1-2 F B SW Samequarte ro fTs a 1 F Z SW Samequarte r 1 F FW D D Otherquarte ro fTs a . Wifeo ffrien d - 226 -

•r i EXAMPLE I CS » Hl ' I I

LETSJ Ck &? Da. I Il'lllllllln LÜJ* 7L0TS 16,17,18. i ***''' i' 1111111 ï ft U i* J £^L v

0 in ki Di Ai ß* ft I K* h • U i nt A1 2io m/& -^ Fi 0 Fi 0 Ki E1/D3 ^ ^ Cop for _ Ma Aman t "IHITcrnpocoiry H' K 'PI» I o Ai !!!§fallo win-lÇT ^ i É1 4» Il CoÇfet i I» 'Ai O Gi n J B1 1cm = -10 >r\ 60/rr Fa 0 0 IE Q1 Bi _^ ycm r -22 7-

ExampleI I

Cultivationright so fwome no nAIII' splot s16 ,1 7an d18 . The family relations of thewome n with AIII and theplace s where the womenactuall y livedi n197 8ar eindicated . B =brother ;D = daughter ;F = father ;M = mother ;S = son ; W= wife ;Z = sister .

A1 Wifeo fth econtrolle ro fth enty_ 2 Same quarter

1 Samequarte r c0 Wz

1 Samequarte r 2-3 Otherquarte ro fTs a

E 1 Z S W Otherquarte ro fTs a F D 1 Samequarte r 2 Douala 1-5 Samequarte r H 1 B W Z Otherquarte ro fTs a 2 Samequarte r I BD 1 Samequarte r 2 Douala 3-4 Samequarte r J -, BS W _ 1 Douala K 1-2 S W Douala L 1 S W M Otherquarte ro fTs a 2 Bamendjo M FB D N FB S W O FZ S W P FF W D D

Q , Wifeo ffrien d ... . _m *•1 Otherquarte ro fTs a - 228 -

ters in fact cultivated on-behalf of the nna holders if such was the case. In an earlier publication I gave four examples of the division of nka'-nna on men's estates;one of them outlined the situation on the main part of Al's estate (Ouden, 1980: 55-56; example II). In this article, I repeat this example depicting the situation on plots 1, 2, 9 and 12. As a _second example, I now add information about the situation on the AI I I plots 16, 17 and 18.

The core of the women controlling a nka'-nna on a man's estate in a rather p traditional situation is and shoul'd be· -formed by his wives (including his father's widows), sisters, daughters and sons' wives. Now it is quite probable that the~ grants nka'-nna to other female consanguines, af­ fines or even to 'strangers'. Perhaps, on the estate, there are also women who controlled a nka'-nna 1 at the time he obtained his ntyog and whom he did not evict. Women normally have the right to invite others to share work and produce with them, or to work alone and give some compen­ sation to the real nka'-nna holders. Now here lies the basis of much confusion when asking men which women are cultivating which plots of land. I was not always able to solve this problem and so, now and then, might have mentioned women who did not cultivate independently. It is clear .that wives, sisters, daughters and sons' wives can always invite their mothers, sisters and daughters to assist them and share the produce. That is why the rights of the categories B (WM), c (WZ) and H (BWZ) can almost always be indicated as derived rights. Furthermore, we can often ascertain that E (ZSW) obtained their rights from the sister concerned and that category I (BD) often obtained their rights through the brother's mother, being (one of) the ~s motner(s), or will cultivate in a more or less independent way supervised by the brother's wife. The mothers of sons' wives (L) have to be mentioned separately. A mother, and most certainly a mother who does not have much land where she may cultivate, profits if a daughter is engaged while very young; she then obtains a nka'-nna from the future parents-in-law of the child, which she uses 'on behalf of' her daughter. When the marriage ha~ been 'solemnized' and blessed with children the mother of a son's wife is very welcome to cultivate a plot on your estate if it is possible. We can designate as relatively weak rights (as compared with the rights of W, Z, D, SW) the claims of BW, BSW, of the relatives through the father (FBD, FBSW, etc.) and· of the wives of friends. The more land a man has, the wider the diversity of female relatives cultivating on his concession. - 229 -

I will now discuss briefly some peculiarities of the AI and AIII conces­ sions so as to further our insight into the cultivation rights of women, the extent of their independence vis-a-vis men and other women, and into the agricultural system in general. Example I AI is now old, the main part of his estate is old (the f~m is there), his wives are old and the rights of various relatives cultivating there are old. Half fallow, many parts hardly -~-:::> penetrable, now far from the houses on the road-side, his estate is waiting for a new manager to come. Apart from the 'normal' categories of women, this holding makes clear that we are dealing with a principal heir of a family which is no longer 'young'. Here we find as holders of a nka'-nna, for instance, a daughter of D (FBD), the wives of CI and FI (FBSW) and the widow of G (FZSW, but for the family a 'FBW'). Here, also, we find a woman who is the successor to a daughter of paramount chief Fomekong, wife of X (FFWDD). This woman now, for personal reasons, gave part of her nka'-nna to the wife of AIII (category Gl). In the same corner of the estate it is exceptional that the exploitation of the coffee-bushes be­ longing to AI is left to this FFWDD woman and to two of his wives. To mark this special situation here the sign of coffee (a coffee-bean) has been put in a circle.

It would be a mistake to think that all the women of a partic­ ular category are represented in this-iestricted portion of Al's estate. Apart from the women who should have rights in these ancestral lands (Wand Z), we can observe that many women do not cultivate here because (1) they have sufficient plots of land elsewhere, or (2) they have sufficient lands elsewhere on Al's concession.

On the map of the nucleus of Al's estate, each n)'n where coffee is grown is marked. The conclusion is that on only 28 of the 76 plots we can speak of a mixed cropping system; on 48 plots, the women have the fields all to them­ selves, perhaps with the exception of some trees and plantain-bushes.

Example II Similar to the situation on Al's concession, we also find uncertainties on the lands of AIII especially concerning the 'derived rights' of women. If, for instance, the sister of the ~ appears to have given a portion of land to the wife of cr'sister's son (ZSW), then who should we indicate as holder of the nka'-nna (see El/D3)? A brother's wife (GS) gave a plot of land to her sister. In that case I am in­ clined to mark the brother's wife as holder of the nna. In this specific case, I have nevertheless put Hl. Som'Ei"""'Years ago, this BWZ burned down AIII's coffee and he threatened to deprive her of the land;he did not blame his brother's wife for the mistake her sister made.

I will discuss briefly the situation on five other plots of AIII's concession. Roman numbers correspond with the indica­ tions on the map of example II. I on a plot of considerable size ( 30 by 60 metres) _six women cultivated (Al, Dl, Gl,2 and 4, and an FZSW, widow of man G). When AIII.l married, they decided to give the land 230

tohi swif e (Kl)o nconditio ntha tthe ywoul d takei tbac ki f AIII.l'swif eshoul dno tus eth eland .Livin gi nDouala ,th e actualcultivatio n isdon eb yth emothe ran d asiste ro fKl , bothfro mth eneighbourin g chiefdomo fBamendjo .Mos to fth e producei ssen tb ythe mt oth efamil yi nDouala . II Thisplo to flan dwa sgive nb yAIII' swif et oth ewif e ofhe rsecon dso nAIII.2 ,als olivin gi nDoual a(K2) . Themothe ro fthi swoma n infac tcultivates ,sendin gth e producet oDouala .Thi smothe r islivin gi nanothe rquarte r ofTsa . III AIII'swif egav ethi splo tt oth emothe ro fth ewif eo f herfirs tson .Fo rweedin gthi swoma nhire sa 'strange' woman,who m shepay sCF A70 0fo rth ewor ki nth efield . Plantingan dharvestin g thisSW Mdoe sherself . IV Thisportio ncultivate db y adaughte ro fAII Ilivin gi n Doualawa sgive nt ohe rb ya siste ro fAII Iwh on olonge r hasan ylan do nAIII' sconcession .Th ewome no fth efamil ydis ­ cussed amongstthemselve swhic hplo tthi sdaughte r shouldre ­ ceivean dthe nAIII' s sisterdecide d toleave :sh ecultivate s onAI' sestat e(D2) . V In197 8 Ifoun dtha ta wif eo fon eo fAIII' sbrother s (AI) andon eo fAIII' s sisters,repectivel yG 4an dD2 ,ignore d anexplici twis ho fAIII .AII Iha d askedthe m toleav ecertai n plots fallows otha th ewoul dhav e somelan do nwhic ht oen ­ closehi sshee pi nth eperio dwhe nth e food-crops areripening . Wevisite d the fieldstogethe r andAII Iwa squit eangr ywhe n itappeare dtha tG 4an dD 2ha dcontinue dcultivatio ns otha t hewa s 'obliged't otethe rhi s sheep: 'Iwil ltel lthe mtha t theirbehaviou r isno tright' .Perhaps ,indeed ,h ema yhav e madea disapprovin g remark toth etw owomen . InAIII' sntyj gw ecounte d3 7plot so flan dwher eth evariou s womencultivated ; onlyo n1 8o fthes eplot sdi dw e findcoffe e belongingt oAIII . In conclusion, as far asw e could see,neithe r AIno rAII I excercised anycontro love rwha tth ewome ncultivate do nthei restates ,o rho wthe y cultivated, neither was therean ysa yi nth etransfe ro fthei rnka'-nn a toothe rwomen . Imus tad dimmediatel y that (a)neithe rme nar ever yin ­ terested in agriculture and that (b)n o major conflicts aroseamongs t the women cultivating. Onth eothe rhand , Ishoul dmentio ntha tth ewa y ofcultivatio ncoul dhav eannoye dbot hmen .I observe dtha ti nman ycase s the women,b y their way ofplantin gthei r food-crops andb yth eannua l changing of the furrows,almos tkille d thecoffee-bushe s onthei rplot s bydestroyin gth eroots .

Agriculture carried out by women is done individually; there aren o working-teams ofwome n helping each other in turn. If awoma nha sto o much land, she invites someone to cultivate the land forher .Howeve r this does notmea ntha twome nneve rhel peac hother . Iti squit enorma l forth ewome no fth efamil yt ounit ean dhel pa woma nwh oha s justmarrie d oron ewh oi si na nadvance d stageo fpregnanc yo rwh oha sjus tbee nde ­ liveredo fa child . Ials ofoun dcase swher e friendsworke d inth efield s -23 1

of awoma n who could notpossibl y do the workherself ,eithe rbecaus e she or her childrenwer e ill.Wome nresidin g outsideTs aar ealmos tal ­ ways assisted by theirmother s andsisters ,wh od omos to fth ewor kfo r them andals osen dthe m theproduce .I nth ecas eo fmigration ,on eshoul d notunderestimat e thewomen' sconcer n forthei r landi nth ehome-chiefdom . Duringth eimportan tAugus tharvest-perio d we findtha tman ywome nlivin g in, for instance,Doual a andYaound é willretur nt oth e family-landt o helpharves tthei row nfields .

At the end ofthi ssectio nsom eremark sabou tth eproduc eo ffemal ean d maleagricultur e shouldb emade . 13 Itma yb eclea r fromth eforegoin gtha tth eproductio n from femaleagri ­ culture -fo r consumption and sale- ismor e important than thatfro m male agriculture,bu t thisi sonl ya quess ;me n (includingmyself )hav e not the slightest idea of the food-cropproductio n forconsumptio nan d saleb yth ewome ncultivatin go nthei restates .Th ewomen ,lik eth emen , are 'poor',i f theystar ta ne wenterpris eo ri fsomethin gne wi sbuil t orbough tthi si sonl ypossibl ebecaus eth enecessar ymone ywa s 'borrowed' (often explicitly a lie).Th eincom eo fmen ,her e andelsewhere ,i sno t only difficult to establish but also difficultt ovalue .W eshoul dre ­ member that (atpresen t still on these concessions) everybody already receives most of hiso rhe r foodan dtha tth eincom e fromproduct ssol d should cover the 'extra'expense s for industrial goods people wantt o buy and for taxes,church-contributions ,medica lcare ,schoo lneed san d also for themonetarize d socio-political community-obligations,symmet ­ rical andasymmetrical . Male agriculture is hampered by excessive migration,an dth efac ttha t men have other occupations; these two factors are influenced by the men's lack of interest in agricultural work. The fewme n leftbehin d inTs ai nth eagricultura l sectormainl yrestric tthemselve s toth etap ­ ping and selling of raphia-palmwine ,th e most lucrative agricultural activity. We found that even in the nka' area near the houses there was no coffee inmor e thanhal fo fth e fields. Ifth etota lcultivate d area on the X concessions) i s some8* 5ha ,w e may assume that coffee isplante d on4 ha .

13 Finalizing this paper inJanuar y 1981 Iunfortunatel y could not refer to the reserach findings of Leesberg and Witte (1981)o n female and male agriculture and agricultural production in this regiono fTs ai n1980 . - 232 -

The total annual production of these 4 ha was, in 1978, about 440 kg (peeled and dry coffee) with a revenue of about CFA 135.000 (D.Fl. 1350,-·) if the coffee is sold to the co­ operative and not to intermediaries before harvest. In 1977/ 1978 only a small quantity of fertilizer was bought. The division of the 440 kg mentioned was: AI about 147 kg; Alli 147 kg; CI 63 kg; DI 20 kg; FI 42 kg; and GI 21 kg. If the coffee-bushes are well pruned, well fertilized and spacetj_~> one hectare of coffee should yield about 500 kg good, peeled and dried coffee (2000 kg from 4 ha) and, therefore, we can establish that the production on the X concession(s) is very meagre because of utter neglect. The land-rights of women and their production of food-crops in a mixed-cropping system is only partly responsible for this neglect. Men may be lazy in the production of coffee (whether or not for 'good' reason such as the relatively low price fixed by the government), but their attitude to the lucrative crop plantains is even worse. The number of plantain bushes on these lands is minimal and we even find estates where no plantains are cultivated (e.g. GI). In 1977 AI sold no more than 5 clusters; Alli sold 10; Cl 2; DI 3 and FI 7. At the time AI was ill and had to pay others to harvest his plantains.

2.1.3.6 Some remarks about the collateral Y and z lines

The relative calm of the X estate is in strong contrast to the affairs on the Y concession. Here I have to mention that I am not very well acquainted with the Y nkw~·~-ntap, north of the z concession, in 1978 partly controlled by YIV.2. If I restrict myself to the events on the Y terrains on the west side, differences with the X estate and family are striking. The loss of land started a long time ago and in a very tradi­ tional way. Land was taken by neighbours from weak or old persons, and was given away as security for loans. So, for instance, in the thirties, probably just after the death of A, the sick YII lost a portion of land to a neighbour alongside the road (57); This plot was sold again, by and to strangers, in 1945 and 1950. Especially YIV, successor to Y, was a notorious waster of family land: he sold land in the vague area 59, plots 58, 56, 54 and 51 to strangers, and plot 55 to C. It is his son YIV.1, a planter in the Mungo region, who managed to regain plots 58 and 51. In the seventies YIV.1 claimed that these two plots were oniy given as nka'-jy~' and that he had the right to repay the money of the original loan. YIV.2, more or less the present principal heir in the Y family, copies his father in selling land. In 1978, he sold plot 52 (some 80 by 40 metres) for CFA 40.000 (about D.Fl. 400,-) as my informants told me: 'Just to buy some luxury food and cigarettes'. It would be too complicated to discuss the YI, II, III and IV land affairs in detail. In section 2.1.3.2, I have already mentioned some of the Y family's land affairs. The Y family is much more fragmented when compared to the X family and many members have migrated to the Mungo area. - 233 -

For the Z family I will restrict myself to two noteworthy points. 1. ZI left Tsa at a young age; in Dschang he became a planter and an important man in transport, owner of many trucks. ZI, who is very old now, has no interest at all in the z lands and he does not offer any help to the members of the Z agnatic family. 2. ZII, Z's successor, died without living children. He indicated as ------c:;, principal heir ZIII.l, in fact a sister's son (ZIII being a-'woman) who is now in charge of the estate. We met ZII when discussing how he declared himself Jl!!.2:: of plot 16 which was ultimately obtained by AIII.

2.2 The Latchuet case

As a comparison I have chosen a second case. The situation in this second residential agnatic family from the Tsa quarter Latchuet will be discussed more briefly than the Letsi case. This is firstly because I only want to give an outline of another very normal case, but which contrasts with the Letsi situation in many ways, and secondly because I am less familiar with the Latchuet case.

2.2.1.1 Principal heir X

The Latchuet agnatic family, compared to the Letsi family, has a longer history in Tsa. Some members of the family whisper that the founder of the family, the grandfather of X and Y (see the genealogy) might have been imported as slave from elsewhere. This means that by now we have reached the fourth principal heir of this ancestor. In the nineteenth century, during the reign of chief Dju, the great-great-great-grandfather of the present paramount chief, the family profited greatly from the conquest of territory on the east side of Tsa. The principal heir at the time obtained some 13 ha tswa, including a valuable raphia-palm area near a river (see the blocks of land II and III on the map). It is quite possible that in Dju's time only 10 ha was obtained and that about 3 ha - situated in the present quarter of Leghan was given (together with a wife) by chief Fomekong to X who worked for a long time in the palace compound as a ntsi-nda, servant. 234 -

J

S-> 1i

3> li M I

y-«* i 1 1 < M 1 M 1 M |

o" ^ » a) M i w (H | $i t-l 1

1 1 fr.

1 X 1 M | O

1 1 fr)

i i a

> 1 > 1 M | ^3

t-t 1 1 1 o ^D M ! ~ »-i i 's M X. (U i g 00 u) CM 3 s >a) se m 0 (A M •o •a c C 3 3 u « o 1 1 CQ *o 1 II ii II .a (0 «»> a -o 3 1 >< 1 M i-H | ,-,3 s B 3 -o « > *-' •>> < 235

LATCHUET- TSA

80rr\

Lanol confuted by S*roin£(ecs

• • rc*pHio*.-f>o«.tnr\s R Icm = 40 m LEGHAN

± l%.ù m 236-

Withth ebrother sX an dY w ehav ereache dth etwentiet hcentur y andthu s thebeginnin go fou ranalysi so fchanges .I nnamin gth evariou ssection s Ihav etake na s 'ego'th epresen t 'principalheir 'o fth eX familyAll . X can still be considered as a traditional and strongprincipa lheir , butlowe ri nstatu scompare d toth eLets iprincipa lheir sA o rAI .Afte r X's service in the Tsa court, atth eag eo fabou tforty ,h ewa sactiv e in animal husbandry and traded in animals (goats, sheep andpigs) , he supervised agriculture carried outb y thewome n and even farmeda bi t himself. Likeman y principal heirs hewa sactiv e inhi sk3.?/7 ,chiefdo m organization. X was apolygamis tan dwhe nh edie d inabou t191 5h elef t behind sixsons . Familymember stel ltha tX ha d fourwive sbu ttha tonl yon e borehi m sons.Th eothe r threeonl ygav ebirt ht odaughter s quitea numbe ro fwho mwer ecapture db ypeopl e fromBalessin g (southo fTsa )an dsol da sslave s (pu'). The way X regulatedhi s successionca nb eindicate d asth ebeginnin go f thedeclin e anddisintegratio no fth efamil yan dfamily-estate . He nominated asprincipa l heir his youngest son, anew-bor n baby.A t least, his 'friends',kjjf r- brothers , told the family andneighbour s thatthi si swha th eha ddecided . Iti sno ta tal lrar et ofin dsituation s inwhic hme ndesignat e veryyoun gchildre na sthei r successors.Thi shappene d inth e pastan dstil loccurs ,ofte ncausin ggrea ttroubl e foran di n thefamily . Imysel fstil lhav edifficultie s inunderstandin g suchdecisions ,bu t Ifee ltha ti ti sto o 'easy't oblam echief s or 'friends'fo rcommunicatin g adeliberat e liet oth efamily . Duringm y latestvisit ,i n1980 ,I eve nwen ts ofa ra st otr y todra wou tsom einformant sb ybluntl y askingthe mho wsom eme n couldb e sostupi d ast onominat e littlechildre na ssuccessor s ands odestro yth epatrimon y and family-unity.Bu tth eanswe r remained thesame : 'Wenominat e aparticula rbo ya shei ra sa n honourt ohi smother .W echoos eth eso no fa wif ew etrus tan d respectan dar econfiden ttha tsh ewil lguid ehe rso ni na goo d ways otha th ewil lbecom e agoo d leadero fth efamily' .On eo f my informants,a sub-chie fo fTsa ,immediatel y addedtha th e agreedwit hm etha tmuc htroubl ecoul dcom e fromnominatin ga youngchild : 'Inm ychiefdo m Ieve nfin dcase si nwhic hadul t brothers areprepare d topa yCF A20.00 0t o40.00 0t oa youn g principalhei ri fh eagree st oleav eTs aforever . Itr yt o preventsuc hmischief ,bu ti ti softe nonl ya suspicio ntha t adultbrother spla y sucha dirt ygame' .

2.2.1.2 Father's father'sbrothe rY an dhi sdescendant s

Thentya go fY ,obtaine d fromX o rX' s father,wa sno textensive ;i nth e nka' region of Latchuet he controlled aplo t of landsomewha tsmalle r thanX' s concession (plotno .6) .I nth e tswaare ah eha draphi apalm s onplo t 18 and perhaps 17;i ti sno tclea rwhethe rth elan do f1 8als o belonged toY' s ntyjg. In factY' s 'income' cameprincipall y fromhi s -23 7-

trade insal twhic htoo khi mt omos tpart so fth eBamilék éregio nbetwee n thene wan ddevelopin g 'German'centre so fBamend aan dNkongsamba .Thoug h Ywa s apolygamis tan dha dsevera lchildren ,onl yon eso nreache dadult ­ hood. YI worked for the Germans,bu ti ti sno tknow nwha twor kh edid . He returned to Tsa only after the German defeat in1915/1916 .H ethe n constructed enclosures andha dsom egoat s andpigs .Y Iha donl yon ewif e andh edie d inth eearl y forties leavingbehin d alittl e son.Bot hY an d YIha dalread yobtaine d arathe rindependen tpositio nbecaus eo fspecifi c occupationsrelate dt oth eincreasin g incorporationo fth eare aint oth e GermanCameroo ncolony . With the death ofYI , the special linkwit h themai n line ofdescen t camet oa nend .I n1978 ,a nelderl y informant fromth eX familyeve nha d toexplai nt oyounge rmember so fth e familyho wthe ywer erelate dt oth e Y linean dwh obelonge dt otha tfamily . Here, Ibriefl y discuss the history of the Y familyu pt oth epresen t day.YI. l earns his living mainly asa wood-cutte r andsawyer ;h eown s some coffee-bushes. He has given part of his concession to his son YI.1.1 who still saunters aboutTs a tryingt oear na living . Idi dno t come across any sale of land on the Y side. It is evenpossibl etha t theygaine d somelan db ydeclarin g themselvesMw ao fth elan dwher ethe y have their raphia-palms. This may have happened onplo t18 ,bu ti ti s 'sure' for 17where ,i nabou t1970 ,YI. laske dhi s 'women't ocultivat e theirfoodcrop san dwhere ,supplementar y tohi sraphia-palms ,h eplante d some coffee and plantains.Unti l then this landwa s considered tob e controlledb yAß ,A' s secondwife ,wh omanage d ito nbehal fo fhe rsons . Ige tth eide atha tbot h formerly andno wme ni ncontro lo f landwher e someoneels eowne d raphia-palmsha dt ob ever ycare ­ fulno tt oloos ethei rland .Th eowne ro fth eraphi ama yb e waiting fora perio d ofweaknes s inorde rt otak eove rth e landhimself .Cameronia nmagistrate s judging land-conflicts mayno w furtherthi sproces sbecaus ethei r startingpoin ti s a linkbetwee nth e 'ownership'o fcrop s ando fth elan dwher e thesecrop s aregrown . Before continuing our analysis of theprincipa l heir's family (the X family), it iswel lt omentio ntha tsout ho fth eA an dE concession si n the Latchuet nka' area we find estatesstarte db y 'brothers'o rdepen ­ dants ofX and Y's father (plots7 an d8 ;th eborder s areonl yroughl y indicated).Thes econcession shav ebee nindependen t fora lon gtime .

2.2.2 Princigalhei rA an dhi sbrother s

2.2.2.1 Theperio d 1915-1957

After X died, exactly according to therule so fsuccession ,th eeldes t - 238-

sonbecam e the guardian ofyoun g A. B died five years later inabou t 1920 and his place was taken by the second brother C. B onlyha d daughters and one of them still cultivates on land belongingt oth eA estate (Bd onplot s 3 and 23).C tried toconvinc eother stha th ewa s the real principal heir.H ego tint oseriou sdifficultie swhe nh ebrok e his promise by chosing another husband for his daughter rather than allow her to marry her fiancé, to whom he had originally givenhi s consent. Members of the familysai dtha tth eparamoun tchie finterfere d in this conflict, after which C fled to Bafounda, achiefdo mnea rth e present town ofMbouda .H eobtaine d anka'-nn ather e fromth eparamoun t chief. C took his youngest brothers Fan dA wit hhim ;D an dE remaine d in Tsa on the ntyjq swhic h their father Xha dprobabl y alreadygive n them (plots 27,2 8 and 4, 5).Befor eC' sdeat hi n1940 ,a sorcere rex ­ plained illness in the familyb y accusingC o fhavin gstole nland san d goods fromhi s father'sprincipa lheir .Th estor yi stha tC the nacknowl ­ edgedA ashi sfather' ssuccesso r andpai dth ebride-wealt h forA' sfirs t wife incompensatio n forhi sba dbehaviour . Ordi dC a s 'principalheir 'pa yth ebride-wealt h forhi s dependentbrothe rA ? Itwa sand ,t oa lesse rextent ,i s quitenorma l forprincipa lheir st opa yth ebride-wealt h ofthei rbrother s thus formingwha t Icalle d (1980:44)a 'fundo fwomen 'whic hgive sthe m a 'fundo fpower' .A ma n andhi ssuccessor s tosom eexten tcontro l thedaughter s bornfro mmarriage swher ethe ypai dth ebride-wealth ;the y obtainth ebride-wealt hpai d forthes edaughter s (compare Hurault,1970 ;8 ,an dth eexampl egive ni n1962 :42-44) . Imentio nthi spossibilit y justt oindicat etha tm y informants inTs amigh thav egive nm ea ver yspecia lversio no fth eevents ; Ia mno tsur etha tthe ytol dth ewhol e 'truth',probabl ythe y onlytol dthei r 'truth'.I ti sa pit ytha tI coul dno tcontac t theBafound a familyt ohea rthei rversion ;i twoul dprobabl y havebee nquit edifferent . C's family remained inBafound a foreveran dneve rclaime d landrightsi n theLatchue tpatrimony ;F an dA returne d toTsa .

Before discussing the family-histories of E and A we shall pay some attention to D and F. D, a sorcerer/traditional medicine man,neve r married.Durin g his life he sold hislan do rgav ei ta ssecurit y fora loan (plots 27 and 28). A,hardl ybac ki nTsa ,an dE atth etim eactin g asa kin do f 'principalheir 'o rrepresentative ,i twa sE wh o askedD t o tellhi mwhethe rh eha d losthi s landa snka'-j uo ra snka'-jyj ' and,i f the latter were thecas eh e (E)woul dtr yt orepa yth eloan .I ti ssai d thatD also 'sold' some raphia-palms, but is itno tclea rwher ethes e were situated. D died in 1959 neverexplainin gho wh elos tth eland .F likewiseneve rmarried . Inth ethirtie sh elef tfo rth eplantatio narea s -23 9-

north ofDoual a where he became an agricultural labourer.H egav ehi s landa snka'-jyj 't oa stranger .Later ,h esen tmone yt ohi sbrother si n Tsa to repay theloa nan dregai nhi s land.I ti ssai dtha thi sbrother s have 'eaten'th e moneycausin gth edefinitiv e losso fF' s land (plot2 9 ofwhic h theboundarie s areno t clear). Fdie d inth eMung oplantatio n areai n1948 .

2.2.2.2 Theperio d 1957-1967

The history ofA an dhi selde rbrothe rE i sver ymuc hinterwove n andi t is difficult to discussthe m separately.A divisio no flan dwa smad ei n whichA kept about two-thirds of thenkw j'j-nta h(plot s1-3 ,11-1 9an d 23-26)an dE obtaine d aboutone-thir d (plots4- 5 and 20-22).A wa sneve r very interested inagricultur e (aver ynorma lsituatio ni nTsa ,somewha t different from the situation in nearby Ngang,compar eOuden ,1979 : 3); he was amedicine-ma n and trader inclothes ,includin gth etraditiona l men's dance-dress. Itwa s in195 7tha tA go tint oseriou strouble .Lik e many inhabitants of TsaA sympathized with the Kumsze politicalpart y which, until 1952,worke d togetherwit hth emor ean dmor e revolutionary 'Unionde sPopulation sd uCameroun ' (see Illy,1976 :76,77) . Inspit eo f theKumsze' sseparatio n fromth eU.P.C .i n1952 ,grea tdistrus tremaine d towardsth eKumsz emember sb ythos ewh obacke dth egovernment ,includin g the then reinstatted paramount chief (see Ouden, 1979:19 ,2 0and ,i n general,sectio n 2.3.2). Theparamoun tchie fan dhi s followersdefinite ­ ly exploited events at a national level to eliminate opponents who (before 1952)wer e loyal to achie f installed by the French colonial government. In 1955, the reinstated paramount chief had some thirty concessions destroyed. In 1957,thes e actions were repeated and Awa s oneo fth evictims .Thoug hhi shouse swer edestroyed ,A di dno tfle eth e chiefdom likes oman yother s (anumbe ro fthre ethousan d ismentione db y informants in Tsa).Fo rsom eunknow nreaso nth echief' s representatives considered it sufficient to giveA a serious warning; apart from the destruction of his houses 'only' thewel ewa s planted inth eland so n the Latchuet side of the tswa areawher eth ecrop swer e alsodestroye d (especiallyplot s 11-15). Traditionally,th ewele ,branche so fa tre ewit ha 'very bad significance'i spu to na bambo oo na plo to flan dt o forbid anybodyt oente rth earea .I na greate rchiefdo mi t isplante db yth emual atumbum ,a membe ro fth echiefdo m organizationkwi'-fu 3kwohojv .th echief' spolic eforce . Atpresent ,i ti srar ebu tno tunknow n forth eparamoun t chief- wh oi slargel ycontrolle db yth eCameroo nauthor ­ ities- t opu thi ssacre d interdictiono na piec eo f land.However ,i nth esub-chiefdom so rquarter swit h 240

strongchief sw estil l findtha tb yplantin gth ewel e achie fforbid s anyoneenterin g aplo to flan do n penaltyo fillnes san ddeath ,unti lth elan ddisput e issettle d inth ewa yh econsider scorrect . In 'normal' times achie fwil l intervene inthi sradica lwa yonl y whenh eexpect sth econflic tt oen d inbloodshed . E, apparently a rivalt ohi sbrother/'father' ,th eprincipa lhei rA an d (therefore?)belongin gt oth e 'right'chief' s faction,i n195 8offere da considerable gift (including ahorse! )t o the paramount chief, andi n thiswa ymanage d tohav eth einterdictio nimpose dupo nth eare aconcerne d removed so gaining control over a considerable part ofA' sconcessio n (plots 11-15). Of course, with this the question is,becaus e of the chief's intervention,whethe r thelineag eline sbetwee nA an dE wer eb y now broken and whetherth eE lin ewa sdeclare d independentb yth edeci ­ sion of theparamoun t chief. In fact,A neve r seriouslychallenge d E's rights to his formerplot s 11-15.Thes eevents ,t osom eextent ,mean ta rupturebetwee nth etw obrother s asbecome sclea rwhe nw eobserv etha tA stoppedE' s firstwif e fromcultivatin g onth eplo to flan do nth enort - east side ofhi snka 'lan do nth eroa d side (I)no wcultivate db yAa :A evictedE' swome n fromth eland swhic hwer e stillunde rhi scontrol .

Someone who is toowea k to counterth elos so fcontro love rusefu lre ­ sources can expect further attacks on hispolitico-economi c andsocia l position. In 1961,som e members of the C and E family accused himo f beinga /jqah-shyua ,a sorcere rwh oharm san deve nkill speople . Aha dt oappea ri nth eoffic eo fth esub-divisiona l officer (sous-préfet).Her eh edefende d himselfb y statingtha ta real hqah-shyuawoul d startwit hth ekillin go fhi sow nson s andtna tnon eo fhi sson sha ddie do rwa s ill.Th eoffice r thenaske dhi mt onam eth emos timportan tperso ni nth e familywh ocoul d informhi mabou tth esituation .A name dE andthi sma ndeclare d thatA wa sno ta hgaft-shyu aan dtha t theunres ti nth efamil ywa smor ea resul fo fA' srefusa l toeve rvisi tothe rmember so fth efamily . Ifa brothe rwa s illA woul dneve rcom et oinquir eabou tth esituation .Th e wholeaffai rthe ndragge do nfo rabou ta year .I n196 2A , boredwit hth eintrigues ,wen tt oth esub-divisiona l officer askingfo rmeasure st osto pmember so fhi s familydraggin g hisnam ethroug hth emire .Thereupo ni twa sarrange dtha t thewoma nwh ocoul db ecalle dth eleade ro fth efirebrands , oneo fC' sdaughters ,ha dt opa ya namoun to fmone yt oA a s consolation.A refuse dth emone ybecaus eh ecoul dno ttak e money from 'oneo fhi schildren 'i nthi sway .

Thisstor yi sremarkabl ebecaus ei tshow stha ta searl ya s 1961a Mgah-shyu acas ewa sbrough tbefor eth e 'sous-préfet', wheneven'i n1978/198 0traditiona lcase ssuc ha sthi sbelon g morei nth eparamoun tchief' scourt .Perhap si nthi stumultuou s periodth ethe nparamoun tchie fwa sto obus y asa membe ro fth e nationalparliamen ti nYaoundé . 241

From this story iti s clear thatA' spositio nafte r1957 ,an dprobabl y already right from thebeginnin g (his return from Bafounda)wa s very much disputed in the family. He died in 1967 and his twowive s and children are convinced that his illness and death were caused by the C andE families.Lik ehi s father,A chos e assuccesso rAll , ayoun gso n ofnin eyear sol d (theeldes twa sthe neightee nyear sold) .

2.2.3 lÇrincigal_heir^_AII£_events_after_1967

All was sentb y his father toa frien d inMboud asom eyear sbefor eA' s death, probably to prevent 'someevil 'befallin ghi m inTsa .Hi smothe r always forbade him to stay overnight onth econcessio n inTs aan dthi s was still the case in 1978-1980.Al l isno wa temporar y schoolteache r in another quarter of Tsa.E isi ncharg eo fth efamil yrituals ,espe ­ cially the offerings to the forefathers.Th e new principal heirstil l has no power. We find, for instance, that the bride-wealth paid for daughters ofA ß hasbee ntake nb yhe reldes tson ,A Iwh ouse sth emone y for his own education (he is apolicema n now);th eprincipa lhei rAl l could only with great difficulty obtainpar t of thebride-wealt hpai d forhi sow nsisters ,daughter s ofAa .

Nogrown-u pme nresid eo nA' sconcessio n andth eagricultur e iscomplete ­ lymanage db yth etw owidow sA a andAß .The ycontinu ecultivatio n inth e nka'-nnathe ycontrolle d andtr yt okee pu pth e fewremainin gmen' scrops . Theboy stak ei tfo rgrante d thatthei rmother' s fieldswil lb eth ebasi s ofthei r future lands.Her e iti sth eabsenc eo fa stron gprincipa lhei r whichcreate sa situatio ni nwhic hlan dwil lb e 'inherited'pe rstirpes , according to thematerna lorigi no fth eme n (compareGood yan dBuckley , 1973: 113) . Sow e find thatA I in the early seventiesplante dcoffee - bushes on his mother's nna s 25 and 26 and thatAII I planted banana trees (plantains) and coffee on plot 19.Th e very neglected coffee- bushes onplo t 24wer e planted by Aa's son All,th e 'principalheir' . The small profit from the coffee in Bd's fields,marke d as 3, isfo r All, notbecaus e he is the principal heir butbecaus eh ei she rname ­ sake (they are both named after X).Th eprofi t from the coffee and plantains inhe rfiel d2 3i sfo rBd' sow nsons .

Bothwomen ,A a andAß ,stil lhav especia lproblem sbecaus e ofth elac ko f accepted leadership,disorde ri nth efamil yan dfurthe rdifficulties . Aa originallycultivate d onhe r father'sconcession ,o ntha t ofhe rhusband ,o nth econcession so fhe rfirs tan dsecon d 242

daughter'shusband' s fathersan do nth econcessio nbelongin g tohe rthir ddaughter' s fiance's father.He r fourthdaughte r wasengage d atth eag eo ffou ran di sno wlivin gwit hhe rhus ­ band inYaoundé ;A a didno tge tan ycultivatio n rightso nth e estateo fth efiance' sfather'o nbehal fo fhe rdaughter .Now , the firstdaughter' shusban dha s leftwit hwif ean dchildre n forth eMung oregion ,n olonge rbotherin g abouthi s land-rights inTsa .Hi slan dmeanwhil eha sbee nsol db y abrothe r andbe ­ causeo fthi sAa' sdaughte rha slos the rnka'-nn ao nthi slan d andA aha sha dt osto pcultivatio nthere .A a stillcultivate s onth enn agive nt ohe rsecon ddaughte rsinc esh ewa sengage d toa bo yo ftha tconcession .Par to fth eproduc eA a sendst o thisdaughte r inLoum ,Mung oregion .Th ethir ddaughte rob ­ tained ann ao nhe r fiance's father'sconcessio nan dA aculti ­ vated there.Thi sdaughte rwa sengage d atth eag eo ffiv ean d whensh egre wu prefuse dt omarr yhe r fiancé.He rnka'-nn a wasthe ntake nbac k andA aha dt osto pcultivation .Th ethir d daughter isno wmarrie d toa ma ni nMboud awh oneglecte dhi s land-rights onhi s father'sTs aconcession . In1977 ,h ebough t landnea rMboud aan dno wA a oftenaccompanie she rdaughte r whensh ecultivate s those fieldsan dbecaus eo fthi sreceive s parto fth eproduce .T ocomplet ethi srathe r sadstor yw ewil l havet oremembe rtha tA a losthe rlan di nth eare atake nfro m A in1957-1958 .O nhe r father'sconcessio nsh elos ta nimpor ­ tantnka'-nn abecaus eth eyoun gprincipa lhei r (herF.S.S .o r B.S.)gav ethi slan da snka'-jyj ' asa loa nwhic hwa sstil l notrepai d in1980 . Inabou t1946 ,A wa sengage dt oa neight-year-ol d girl(Aß) . Duringa perio do fver yba dharvest sth egirl' sfathe raske d A fora plo to flan dan dA giv ehi m 17an d19 .Th ewel ewa s notplante d herei n195 7becaus eth elan dwa sstil li nth e handso fAß' s fatherwhos ewome ncultivate d there.Afte r1958 , Atoo kbac kth elan dan dh easke dA ßt oshar ethes eterrain s withA abu tsh erefused .Afte rA' sdeat htroubl estarte dcon ­ cerningth eengagemen to fon eo fAß' sdaughters .Th egir l wantedt opostpon ehe rmarriag e inorde rt o finishhe rschoo l education,bu the r fiancéwante dt omarr y immediatelybecaus e herfather ,wh oha dpromise dhe rt ohim ,ha ddie d (aprecar ­ ioussituatio n fora famil ywh oha s alreadystarte d thepaymen t ofbride-wealth) .Whe nth egir lrefused ,he rmothe rdecide dt o repayth epar to fth ebride-wealt hwhic hha d alreadybee n given.A ßestimate d thebride-wealt hpai d atCF A20.000 , butth eopposin gpart ydemande d CFA 50.000.Finally ,bot h parties agreedupo na namoun to fCF A40.000 .A ßobtaine da loanfo rwhic hsh egav eplot s 17an d1 9a snka'-jya' ,sh e soldhe rpigs ,worke dhar dan dmanage d torepa yth eamount . Infact ,i n1974 ,sh ewa seve ncapabl eo fpayin gbac kth e originalloan .However ,sh eonl yregaine dcontro lo fplo t1 9 andno to f17 .A sw ehav e seen,thi slan dwa smeanwhil e takenb yYI. lwh oalread yowne d theraphia-palm so nthi s plot.A si nth ecas eo fAa ,A ßha dt ocop ewit ha situatio n inwhic ha daughte rrefuse d anarrange dmarriag e afterhe r father'sdeath .Her eals o Isuspec ttha tthi sca nb erelate d toth eweaknes so fth eyoun gprincipa lhei rAll . InAß' scas e iti sals o interestingthat ,a sw equit eofte n findi nTs ai n caseswher en oadul tan dstron gprincipa lheir s arepresen ti n theconcessions ,widow s startt oac ta s 'men't oprotec tthei r ownan dthei rchildren' spositions . -24 3-

The only land theA familyreall ylos tafte r196 7i splo t 16.Thi slan d wasgive na snka'-jy3 't oa stranger .Thi sma ni sconsidere d adangerou s sorcerer.H eplante d 'treeswit ha ver yba d significance'i nthi sfores t of raphia palms andwoo d andnobod ydare st oente rthi sterrai no rdis ­ cussit sownership .

Ifagain ,w eretur nt oth eE estat ew e finda completel y differentpictur e regardingth elos so fland . Immediately afterh eobtaine d aconsiderabl e parto fA' s landE starte dt osel lportion s ofit .I n1959 ,h esol dplo t 13 (includingsom eraphia-pal mbushes), followedb yplo t1 1i n1961 .Plo t 12 has also been sold by E,bu t Icoul dno tge tan yparticular s about this transaction. In 1960-1963 E transferred theres to fth etsw alan d to his three sons: EI obtained 20,El l 21 and22 ,an dEI1 1 14an d15 . The ntyjq,belongin g to EI, since 1973 atailo r in aBamou n town,i s still 'undamaged'. EIII, asmal lmerchan ti nfood-crop s inTsa ,plante d coffee on plot 14,worke d inth eraphi a area,bu tlef tpar to fhi slan d fallow (15).Seein gthis , andagai ni nnee do fmoney ,E sol dthi sportio n in 1968 to astranger .Th esam ehappene d toEl l (nowa smal l shopkeeper in Tsa);h e also only used parto fhi sntyj q forcoffe ean dplantains . When Ell was absent for a long time his father sold portion 22 toa stranger. Inorde r to prevent further sales by their father,El l and EIII 'barricaded'thei rwest-frontier swit hbanana-bushe s (plantains').

2.2.4 Latchuet:concludin gremark s

Can this disorder onth eX concessio nb e 'blamed'o nth eproces so fin ­ corporation into 'modern'co-ordinatin g systems? Ithin k this isonl y truet osom eextent .I nth epas tw ehav eals osee ntha tagnati cfamilie s andthei rconcession scoul db eruine db ymisfortunes ,successio ntrouble s and weak principal heirs.Th e way inwhic hth eX familyan dthei rcon ­ cessions have fallen andar efallin gint odeca yha sno wbee ninfluence d by the process of incorporation, for instance, the affiliation with provincial or even national political parties, andth eles srestricte d saleo flan d (incombinatio nwit ha wea kchie fo fth equarter ,o rtradi ­ tional functionaries who are only pleased when disasters strike this particular family). The splittingu po fth efamil yint osmal lunit san d the land fragmentation isals osomethin gnew . Inth epas tw ewoul dhav e expected land tob e taken away by powerful and strong neighbours and thatmember so fth efamil ywoul dhav e fledfro mthei runprotecte dsitua ­ tionan dsough trefug e inth efamilie san dregion so fimportan t 'bigmen' . -24 4-

Onth eothe rhand ,i ti straditiona l forbrother s toattac kwea kprinci ­ palheir sby ,fo rexample ,startin grumour sabou thi sbein g anevi lsor ­ cerer. Here it should be remembered thatmember so fa famil yar erigh t inblamin gthei rprincipa lhei r forcausin gmisfortune s ifleadershi pi s absent and they feel themselves unprotected from the dangers ofthi s world and fromthos etha tcom e from 'otherworlds' .

Up to the present time, no remarkable differentiation inwealt h and socio-political position canb e ascertained,thoug hher ew e alsofin da growing variety of occupations.Al l themember s ofth efamil yremaine d ratherpoo ran dunimportant .Member so fth efamil yhop etha tth etw ome n of the Aa and Aß lines who have had abette r education (All andA I respectively)wil lreac ha neconomi cpositio nb ywhic hthe ywil lb eabl e tohel p andb esom esor to f 'saviours'fo rth eres to fth e family.Unti l now (1980)n oothe rmal emember so fth eX familyhav ereache d apositio n whereby they could help topus h relatives into the 'modern'world .S o far,th emarriage so ffemal emember so fth eX familyhav eals o failedt o help themember s enterint oth e 'high'sector so fpolitics ,administra ­ tiono reconomic so fth emoder nstat eo fCameroon . 245

3 RETROSPECT

Indiscussin gth echange si nth econtro love rpeople ,lan dan dproductio n wefin dtw oprocesse so f 'household'individualization , seeminglycontra ­ dictory,an doccurrin g simultaneously.Bot hprocesse s areo fgrea timpor ­ tance for further development(s) in (of)thi s area. Firstly, therei s the undermining of the residential agnatic family, theminima lpatri - lineage, and the growing importance of thepolygynou s or monogamous household. Secondly,w eca npoin ta tth eindividualizatio no fth ematri - focal household and the disintegration of 'household-functions'o fth e polygynous ormonogamou s household. Let us summarizebot hdevelopment s that result from theproces so fmarket -an dinstitutiona l incorporation and to a lesser extent, from acculturation because of contactbetwee n theBamilék é andEuropea ncultures . 1. Polygynouso rmonogamou shousehold scoul dno tsurviv e independently becausepeac ean dorde rwithi nth echiefdo man dquarte rwer eno t sufficiently guaranteed. Inth eBamilék échiefdom sther ewa sa grea tdea l ofinterna lwarfar e inth e formo fope nviolence ,sorcer yan dwitchcraft , and attacks from intruders, including external warfare.Peopl e needed security, physically and psychologically, and stayed together inthei r agnatic families lead bya stron gpersonality .Thi s 'homme fort'ha dt o prove continuously during his life thath ewa s capable of adequately repelling attacks fromoutsid ean d fromwithi nth eagnati c familygroup . He, thehea d of the family, guardian of the familypropert y andthei r well-being, should also havea nimportan tpositio ni nth eorganization s of the quarter and chiefdom. This does notmea n thata commone rcoul d notbecom e independenti nthi shar d andmerciles sworld , fullo fthreat s andwit ha necotyp ea sdiscusse d inth eforegoin g sections.Durin gperi ­ ods of insecurity, after the death of aprincipa l heir or during his illness, conflicts occurred becausebid swoul db emad e forpowe reithe r from inside or outsideth efamily ;suc ha sth econflic tbetwee nA an dC in the Letsi case,an dth eattack sb y a 'neighbour'afte rA' sdeath .A n instance of this isth e usurpation ofpowe rb y Ci nth eLatchue tcas e and his forced flight,o rth econflic tbetwee nprincipa lhei rA andhi s brother E,mor e or lesswo nb yE wh oobtaine d anindependen tposition . Todayw e findbot hchang ean dcontinuity :recentl yi nth eLatchue tcase , we find the example ofAl l the 'principal heir' who,i nfact ,wa sno t able to inherit his father's position.Al l these occurred in the two familiesdiscussed ,bu tther ewer eman ymor einstance s inothe rfamilie s ofadul tan dyoun gprincipa lheir swh ower eeithe r forcedt otak eflight , or of agnatic family units who were destroyed by neighbours or even 246

attackedb ypeopl e fromdifferen tquarter s (seeOuden ,1980 :4 5an d48) . Established positions were always threatened by usurpationo fpowe rb y others and it is significant that intime so fstruggl eprincipa lheir s hadt o fightth ebattl ethemselves ,withou thel p fromothe rminima llin ­ eages.Th eresidentia l agnatic familywa sth emaximu m levelo f 'solidarity' withoutman ypatron-clien trelationship s orothe rallianc etie st ominima l lineages and with only some support either from chiefs ofquarter so r fromth eparamoun tchie fi f 'appropriate'gift swer esufficien tt oobtai n thisbacking . Inanothe rpublicatio n (1980:44 .45 )apar tfro m 'alliances' bywa yo fmarriage s Iindicate d theimportanc e ofintergrou p tiesrealize db ywome ncultivatin g their food-cropso nth e estateso fvariou sprincipa lheir s andthei rdependants .Th e socio-economicinterest so fwome ni na wa ystrengthene dth e linksbetwee n familiesan dbrough t (bring)abou ta networ ko f relations covering avast eterritory ,includin gquarter san d independentchiefdoms .Thi sintegratin gmechanis m undoubtedly createdconflictin g loyalties andthu sa categor yo fpotentia l mediators ifconflict s arose,bu ti tcoul dneve rsto pconflict s withinth eresidentia l agnatic familygroups ,no rcoul di t reallypreven tattack so nfamil yunit swithou tstron gprincipa l heirs andchief so fquarter swh odi dno tfo ron ereaso no r anothertak esides . Atal llevels ,vis-à-vi s theprincipa lheir ,th echie fo fa quarter/sub - chiefdomo rth eparamoun tchief ,th edominan tquestio nwa s always: 'Does the relation with him givem e "sufficient"security ?D o Ige twha t Ia m after?' Ifnot ,peopl e are quite prepared to shift their 'loyalty't o anotherprincipa lheir ,chie fo fa quarte ro rparamoun tchief .Bond sbe ­ tweenpeopl eno tonl yappea rt ohav ebee nver y 'personal',the ywer ean d are,i na way ,als over ymaterialisti c (compareR .LeVine ,1976 :121-123) . Somehow we will havet ocharacteriz e the 'original'situatio na son eo f 'tiedfreedom' .Th e familynormall y stucktogethe rt odefen d itself,bu t the adultme n were quite free to choose occupations whichgav ethe ma certain independence, even up to the pointwher e the paramount chief granted them titles anda nhonorar ypositio ni na chiefdo morganizatio n resulting in ane wlineag eheade db yth e 'upstart'. O fcourse ,onl yfe w dependantsha dth estrengt han dcourag et oforc ethemselve s intoindepen ­ dency in their own chiefdom or elsewhere. In section 2.1.2.1I showe d thati twa si nth epas tan dstil li sgenerall yver ydifficul tt ostar ta flourishingcollatera lline . Awoma ndi dno tlos ehe rpositio n asa membe ro fhe rpatrilineag e through marriage.He rGo do ffertilit ywa san di so nth eestat eo fth eprincipa l heir of her agnatic family. She continued, and most oftencontinues , cultivation on the ancestral estate and her sonswer e and still are eventually incorporated inhe rpatrilineag e iflatera lo rlinea linheri - 247

tance was or is impossible in that family (see ZIII.l in 2.1.3.6). A sister's son could andca nb egive na ntyp gan dprincipa lheir sha dan d have always tob eo nthei rguar d againstclaim so fson so ffemal erela - tives (ZS ,D S ,etc. )o nlan dwher ethei rmother scultivated . 14 Furthermore,i twa squit enorma l fora woma nt ostor epar to fth eharves t from plots on her 'father's' estate inth ehous eo fth eprincipa lhei r ori nhe rmother' shouse .Sh euse dthi s food forceremonie s inwhic hsh e participated asmembe ro fhe rpatrilineage . The control over people by the heado fth eminima lpatrilineag ewa si n accordance with this control over family land: people, like the land given to them, obtained an independentpositio n butwer e nevertheless protected from evil and alienation by the principal heir.Ntyg gs ob ­ tained from the principalhei ro rhi s fatherwer emanage d independently but their fertility dependedo nritual sperforme db yth eprincipa lhei r and the latter could forbid the saleo fthi sland . Iti sprobabl etha t hego tsom e firewood andraphia-win e fromth entyp qs give nt orelative s or fromnka'-nn as give nt ostranger sb yhi mo rhi s father,t oemphasiz e the good relationwit h and dependency on the head ofth e family.Lan d usecoul dno tonl yb econsidere d froma neconomi cpoin to fview . Iargue d that an agnatic family's territory was also important forpolitical , social and religious reasons: itwa s the area where people lived and tried to secure their own and their descendants' living. In and from this territory men andwome nworked ,performe d activitiesconsidere da s useful, and their workmos tcertainl ydi dno tonl yinclud e agricultural activities.A s fara sintegratio nwithi nth eagnati c familyi sconcerned , itshoul db enote dtha tholder so fsmal lnty.p qs ha dsom ecattl egrazin g withth eher do fth eprincipa lheir ,wh oreceive d asmal lgoa ti ncompen ­ sation.W e foundcase swhic hsho wtha tfamil ymember s 'helped'th eprin ­ cipalhei ri ncarryin gou tsevera l activities andi nretur nha dth erigh t totak ewood ,pole so rpalm-win ewhic hthe yneeded .W ema yconclud etha t in 'normal' situations at the level ofth eresidentia l agnaticfamily , theprincipa l heir had some control overlabou ran dproductio no f 'his men', whic h meant thatsurplusse sneede d formarriage-purposes ,member ­ ship of chiefdom-organizations, presents to the tribal authorities to obtain favours,etc. ,coul d more easily be raised by him thanb y his 'dependants'.

14 Compare Goody and Buckley, 1973:118 : 'Inagricultura leconomics , such a system (DenOuden : Gluckman's 'house-property complex' in Africa sub-Sahara,pe rstte-pe sinheritance )frequentl y assignst oa woman's sons the landwhic hsh eha sbee n farmingbu twhic hsh eca n neitherposses sno rtransmit. ' 248

Thepolitical ,economi c andsocia lintegratio n atth eleve lo fth eresi ­ dential agnatic familywa s andi sthreatene d seriouslyb yman yfactors . Inth eGerma nan dFrenc hperiod ,interna l andexterna lwarfar ediminishe d and slave raids camet oa nend .Th epolitica l reasons forremainin gto ­ gether became less important. Itwa s especially during and after the Bamiléké rebellion in thefiftie san dsixtie stha tth epolitica lchief - dom-unitwa s very much undermined and itwa s in thissyste mtha tonl y thehead so fimportan tminima lpatrilineage swer epowe rholders ,wherea s their dependants were givenver y little opportunity of raising their voices. Present government authorities take very little notice of the position in the familystructur ewhe ndealin gwit hth echiefdom-popula - tion: for them, othercriteri aar emuc hmor e important.W ehav ealread y discussed the government policy towards the individualization ofland - titles. Inthi s respect,th eagnati c family-uniti sals oclearl yunder ­ minedbecause ,unde rth ene wlaw ,principa lheir sca nn olonge rexercis e any control over ntyjgs thei r fatherso rthe ythemselve s gavet orela ­ tives. Here, the governmentonl yaccelerate stendencie s towardsth ein ­ dividualization of land titles, aproces s we discussed for the Letsi Y family and the Latchuet family. These tendencies aremos tcertainl y relatedt othre e factorsno talread ymentioned :migration ,coffe eculti ­ vationan dlan dscarcity . Traditional migrationwa s quite normal (wehav e seen examples inbot h Letsian dLatchuet) ,an dusuall yth eresul to fconflict s atth eresiden ­ tial agnatic family, quarter or chiefdom level. It certainly did not automatically improve one's life-chances.Th e start ofmigration ,whe n the 'pull'-factor,th eeconomi cpossibilitie s oftown so rplantatio nan d colonization areas,becam emor e important than the 'push'-factor from within the chiefdom, cannotb edated .W ehav esee ntha ti nLatchuet ,Y I already worked for theGerman sa tth ebeginnin go fthi scentury ,eithe r freely or as a forced labourer (for the Letsi case, see 2.1.2.6:F). After 1930 there has been a slow migration of family-members to the Dschang-area or to theMung o plantation/colonization zone.Th edistur ­ bances of the fifties caused many ment oflee .A tth esam etim edurin g thisperio dman yurba nactivitie sdevelope d givingemploymen tt oa numbe r ofrefugee swh oneve rreturne dt othei rchiefdom .Thes emigrant s andthei r economic achievements formed aconsiderabl e 'pull'-factorfo rthos ewh o hadremaine d inth echiefdom , asw esa wclearl y inth eLets icase .Unti l the end of the fifties,differentiatio n was,usually ,withi nth elowe r occupational category;i twa sonl yi nth esixtie san dseventie stha tsom e migrantsreache d 'middleclass 'occupation s (e.g.tax iowne ro rdirecto r ofa primar y school)an d 'upper-class'occupation s (e.g.deput ydirecto r 249

ina sectio no fth estat erailwa yenterprise) . Inth eLets i family,apar t from the taxi owner and the high railway functionary, we now find in Douala sevenme n witha relativel ygoo dpositio n instate -o rimportan t privateenterprises .Furthermore ,a tleas tfiv eboy sreache d apromisin g educational level and will probably soon start acareer .Th e Letsi X family and many other familiesi nTs aan dNgang ,prov etha ton ema nwh o succeedsan dachieve sa hig hposition ,ca nofte nb eo futmos timportanc e for the economic take-off ofman y members of the family.Th eLatchue t family still has not yetbrough t fortha simila rman ;th eonl yhel pi s accommodation givenb y somefemal emember s livingi nMbouda ,Bafoussam , Yaoundéan dth eMung oregion . It is clear that theproces s of incorporation frees many people from traditional bonds, making iteasie r for individuals to further their economic,politica l and socialposition ,mainl yb ymigratio n andactiv ­ ities in towns or colonization areas. New asymmetric relations are created, for instance between important migrants and 'clients'fro m their agnatic families, but these relationships dono t further, even lessen, the political,economi c and social integrationo fth eresiden ­ tial agnatic family in the chiefdoms. Now migration has reached the pointtha their snominate db ythei rdecease d fathersrefus et oretur nt o the chiefdo m to take on their responsibilities. Intw oquarter so fTs a andNgang ,I foun dtha t3 4pe rcen tan d4 1pe rcen to fth ehead so fhouse ­ holds were not living in their chiefdoms (Ouden, 1980:50) ,an damon g them were anumbe r ofhead s ofpatrilineages .Thi sals odiminishe sth e strengtho fsevera lagnati cfamilies . Coffeecultivation ,whic hbecam eimportan tafte rca .1950 ,resulte d ina changing attitude towards land. Land became valuable formen ,an deve n 'weak'person swh ower e formerlyconten twit ha smal lntyj qs ,no wwante d to have asmuc h land aspossibl e to cultivate coffee,leavin gmuc ho f thewor k on their coffee plantations toth ewomen .Coffe emean ta cas h incomean dsom eindependenc e formany .Simultaneously , theright so fin ­ dividualme nwer estrenghtene d inth elan dwher ethe yha dplante dcoffe e bushesan dth econtro lo fprincipa lheir sove rthes entya qs diminished . Weals ose etha tprincipa lheir slearne dth evalu eo flan d forth eculti ­ vation of cash-crops and many of thembecam erathe rreluctan tt oshar e the undivided family land with their brothers andsons .Mor ean dmore , the 'guardians' of family land consider themselves as 'owners' ofth e land. Moreover, now that the economic value of land has increased, a growingnumbe ro fprincipa lheir san deve nholder so fntyj qs ar esellin g their land. Inconclusion ,w eca nsa ytha tth echange sbrough tabou tb y thecultivatio no fcoffe eha sha da disintegratin geffec to nth eresiden ­ tial agnaticfamily . -25 0-

The scarcityo flan d found inman ypart so fth echiefdom si srelate dt o theecologica l crisescause db yth ecommercializatio n ofagriculture ,a n increasingpopulatio ndensity ,an dth ereluctanc eo fman yprincipa lheir s to cede,t o theirbrother s andsons ,mor etha ntin yplot so fland .Lan d scarcity inman yconcession sno tonl yform sa 'push'facto r formigration , itals omean stha tme ntr yt odefen d theirright st oland ,eve nwhe nthe y havemigrate dmor eo rles spermanently . A growing number ofme n refuse toallo w food-cropcultivatio n inthei r fields bywome n othertha nthei row nwive s and father'swidows ,thereb y violating the unity of thepatrilineag e withregar dt oth e femalesec ­ tiono fth efamily . Inhe rboo k 'Womeno fth eGrassfield 'Phylli sKaberr y (1952; 30,49-52 )discusse sth e 'Ngietype 'o flan dtenur ei nsom e partso fth eBamend aare awher eth elineag eorganizatio ni s relatively loose,th elineag ehea dha slittl eauthorit yove r hismal edependants ,an dwher e arable landi srelativel y scarce.Thi spictur ecorrespond s toth esituatio ni nman y partso fTs aan dNgan gi n1978-198 0a sd oth econcomitant s ofthes etw opoint s inth efiel do fth elan dright so fme n andwomen .Kaberr ydiscusse s (idem50 )ho wme nbecome ,o n marriage,economicall y independentno tonl yi nrelatio nt o eachother ,bu tals oi nrespec to fthei r fatheran dth e lineagehead .A marrie dma ni sfre et opaw no rsel lhi s palmtree san dhi s landt ome no fth esam etribe ,withou t anyreferenc et oth elineag ehead ,thoug hnormall yh ewoul d consulthi s fathero rhi s father'ssuccessor . InNgi ealso , 'thepledge ,i ntheory ,i sindefinitel y redeemable;bu ti f manyyear shav eelapsed ,ther ema yb eattempt sa tshar ppractice , thefarme rclaimin gtha th eoriginall ybough tth eplo tan ddi d notreceiv ei ti npawn. 'Fo ra woma nw ese etha tonc e 'shegoe s toliv ewit hhe rhusband ,he r fatherma ybrin gpressur e onhe r tosurrende rhe rclaim si fh erequire sadditiona l landfo ra newwif eo rfo ra recentl ymarrie d son'.Als oi nTs aan dNgan g we findtendencie s inthi sdirection .Kaberry' sfinding swar n ustha tlan dscarcit yma yb esufficien treaso n forindividual ­ izationo flan dtitles ,th efragmentatio no fminima l lineages wherethes eentitie swer eno tstrong ,an dth eweakenin go f theland-right so fwome no nthei r father'sconcessions .I n Tsaan dNgang ,ideologica lchange sar eslowe rtha nreality : tosel l family-land isconsidere d tob erobbin gbrother s andson so fthei ropportunit y toliv ean dmak ea livin gi n thechiefdom .Likewise ,sister san ddaughter s shouldhav e land forcultivatio no nyou restate .O nth eothe rhand , thepawnin go flan dan dtrees/bushe sha slon gbee naccepted .

Mosto fth efactor smentione d inrelatio nt oth edeca yo fth eresidentia l agnatic family-unit favour agrowin gimportanc eo fth epolygynous/mono - gamous household in that formerly-'dependent'male s become moreinde ­ pendentpolitically , economically andsocially .Th etw ocase sdiscusse d in section2 clearly show that considerable differences exist inth e rapidity of decay of theminima l patrilineages and the growinginde ­ pendence of the male members.No w it is only partlytru etha tpolygy - -25 1-

nous and monogamous families as integrated units are acquiring more household functions.Thi sbring su st oth esecon dproces so f 'household'- individualization:th egrowin g importance ofth ematrifoca lunit . 2. Inth e 'pre-coffee'perio dmatrifoca lhousehold swer eobviousl yim ­ portantwithi nth epolygynou s ormonogamou shouseholds ,bu t simultaneously therewa sa political ,economi c andsocia lintegratio no f the matrifocal units within the polygynous/monogamoushousehold . The wives and widows living in the compound of their man formed separate cooking units,eac h withthei row nplot so flan d forth ecultivatio no f food-cropso nth eestat eo fth ehusban do rhi s successor,o nth eestate s of their ownpatrilineag e and on anumbe ro fothe rconcessions .I nth e Bamiléké region, it isnormall yth eyounges twif ewh osleep smos tofte n withth ehusban d and,thoug hal lth ewive shav et oprepar emeal s forth e husband atth esam etime ,a ma ndepend si nth e firstplac eo nhi syounges t wife forhi s food.Grandfather's/father' swidow s andwive swit ha numbe r ofhalf-grow nchildre nwer equit eindependen ti nthei ractivities .Dieck ­ mannan dJoldersm a (1980:159 )stat etha tth eindependenc y ofth ematri ­ focalhousehold swa san di srelate dt oth efamil ycycl eo fth epolygynou s household:th eindependenc eo fwome nbecomin ggreate r asth ehusban dgre w older andwithdre w fromth emanagemen to fhi sestat e (withouta brothe r orso ntakin gove rth e affairs!).O nth eothe rhand ,th e 'original'inte ­ grationa tth eleve lo fth epolygynous/monogamou s household couldhardl y becompare dwit hth esituatio nnow . Itwa sth ehea do fth epolygynous/monogamou s householdwh odecide dwhic h plotsshoul db elef tfallo w foranima lhusbandr y andh ereceive dpar to f those food-crops,whic h couldb ekep tfo ra lon gtime ,fro mever ywoma n cultivatingo nhi sestate .I nreturn ,h ehelpe dhi swome n (onlyfather' s widows,ow nwive san ddaughters )t oobtai nsufficien tsowin gmaterial . Menneede d followerst ohel pthe mperfor m thenecessar ymen' s activities (theconstructio no fhut san d fences,anima lhusbandr y and,las tbu tno t least, defence or evenoffence )and ,therefore ,the ywer ever ymuc hin ­ terested in thewell-bein g and support ofbrother s and sons.Brother s and sons (an anthropologist is often confused aboutth edifferenc ebe ­ tween these two categories because of thechildre nproduce db ywidows ) enteredth ehous eo fthei r 'father'a ta ver yyoun gage . The factors undermining the integration at the polygynous/monogamous household level largely coincide with the factors 'attacking' the residential agnatic family and, consequently, are immediately related to the processes ofmarket - and institutional incorporation intoco - 252-

ordinating systems. Disintegrating effects undermining the broader household unit can originate from both themal e and femalesection so f societies. Thedecreas e ininterna l andexterna lwarfare ,les sanima lhusbandr yan d the related tasks forme n (construction of fences), changes inhouse - construction,al lmea ntha tmen' sactivitie shav ebecom eles simportant . 'Originally', i twa s necessary forme n tohav e followerswh ohelpe di n carrying out themen' sman y tasks,bu tgradually ,havin gman ybrother s andson sha sbecom ea burde ninstea do fa blessing .Me nno wurg ebrother s and sons tomigrat e and try tobecom eeconomicall y independents otha t they can help thepeopl ewh oremai nbehin d inth echiefdo man dhel pre ­ latives who are trying their luck 'abroad' in towns and colonization areas. Previously, men took theboy s under their protection; nowadays boys still stay inth ehous eo fthei r 'father'durin gth enigh tfro ma n early age,bu t thebon dwit hth emothe rha sbecom emuc hmor eimportant . Themother softe npa yth egreate rpar to fth esons 'schoo l feesan dothe r expenses and, ifpossible , help them financially during the difficult firstphas eo fmigration . In the fifties, animal husbandry was displaced by the cultivation of coffeea sa sourc eo fincom ean dactivity .Coffe ecultivatio n inTs adi d notmea n thatme nreall ystarte dt owor k inagricultur e (insom echief - doms men aremor e active in agriculture;Ouden , 1980:3) .Me ngav eu p theirright st opar to fth ewomen' sproductio no ffood-crop si nexchang e forth ewomen' swor kweedin g around thecoffee-bushes ,pickin gth ebeans , etc. Ifthei r 'own'wome n (thosewh ocultivat eo nthei restates )canno t cope with the work on the coffeeplantation ,me nar equit eprepare dt o pay female day-labourers instead of doingmuc ho fth ewor kthemselves . If, formerly,th eftwa kne wth ewome nwel lwh ower ecultivatin ghi sestate , nowadays it isno trar et ofin dsituation si nwhic hth eme nnee dfemal e assistancet oindicat et oa strangel ycuriou santhropologis twhic hwome n in fact are cultivating which plots onthei rconcessions .Me nno whav e nothingt od owit hth ecultivatio no ffood-crop s andeve no nthei rcoffe e plantations their activities are limited. Lastbu t not least, on the men's side, we find 'chefs deménage' ,head s of households,eagerl y leaving their responsibilities in the chiefdom in order to try their luck 'abroad',leavin gthei rbrothers ,son san deve nsom eo fthei rwive s to look after themselves inth echiefdom .Migratio n inman ypolygynous / monogamous households has furthered the increasing independenceo fth e matrifocalhouseholds . On the female side,w e find factorswhic hundermin eth eintegratio no f the polygynous/monogamous household and further the importance ofth e matrifocalhousehold . -25 3-

Inth e firstplace ,w e will havet oremembe rtha tcommercializatio no f agriculture inthes eregion sstarte dwit h food-crops.Wherea sme nreacte d to theproces s ofincorporatio n intoco-ordinatin g systemsb ymigratio n orb ystartin gtrad ean dtranspor tactivities ,wome nextende d theiragri ­ cultural activities,eve ni ntsw aarea swhic hwer e formerlyto odangerou s forthem .Wome nreceive d theprofit s fromthi sfood-cro p sectiono fagri ­ culture but, on the other hand, becameresponsibl e fora grea tdea lo f the increasing financial expenses of herself,he rchildre n andeve no f her husband. Now that land isbecomin g scarce in the chiefdom, women start quite independently cultivatingo na typ eo fshare-croppin gbasi s inarea stha twer epreviousl y empty, forinstanc eth eBambouto smountain s and theNou nvalle y (Ouden,1980 :63 ,64 )o rthe ywor ka sday-labourer s inthes eregion so ri nth echiefdo m itself (thepickin go fcoffe ebeans ) (Dieckmannan dJoldersma ,1980 :32 ,3 3an d 45). Smalltrad e andhandicraft s sucha sma tplaitin gals oprovid e someincom e fora larg enumbe ro fwome n (Dieckmannan dJoldersma ,1980 :47-55) . Now women no longerhav e amonopol yo fth eagricultur e inthei r fields: inman yplot sw e findtha tcoffe ean d food-crops arecombine d ina mixe d cropping system. It is clear thatthi s system causes frictionbetwee n men andwome n and again furthers the isolation ofbot h sexes and, of course,o fth ematrifoca lunits .I n1970 ,Gosseli n (1970:67 )wrot eabou t theoutburs to ffrustration s resulting fromth eintroductio no fcoffee : 'Cetteruptur ed'équilibr e entre lesdeu xmoitié sd el asociét é bamilékésembl eavoi rjou éu nrôl eimportan tdan sle strouble s récents.L adestructio nd enombreuse splantation sd ecaf ée na étél'un ede smanifestation s lesplu scaractéristique s et,à premièrevue ,le splu sdéconcertantes .Ell etradui tsan sdout e lemécontentemen tprofon dde sfemmes ,qu ion tvu ,a ucour sde s années,le sculture s arbustivesempiéte rpe uà pe usu rle s terresqu'elle sexploitaien tentièremen tautrefois .U nte l conservatisme des femmesétai tdon csurtou tun erevendicatio n antimasculine eti ls'es tmanifest é avecun eviolenc eparfoi s aveugle.' Noww eofte nals ofin dtha twome nsuccee d inpreventin gth ecoffee-bushe s fromgrowin g 'properly'b ydamagin gth eroot san dperhap seve nb yburnin g themdown . Changeshav ebee nver yrapi ddurin gth elas tdecade san dne w formso fintegratio na tth eleve lo fth epolygynous/monogamou s households inman y familiesar eabsen t (especially inthos e wherehardl yan yadul tme nar eleft )o rdevelo pslowly . Inth e fieldo fth edivisio no flabou ro na numbe ro festate sw efin d a situationi nwhic hbot hmen ,wome nan dchildre nco-operat ei n thecultivatio no fcoffee .Als oi ti sno ttru etha tw eneve r findfamilie swher eme ntak econsiderabl e financialresponsi - -25 4-

bility forexpense so nbehal fo fth ewome nan dchildren . Moreover,o na numbe ro festate sw e findtha tme nrestor ethei r leadingpositio nove rthei rwome ni na nasymmetri cpatter no f relations.Her e Ishoul d liket orepea tthat ,i nth eeconomi c field,o na fe westate sme nmanage d togai ncontro love rth e cultivationright so fwomen :in 'som ecase swher elan dwa sver y scarcew efin dtha tme nrestric tth ecultivatio nright st o theirow nwive san dt ofather' swidows .I ti sinterestin gtha t ona ver y largeconcessio ni nth echiefdo mo fNgan gth ehw a notonl y forbadeal lwome nbu thi sow nwive st ocultivat ei n 'his'fields ,bu tals odemande dtha tthe ycultivat e food-crops forhi sbenefi to nspecifi cplots .Whethe rw elik ei to rnot , isthi sth ene wtyp eo fagricultura l entrepeneur?

Inth elas tpar to fthi sretrospec t Iwil lbriefl y recapitulateth emai n problems in the Tsaagricultura l system,whic hmos tprobabl yca nb ege ­ neralized for many other chiefdoms of the Bamiléké, and will mention eventual strategiest oimprov eth eagricultura lproductio no fthi sregion . Starting with the female 'half'o fsociety ,wha tar eth emajo rproblem s of food-crop cultivation? Anincreasin gnumbe ro fwome nd ono thav eenoug hlan dt oproduc eth efood - crops necessary to feed their 'dependants' (children,husband ,ow nan d husband's brothers if theypas sby , etc.), andmus tbu yadditiona l food inth emarke t forwhic hsom eadditiona l incomei snecessary .Th eaverag e surface area of 1000m 2 cultivatedb ymarrie dwome ni nth ewester npar t of Tsa as calculated by Dieckmann and Joldersma (1980: 40,an d57-60 ) mayb eto olow ,th edifferenc ewit hth eca .526 0m 2 (1.3acres )mention - edb yKaberr y (1952:40)i sconsiderable . Moreover17 ,th efertilit yo fth e soil is deteriorating inlarg earea so fth echiefdo mbecaus eo fth eal ­ mostpermanen t cultivation withoutth eus eo fsufficien tmanure .Culti ­ vation of food, at awalkin g distanceo fsevera lhours ,a si nth eNou n valley,i sonl ypossibl e forstron gwomen ,wh oar eno thindere db ysmal l children. The mixed-cropping system onman yplot swher ecoffe ean d food-cropsar e grown canb e understood ashamperin gth e food-cropproduction .Now ,me n are often very careless about the supervision of their coffees otha t

In relation to this point, investigations are now being carried out among Tsa migrants ina colonizatio n areao fsouther nCameroo n where theparticipatio n ofme n inhousehol d expenses is expected to be higher than inth e native-chiefdom (Bruggen andEynatten , 1981, forth e 'Sodenkam region'). 16 Iti s quite normal in these areas to find ase xrati oo f45 %me n and55 %women ,wit ha strikin g femalebalanc e inth ecategor y20-5 9 years. According tom y census in aquarte ro fwester nTs ai n197 8 men in the category20-3 9year s formed4*s %o fth etota lpopulatio n andwome n 15%;i n the category 40-59year sthes epercentage swer e 17 4Han d7 respectively . Ina quarte ro feaster nTsa ,Leesber gan dWitt e (1981)estimate d an average of 0,372ha ,372 0m 2, per woman, spread over some eleven plots. 255

women can obstruct theexpansio no fth ecoffee-bushe s inorde rt osafe ­ guardthei row ncrops . Atpresent , the governmento fCameroon ,lik ei ns oman yothe rcountrie s inAfrica , ismuc hmor e interested inth eproductio no fcash-crop sfo r export than in food-crops,eve n if the latter could be important for export. Although the extension service of the Ministry of Agriculture shouldpromot eal lsector so fagriculture ,i ti sno tdifficul tt oestab ­ lish that its efforts, in co-operation with the official coffee co­ operative UCCAO, are mainly directed atth epromotio n of coffee. It shouldb enote dtha tth eextensio nservic eha sexclusivel ymal eofficial s who almost only have contacts withmen ;eve nproblem s concerning the productiono ffood-crop s arediscusse dwit hmen . It is difficult to guess inwha twa yth eproductio no ffood-crop swil l beaffecte db yth eunwillingnes s ofgirl swit ha college -o reve nonl ya primary school education, to do the hard work in thefields .Th esam e canb e said about the government lawpromotin g individual landtitle s and leaving out the cultivation rights of women.Th e tendency ona growingnumbe ro fconcession s torestric tth ecultivatio nright sonl yt o wivesan d father'swidows ,migh tcaus egrea tdifficultie s forman ywome n and a further deterioratingo fsoil-fertilit y onconcession swher elan d isver yscarce . A number of factors exercise anegativ eeffec to ncoffe eproductio ni n thisarea .Th eproductio n ishampere d inth efirs tplac eb ymen^ sreluc ­ tance to do agriculturalwor kan dt oinves ti nagricultura lproduction . 'Tsa men do not work in agriculture' is a remark often madeb y the members of this chiefdom.Th eLets icas emake si tclea rtha tsufficien t land isno tal ltha ti srequire d ifagricultur e ist osucceed . Ifcapita l isavailabl ethi swil lb einveste d intrad eo rtranspor tan dno ti nagri ­ culture. The economic elite,whethe r residing inTs ao relsewhere ,ar e notintereste d inincreasin gth eeconomi cpowe rwithi nth echiefdom ,fo r instancei nagriculture ,wher e familyrelation swithi nth eminima lpatri - lineagestil lfor ma 'burden'.I nthei rhomeland ,member so fthi selite , usually restrict themselves to thebuildin g ofa beautifu lbungalo wa s an expression of conspicuous consumption, and togivin gsom efinancia l aidt oclos erelatives . The competition between coffee and food-crops wherewome nhav et ocar e forth ecoffee ,certainl yha sa ba deffec to ncoffe eproduction . Migration is furthered by the economic situationi nth echiefdo mwhic h makes it impossible forme n to acquireth estandar do flivin gthe yar e after.Traditiona l professional specializations such asblacksmit han d carpenter, various categories of medicine men and chiefdom officials meetwit hgrowin gcompetitio n fromindustria l goods,hospitals .Christia n 256

priests,governmen tauthoritie s etc.Moreover ,lan dscarcit y inman yarea s means that agriculture does not offer manyemploymen tpossibilities .A specialproble m istha tmigrant sals oge tntyj qs an dd ono tmak earrange ­ ments for the continuationo fth ecoffe ecultivatio nbecaus ethe yjeal ­ ously guard their land rights (often amothe r is incharg eo fth emi ­ grant's crops). Inth eLatchue tcase ,thre eme no fth eX familyar elivin go n theconcession ;th ethre eadul tme nwh ohav emigrate dhav e rightst oa tleas tfift ypercen to fth eX land. Inth eLets iX familyw e find,i n1978-1980 ,fou radul tme nan d fifteeno r sixteenme nlivin gelsewhere . Inth enka 'area ,thes emigrant s control abouton ethir do fth eland .Now ,i nth etsw aarea , a loto flan di sstil lno tdivided ,bu twher etemporar yar ­ rangementshav ebee nmade ,almos tal lth e 'divided'lan di s allottedt oson so fA I andAII Iwh oal lliv eoutsid eTsa . Nowadays, on many estates we find that even when principal heirs restrictth entyj gs t obrother s andson st otin yplots ,the ythemselve s oftend ono thav eenoug hlan dt ocontinu e farming.Th eLatchue tcas eil ­ lustratesclearl y anorma l situationi nwhic hme ncanno tpossibl ycreat e plantations which could everyiel da sufficien tincome .Poultr y farming is sometimes tried in these situations,bu t so far hasappeare d tob e veryrisk ybecaus eo fepidemics .O nth eothe rhand ,w e findman yestate s where hardly anyme n are left and this hampers thecoffe eproduction . Hereagai nw eca npoin ta ta facto rcausin gdifficultie s andproblem si n manyex-triba l societies.I ti squit e impossiblet omak edefinit esingle - stranded arrangements with members of the patrilineage or evenwit h people of the quarter or chiefdom forth erunnin go fspecifi ceconomi c affairs. This is also present in another factorwhic h has anegativ e effect on coffee production. Ifa ma ngrow sol di ti salmos timpossibl e tohav eth esupervisio n andwor kdon eb y aso no rbrother ;becaus eo fth e inheritance there is distrustbetwee nth eme nan dbetwee nthei rmother s andth efea ro fconfiscatio no fth elan db yrelatives .O nestate sru nb y ageing men,w e often finda nextrem eneglec to fagriculture .Successor s thinktwic ebefor edecidin gt oretur nt oTs aan dtryin gt ostar tgrowin g coffeean dplantain s again (see2.1.3.1) . The factors mentioned sofa rrefe rt o 'internalproblems 'i nthi sBami - léké area. Besides this, the price that UCCAO, 'Union Centrale des CoopérativesAgricole sd e 'Ouest' (until197 8 'Unionde sCoopérative sd e Café Arabica de l'Ouest)i sauthorize db yth egovernmen tt opa y forth e coffee is low.Th emeasure s to renew the coffee-bushes, subsidies on fertilizer etc.ca nb e called stimulating, thecoffe epric ehoweve ri s not (compare Tchouama, 1980:e.g . 50,58 ,127) .Her e we will have to remember that men often sell their coffee before harvest to farmers/ business menwh o have sufficient money atthei rdisposal ,thereb yeve n diminishing theprofi t of coffee production. Theanalysi so f 'internal -25 7

factors1 should warn ustha tmen' sproductio n andcar eo fcoffe e isno t completely dependentupo nth epric eth egovernmen ti sprepare d topay .

Lookingbac ka tth ecomple xo finterrelate dproblems ,ca nsuggestion sb e madet oimprov eth esituation ?Thre ebroa d strategieso fdevelopment ,o r acombinatio no fthes estrategies ,coul db etake nint oconsideration : a. thepromotio no fmigration ,thu sdecreasin g thepopulatio npressur e onth eland ; b. thepromotio no fcoffe eproduction ; c. furtheringth ecultivatio no ffood-crops . Government action at this moment is directed at increasing migration (the 'youngfarmer s schemes')an da taugmentin gth eproductio no fcoffee . Measures inbot h fields have been taken to further national interests (the start of agriculturalproductio n inunder-exploite d areas andaug ­ menting the revenues from export-crops) an d not somuc h to solve the economic problems of this Bamiléké area.On e may suspect thatth ene w development scheme for this Bamiléké table-land byUCCA Oan dth eWorl d Bank ('Développementde s Hautes Plateaux de l'Ouest')i sals odirecte d primarily at augmenting thecash-cro pproductio n forexpor tan dsolvin g the foodproblem s ofth etown sb y starting large-scaleplantation s (for instancemaize ,rice ,te aan dcoffee )i nsparsel ypopulate d areaso fth e Nounvalle y ando nth eslope so fth eBambouto smountains . From our analysis of the situation inTsa ,i twil lb eclea rtha ti ti s difficult topropos e strategies for development directed at improving theeconomi cconditio no fme nan dwome ni nth esmall-scal e farmingsystem . Letu str yt oimagin e someo fth eeffect so fth estrategie smentioned . a. Infurtherin gmigratio nth eare awil lb edeprive do fa neve ngreate r sectiono fit sproductiv emal epopulation .A smigrant swil lkee p their claims on land inth e chiefdom,migratio ndoe sno tmea ntha tth e men leftbehin d (thosewh odi dno thav eo rhav eno ttake nth echanc et o migrate or who had to return)hav emor elan da tthei rdisposal .I tap ­ pears that themigratio no fme ni saccompanie db ya migratio no fwomen , althought oa muc hlesse rdegree .Migratio nthu spromote s asituatio ni n whichth eburde no fth ematrifoca lhousehold s restso nth ewome nwh ohav e tomanag e their affairs without much help fromth emen .Th eeffect so f an increased migration ofme n on the development of theare awoul db e very negative.W e already know too manyregion si nth eworl dwher eth e few remaining men cannotfin dsufficien temployment ,wherea sne wactiv ­ itiescanno tb einitiate dbecaus eth enecessar yman-powe r ismissing . b. Promoting the production of coffee means increasing thewomen' s difficulties ingrowin gthei r food-crops.I fme ncoul db e stimulated -25 8-

to take agreate r interest in coffee,thi swoul db e followedb ya nin ­ crease in the area where coffee isplante d and astricte r supervision overth ecultivatio no fth ebushes .A smuc ho fth ewor ki sdon eb ywome n (exceptprunin gan dtreatmen tagains tdiseases) ,i ncompensatio n forthei r rights to cultivate food-crops,w eca nonl yexpec tsom eincreas ei nth e income ofwome nwh oar ehire dt owork .I twoul db ewron gt oassum etha t anincrease d incomeo fth eme nwoul d automatically alsoimprov eth ewell - being ofwome n and children. Inpromotin gth eproductio no fcoffe eon e has tob e very careful not tomak eth esituatio no fwome nan dchildre n worsei nthi sare awher eKwashiorko ri srife . c. Food-cropproductio n canonl yb e supportedver ycarefully .A sagri ­ cultural expertshav eassure dme ,radica lchange sca nonl ydiminis h theproductio n invie w of thever y intensive way womenno wcultivate . Possible improvements should startfro mth eexistin gmixed-croppin g system inwhic h coffee and food-crops are growni nth esam efield .O nmos to f theestates ,wome ncanno tspar eterrain s forcoffe egrow na sa mono-cro p where theywil l stillhav et od oth eweeding .Soi lconservatio nan dim ­ provement,bette r plant varieties (useful in amixe d cropping system) and abette r rotationschem ear esubject so nwhic hresearc hca nadvise . Extension should alsob edirecte d atwome nan dshoul dtak eint oaccoun t thatmuc h of the food-crop production mayno tb esol dan di smean tfo r household consumption. Development authorities should be aware of the possibilitytha tme ncoul dtr yt oge ta gri po nth efood-cro pproductio n if thisbecome s more profitable. Ifme n demand part ofth e food-crops andsel lthem ,the nagai nwome nan dchildre nwil lprobabl yno tgai nmuc h fromth e 'improved'situation .I hav e alreadymentione d thatnowaday si t isonl y on some verybi g estateso fBangan gan dBanso atha tme ndeman d thatth ewome ngro w food-crops forthe mo nspecifi cplot so fth econces ­ sions.Anothe rpoin ti stha timprovemen to fth efood-cro psituatio nwil l intensifyth ecompetitio nbetwee nfood-crop s andcoffe ean dwil lincreas e tensionsbetwee nme nan dwomen . Iprefe rno tt oconside rth epossibilit y ofth egovernmen tpromotin gth e food-crop production and also granting toUCCA Oth emonopol y ofbuyin g food-crops atrate s fixedb y the government:t oappropriat e surplusses fromth erura l areasthroug ha monopol y onth epurchas e andmarketin go f food-crops, again the demand of amoder n 'fund of rent' aswit h the coffee,woul d be disastrous.Th e government has already granted UCCAO the right to diversify itsactivities ,an dthi sco-operative /marketin g board has now started themarketin g of agricultural inputs,consume r goods and 'little' food-crops and has even changed its name,althoug h theinitial shav eremaine d thesam e (Tchouamo,1980 :63 ,127) . 259

Forme ,anthropolog y isimportan ta si tenable su st oanalys eth esitua ­ tiono fcommunitie s orsection so fcommunitie stha tge tint odifficultie s becauseo fth eprocesse s ofincorporatio n intoco-ordinatin gstructures . In the Bamiléké areath epower- ,ecological -an ddemographi ccrise san d the concomitant crisis in cognitive orientation, religion,value s and norms have caused seriousproblems .Th erebellio nan driot si nth efif ­ ties and sixties should be considered as an outburst offrustrations . Now the government is in full control ofth earea ,bu t frustrationha s notdisappeared .Wil li tb epossibl e toreduc eth epressur e inth eboiler , direct the steam ina constructiv eway ,o rwil lther eb eanothe rexplo ­ sion?Anothe r rebellionwoul d againb ever ychaoti c andwoul dno tserv e aclear-cu tpurpose ,unles sdissatisfactio n isused/misuse db y 'others', often sections of the new urban elite,withou t a guarantee thatth e situation of the 'followers' will be improved. I consider thatth e governmentshoul dsomeho w implementscheme s forth eimprovemen to fsmall - scale agriculture in theare aan dpromot eoff-far m activities favouring bothth emal ean d female sectionso fth epopulation . Tomentio njus ton epossibilit ywhic hcoul db einvestigate d in furtherdetail .Th eare adiscusse dcoul db econsidere d asa pilotregio n forth ebreedin go fchickens ,ducks ,rabbit san d pigsi nth esmall-far munit so fth epolygynous/monogamou shouse ­ holds. Th eproducer s forthi spurpos eshoul db eunite d inco ­ operativeso fconsiderabl e sizewhic hcoul dorganiz e andmanag e (witha 'neutral'managemen to fsalarie d employees,Bamiléké' s butno tfro mthi s area), amongstother sth eacquisitio no fextr a fodder,cold-storage ,marketin g andtranspor tt otown si n Cameroon,Nigeri aetc .Th egovernment ,a tleas ti nth efirs t phase,shoul d jointh eprojec tb yaddin gimprove d andupgrade d veterinaryresearc h stations,a nanima lhusbandr yextensio n service andbreedin g stations.Moreover ,th egovernmen tun ­ doubtedlywoul dhav et ogiv esuppor tb ygivin g organizational assistance andb ysupervisin gth ebusiness-lik emanagemen to f theco-operatives . Ia mmos tcertainl yno tpleadin g fora nin ­ creaseo fth eUCCA Otasks .If ,a si nth ecas eo fUCCAO ,th e govermentdictate sth eprices ,the ni twoul db ebette rt oforge t thisproposal ,fo ri ntha tcas eth egovernmen twoul dmos tpro ­ bablyonl ytr yt oappropriat e extrasurplusse sproduce db yth e ruralpopulatio n forth ebenefi to furba ndevelopmen t (gossips associateUCCA Oimmediatel ywit hth ewell-bein go fAi rCameroo n andth econstructio no ffootball-stadium s inDoual a andYaoundé) . IfI sugges tth edevelopmen to fth ebreedin go fsmal lcattl e Ica nonl yrefe rt oa fe wsmal l farmunit si nTs awher ethi s isdone .Her ei tappeare d thatme nan dwome nwer eco-operatin g inthi sactivity .Th ebreedin go fthes esmal lanimal sdoe s notdeman dmuc hland .Me n 'traditionally' arewel l acquainted withanima lhusbandr y andwome nals ofee lfre et oparticipat e inth ebreedin go fsmal l animals (now,chicken s areusuall y awoman' s affair).Perhap sthi skin do feconomi cactivity , ifsuccesful ,wil lsto psom eo fth emigratio no fme nan d stimulatea ne wintegratio no fth emal ean dfemal esection s atth eleve lo fth epolygynous/monogamou s householdswhich , certainly,coul dals ob ever y favourable forth echildre n ofthi sregion . -26 0-

REFERENCES

Boserup,E. ,1980 .Th epositio n ofwome ni neconomi cproductio n andi n thehousehold , with special reference toAfrica . In:C .Presvelo u and S. Spijkers-Zwart (Eds.)Th eHousehold ,Wome nan dAgricultura l Development.Miscellaneou s Papers 17 (1980)- Landbouwhogeschoo l- Wageningen.H .Veenma n& Zone nB.V .pp .11-16 . Bruggen, C.van ,Eynatten , J. van, 1981.Th e situation ofWome namon g Tsa Migrants in the SODENKAM Settlement Scheme,Cameroon .Agri ­ cultural University, Wageningen, Departments of Home Economics ando fRura l Sociologyo fth eTropic s andSubtropic s (M.Sc.thesis). Delaroziere, R., 1949. Les Institutions Politiques et Sociales des Populations dites Bamiléké. Ie t II.Etude sCamerounaises .Mar s- Juin1949 .No .25-26 ,pp .5-6 8 and127-175 . Dieckmann,N. , Joldersma, R., 1980.Cultivatin g theField san dPlaitin g Mats.Th echange s inth esituatio no fwome ni na Bamilék échiefdom , Cameroon.Agricultura l University, Wageningen,Department so fHom e Economics and of Rural Sociology of the Tropics and Subtropics (M.Sc.thesis) . Dongmo, A., 1980.Qu ' est-ce que le famlah? Le Perroquet (Le Premier BimensuelBilingu ed uCameroun) .No .17 ,Févrie r1980 ,pp .20-22 . Dongmo, J.L., 1974. Production et Commercialisation des Denrées Ali­ mentaires. A destination des Villes dans la Province del'Oues t au Cameroun. Le CamerounAgricole ,Pastora l etForestier .Décembr e 1974,no .145 ,pp .13-46 . Dugast, I., 1949. Inventaire ethnique du Sud Cameroun. Bamiléké. Mémoires de L'Institut Francais d'Africque Noire. Centre du Cameroun.Séri ePopulations ,no .1 ,1949 ,pp .113-122 . Fox,R. , 1967. Kinship and Marriage. An Anthropological Perspective. PenguinBook sLtd. ,Harmondsworth . Goody, J., Buckley, J., 1973.Inheritanc e andWomen' sLabou r inAfrica . Africa (Journal of the International African Institute).Vol . XLIII, 1973,pp .108-121) . Goody,J. , 1976.Productio n andReproduction .A Comparativ e Studyo fth e DomesticDomain .Cambridg eUniversit yPress ,Cambridge . Gosselin,G. , 1970.Developmen te t Tradition dans lessociété srurale s Africaines. (Lecrédi tmutue l enpay s Bamiléké; Le développement communautaire en pays Ibo). Bureau International du Travail, B.I.T.,Genève . Guyer, J.I., 1980.Food , Cocoa, and theDivisio n of Labour by Sex in Two West African Societies. Comparative Studies in Society and History .Vol .22 ,nr .3 ,Jul y1980 ,pp .355-373 . Hurault, J-, 1962.L a Structure Sociale des Bamiléké.Mouto n &Co. , TheHague-Paris . Hurault, J., 1970.L'Organisatio n duTerroi rdan sle sGroupement sBami ­ léké.Etude sRurales ,1970 ,no .37 ,38 ,39. ,pp .232-256 . Hurault, J., 1970.Essa i de Synthèse du Système Social desBamiléké . Africa (Journal of the International African Institute). January 1970,no .1 ,pp .1-24 . Illy,H.E. , 1973.Savin gan dCredi tSyste mo fth eBamilék é inCameroun . A Studyo nth e InternalFinancin go fDevelopment . In:J .Vos s (Ed.). Development Policy inAfrica .Verla gNeu eGesellschaf tGmbH ,Bonn - BadGodesberg ,pp .293-314 . 261

Illy,H.F. , 1974.Brauche n Genossenschaften in Entwicklungsländern ein Vermarktungsmonopol? Das beispiel der 'Union des Coopératives de CaféArabic a de l'Ouest' (UCCAO)i nKamerun .In :H.F . Uly (Ed.). Kamerun.Strukture nun dProblem ede rSozio-Ökonomische nEntwicklung . V.Has e& Koehle rVerlag ,Mainz ,pp .279-295 . Illy,H.F. , 1976.Politi kun dWirtschaf ti nKamerun .Bedingungen ,Ziel e und Strategiende rstaatliche nEntwicklungspolitik .Weltforu mVerlag , München. Kaberry, Ph.M., 1952.Wome no fth eGrassfields .A stud yo fth eEconomi c Positiono fWome ni nBamenda ,Britis hCameroons .London :He rMajesty' s StationeryOffice . Leesberg,J. , Witte,C , 1981.Cor nan dCoffee .A mixe dcroppin gpatter n ina Bamilék échiefdom ,Cameroon .Agricultura lUniversity ,Wageningen , Departments of Tropical Agriculture and ofRura lSociolog yo fth e Tropicsan dSubtropics . (M.Sc.thesis) . LeVine, R.A., 1976.Pattern s of Personality inAfrica .In :G.A . deVo s (Ed.), Responses to Change. Society, Culture, and Personality. D.va nNostran d Company,Ne wYor ketc. ,pp .112-136 . LeVine, V.T., 1964/1977. The Cameroons from Mandate to Independence. GreenwoodPress ,Westport . Ouden, J.H.B, den, 1979. Social Stratification as expressed through Language: a case study of a south Indian village. Contributions to IndianSociolog y (NS).Vol .13 ,no .1 (1979),pp .33-59 . Ouden, J.H.B, den, 1979.Th e process of incorporation with regard to the relations between localpopulatio n andoutsid eworld .Th ecas e of two Bamiléké chiefdoms, Cameroon, in the period 1900-1970. Agricultural University Wageningen, Department of Rural Sociology ofth eTropic san dSubtropics . Ouden, J.H.B, den, 1980. Incorporation and Changes in the Composite Household.Th eeffect so fcoffe eintroductio nan dfoo dcro pcommer ­ cialization in two Bamiléké chiefdoms, Cameroon. In:C .Presvelo u andS .Spijkers-Zwar t (Eds.).Th eHousehold ,Wome nan dAgricultura l Development. Miscellaneous Papers 17 (1980)- Landbouwhogeschool Wageningen.H .Veenma n& Zone nB.V. ,pp .41-67 . Pearse, A., 1968-1971. Metropolis and Peasant: TheExpansio n ofth e Urban-Industrial Complex and the Changing Rural Structure. In: T. Shanin (Ed.). Feasants and Peasant Societies. Penguin ModernSociolog yReadings ,1971 . Sahlins,M.D. ,1968 .Tribesmen ,Prentice-Hall ,London ,etc . Scott, R.A., Shore,A.R. , 1979.Wh y Sociology Does Not Apply:A Stud y ofth eUs eo fSociolog y inPubli cPolicy .Elsevier-Ne wYork . Tchouamo, I.R., 1980.Cooperative s andDevelopmen ti nth eWest-Provinc e of Cameroon. Institute ofSocia lStudies ,Th eHagu e (thesisMaste r ofDevelopmen tStudies) . Turner, V.W., 1957. Schism and Continuity in an African Society. Manchester,Mancheste rUniversit yPress . Wolf,E.R. , 1966.Peasants .Prentic eHal l Inc.,Englewoo dCliffs . Wolf,E.R. , 1969.Peasan t Wars of the Twentieth Century.London ,Fabe r andFaber .