» : ' I I . 73-96 GIAZIERj Jack, 1943- CONFLICT AND ODNCltlATION AMONG THE MBE^ OF KENYA.• University of-California, Berkeley, Ph.D., 1972 Anthropology I- • University Microfilms, A XEI^ Company, Ann Arbor, Michigan © 1972- ^ JACK GLAZIER ALL RIGHTS RESERVTID •• 0 % / I# ^ - . I THIS DISSERTATION HAS BEEN MICROFIIAIED EXACTLY AS -RECEIVED. >l' r i >■ ff ConflJ.ct and Conciliation among the Mbeere oT Kenya By Jack Glatier A.B. (Butler University) 1965- . M.A. (University of California) 1968 N- DISSERTATION Submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in Anthropologyi: t A in the f- GRADUATE DIVISION of lihe UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY s Approved: i • • • o. .... Coomlrttee in Charge r - r r 9 f t f PLEASE NOTf Some pages may have indiStinet print FiImed as received University Mi.crofilms, A Xerox Education Company ■■■ A / 7 '7 V -i- ■ : f Acknowledgements In the course of graduate studies, field­ work, and the preparation of this dissertation,' I have accumulated many scholarly debts which cah be acknowledged here but can be repaid only through . V further anthropological endeavor. Initially, I wish tO'.jthapk the Department of Anthropology, University of California, Berkeley; for the award of an NIH Training Grant (Np. GM 1224) which made- possible both'my graduate education a‘nd fieldwork. My sincere thanks go to Professor George M. Foster, Director of the Training Grant Program during the period of ray Support; thanks are also due to Mrs. Gerry Moos, secretary for the Traineeship Program and Mrs. ^Virginia Raphel, graduate 'secre­ tary, for their assistance in administrative matters during the period pf graduate school and research. In-Kenya, I. received the kindest cooperation of Professors B. A. Ogot and Alan H. Jacobs, both of the Institute of African Studies (formerly the •* *'** Institute for Development Studies). To them I am ■grateful for their assistance in securing my , appointment as 'Visiting Research Associate of the : 4*^ -ii- Institute. The various associates of the Institute including .Stanley Mwaniki, Jurg Mahrier, and Tom Weisner, both informally and in seminars, provided stimulating critipism and.discussion of'key ideas V presented in this study. i also wish to thank Alan Jacobs for first suggesting .Mbeere as a research site. ‘ . Once in the field, the people of Mbeere gradually took me into' their confidence during the » A particularly anxious and difficult-period of changing land tenure. Patiently., they-baught-me kimbeere language and custom. Those who greatly .. helped me are too numerous to name. In the ■(difficult days of struggle with a new language and t’ new way of. life, my wife and I were'aided for -brief • • i - . periods by the following assistants; -Steven Meruti, Jonathan. Mwaniki, Gerald Njiru, Dunstan Mugo, . ' Catherine Ngungi, Caramelina ciaina, arid, for a - Monger period, David Kariuki. During the writing up stage, I was assisted ’with helpful c'fiticism from Professors - » ' ■ I William AShack and Carl G. Rpsberg, Jr. To .Elizabeth Colson, I owe a special debt of gratitude for'her numerous letters of. comment,- criticism. 'f-i .. - 4. - -iii- and encouragement during the period of, fieldworl^. Both in the research and writing of this work, she Brought to bear criticism that- was both cogent and -pdhetrating, enabling me to develop and re'fine major points of argxmient.. Just before my departure from Kenya, David Brokeneha arrived to evaluate the special Rural Development Programme for. Mbeere. It was a welcome opportunity to talk with another anthropologist on the spot about matters which had consumed my attention for "a year. As I was writing up my material, frec^uent exchanges, especiallyV ' ’ -I* concerning land and |Land tenure, between Brokensha and myself were very profitable. I also wish to thank Bjorn Moe and the Eastern Province Planning Team-for permission to reproduce their excellent maps of Mbeere. My wife, Phyl, experienced with me the joys and frustrations of living and doing research in rural Kerfya.. She actively participated in the research, particularly in those areas of special■ «> concern to ;^eere women who, according to Mbeere custom, did hot wish to discuss such matters with a man.In addition, she undertook a collection of . •, X . - i -iv- >■ Mbeere folklore, which I have drawn upon, in pursuit of her own scholarly interests in that field. Most especially, I am grateful to her both for criticism of my writing and ideas and for her o^ numerous insights into Mbeere life. She brought to the field­ work the creativity of an artist' and the discernment .. of a litetary critic and, by sb doing,' helped me to see relationships which otherwise might have escaped me. Finally, I wish to thank Oberlin College-for financial assistance in the final typing and dupli­ cation of this manuscript. Y r Jack Glazier Oberlin, Ohio May 26, 1972 K ' •» -V- Note on- kimbeere/Kikuyu Orthography and Pronunciation ^ The transcription of Kimbeere words and texts follows the standard orthography of Kikuyu as it appears in Benson's Kikuyu-English Dictionary (1964).Kimbeere and Kikuyu are very closely related, separated for the most part by phonological and minor lexical differences; grammatical differ- • ences between the two languages are not significant. A high degree of mutual intelligibility exists between Kimbeere and Kikuyu. s g. A seven vowel sygtem characterizes both Kimbeere and Kikuyu; a, e, _i, o, and u appear and, in addition, two other forms, i and u, occur. These vowels are pronounced approximately as follows: 'v ■ a father e re^ht ^ • i greet.' o ought u boot i b^. u boat % Consonant sounds are similar to those in English, but a b?ief word is necessary concerni,pg the Kiitibeere/Kikuyu c, ;yi, and ng'. C is normally pronounced in Mbeere as English although one may hear a ch version in parts of Kikuyuland. is 5- -Vi- usually Voiced as in that, but agaj.n, vqiceless ^ o' -*■ 5 ' may occur.Finally, ng' , the velar ipasal,' is pro­ nounced as the n£ in singer, apd■it should be distinguished from initial in Kimbeere pro­ nounced virtually as one sound, the hard, £ of get. Phonetic differences within Kimbeere exist between administrative Locations. To the north. * ■ in EvuTOre Location, for example, v is more . prevalent\:han b, although the situation is reversed as one moves southward through Nthawa and into Mavuria (official spelling)J In the latter ■ area, people are more apt to say kabiu (knife),' mubiriga (clan), etc. People in-Evurore, on the ' .V other hand, tend to say kaviu, muviriga, etc. My , fieldwork was carried out in both Mavuria and Evurore Locations, with greater time spent in the latter area. For that reason, Kimbeere terms, which appear in this work will- be as they are used in Evurore, except.in those instances where I give Kimbeere texts -recorded in Mavuria. Finally, official government spelling of .the group and territory is Mbere, but-the people themselves pronounce the word by dravJing out the V jnj^dle vowel, as in "Mbeere".I have .selected the -vii- . ■ <F latter spelling.In Facing Mt. Kenya, Kenyatta's one brief reference to Mbeere uses that form.I am using, the word Mbeere to refer to the territory and to the people, either in the singular or plural. The Bantu prefixes, mu- and a-, referring to one . V Mbeere or to two or more, respectively, have been dropped for convenience. I do, however, use the > term I^imbeere in reference to the language of Mbeere. V- y L' .as- -viii- . LIST OF MAPS AND TABLES V • Maps 1 1. Mbeere in Relationship to the Lands of the Kikuyu, Embu, and Meru ..............21 2, Population 302 3. Locations and Sublocations . 303 4. Altitude 304 5. Land Adjudication305 Tables 1. Comparative Censuses of Mbeere'1939-69 . 27 2.Incidence of Polygyny 62 P 3. Multiple Garden Holdings205 4. Number of Registered Land Cases Mbeere Divisional^ ' Court January, 1959 to August, 1970 . ....... 237 5. Land Disputes in Nguthi Between Groups within a Moiety and Between Groups From Different Moieties270 ■ is> i. .',r - \ - n \ ■ . 9^ TABLE OF CONTENTS V Acknowledgements Note on the Orthography and Pronunciation of Kimbeere/Kikuyu Terms i '........ V List of Maps and Tables viii -f I, INTRODUCTION 1 The problem, its investigation, and • the research setting ......1 a) The problem 1 b) The investigation of the , problem and the research setting jf'. The ethnographic conte^ct 18 The administrative organization of / Mbeere .... ............ S3 /■ Physical environment, population, and economy ...................25 Ethnographic and historical research in Mbeere- ......-........... 29 r‘' II. MBEERE SOCIAL ORGANIZATION32 r Moieties 32 Descent arid descent groups 40 Parish and homestead; organization and I. composition . .. 50 Marriage and bridewealth60 The age organization 72 ' . 'Si III. CIRCUMCISION CEREMONIAL 84 • ■' The physical operation in its historical setting................ 85 The ideology of circumcision . 88 Changing age at circumcision . 106 The ceremonial complex of circumcision110 a)Opposition of the parental descent groups of the initiate: a processual view ■ . 112 b)Secular sources of conflict expressed in the circumcision ceremonial . ...... 121 • c)One Mbeere circumcision: an illustration , , 128 d)Men vs. women 147 Summary and- conclusions154:■ IV. THE OATH IN LITIGIOUS CONFLICT: AN APPEAL TO SUPERNATURAL SANCTIONS T .........■159 An oath-taking procedure: litigation and ritual ......................169 Conelusion iT 197 ; r V. LAND AND LITIGATION 202 Rules of land tenure 203 Land consolidation in Central Kenya and its delayed extension to Mbeere . 222 The anticipation of land consolidation, increasing land disputes-? and the failure of the oath ...................231 \ 9^ a) The process of land con­ ‘ :‘w -■V solidation v'in ^Mbeere 231 b) The anticipation of land consolidation and,changing ■I land disputes . , , . 233 ■c). The use of the ‘’oath in settling land disputes ' 240 d) . Analysis of recent land disputes and the ineffec­ tiveness of the oath .