salivarius UFC/mm2 (MSAM)

White (1959) notes that, in this system, access to agricultural land was exclusively reserved for use by the members who traced their heritage from a common ancestry; a pattern of land holding closely related to patrilineages. The land belonged to the founder of the lineage and passed on to his descendants (White, 1959). This was a common practice among the Shona to access land. Although communal land customarily had no market value, it did not mean that it was freely accessible to anyone and everyone (Yudelman, 1964). The finiteness of land and natural resources was recognized and rationed through an allocation procedure based on kinship and local conventions (Yudelman, 1964). It should be noted that, there was no food shortage in Zimbabwe at the time even if simple technology was associated with the semi- permanent hoe cultivation.

According to Rukuni and Eicher (1994), it was during the early 19th century that the Ndebele migrated from South Africa to western Zimbabwe and set up a rival state. Both the Shona and Ndebele practised the semi-permanent hoe cultivation. When the Ndebele arrived, the Shona

42 traditional agriculture was the centre-piece of a vibrant traditional economy (Rukuni and Eicher, 1994). The arrival of the Ndebele before the colonisation of Zimbabwe affected the Shona agricultural activities as the Ndebele began raiding and extracting tribute from surrounding Shona villages for grain, cattle and people as part of their nation building exercise (Dore, 1993). Scoones and Wilson (1989) point out that, the dominant farming system of the southern Shona was based on intensive, continuous farming of vlei areas (wetlands), the major portions of which were held by petty warlord chiefs, and largely worked by commoners as tribute in exchange for food and wives. According to Holleman (1969), in areas beyond the reach of Ndebele influence, the most common form of Shona settlement was based on shifting rather than continuous cultivation. The process met with little difficulty because land was ample and dwellings easily built.

The semi-permanent hoe cultivation was followed by the permanent hoe and ox-plough which coincided with the advent of colonialism. It is important to note that, the arrival of the Pioneer Column in Zimbabwe in 1890 marked the origins of Zimbabwe’s land problems. The Pioneer Column, under Cecil John Rhodes (British) began the process of land expropriation that created serious land shortage among ‘native’ Zimbabweans (Rukuni and Eicher, 1996). Land shortage among the Shona resulted in overcrowding, overgrazing, deforestation and soil erosion. These problems were identified as being directly attributable to colonialism and were likely to create a grievance. Although the British were not initially interested in agriculture they later became determined to revolutionise agriculture in Zimbabwe after they had failed to find a lot of minerals as they had hoped.

According to Kajoba (1993), in areas where there was a marked presence of European commercial settler farmers on state land, there developed a semi-commercial ox and tractor plough cultivation on traditional land. A widespread adoption of oxen and tractors took place leading to permanent cultivation on relatively large rectangular holdings. Shifting cultivation was eventually replaced by permanent cultivation. Permanent cultivation among the Shona was imposed from outside and made possible by the application of fertilisers and cattle manure (Kajoba, 1993). Dore (1993) attributes permanent cultivation to the colonial government’s centralisation programme and to population growth which made it increasingly difficult to maintain a culture of shifting cultivation. Dore (1993) notes that, the land scarcity and the colonial government’s centralisation programme, brought about a more settled lifestyle, based on continuous cultivation. Dore (1993) and Kajoba (1993) agree that, with

43 colonialism, came dramatic changes for the indigenous people. There was a boom in agriculture in the native reserves. With the introduction of the plough, more extensive areas could be cultivated and indigenous population increased (Dore, 1993 and Kajoba 1993). According to Alvord (1958), colonialists criticised native farming. They pointed to the inefficient and wasteful methods of traditional cultivation: breaking up and ‘scratching’ of the soil, broadcasting seed over an extensive area without the use of fertilisers, and lack of crop rotation or conservation contours. The cultivation of small and scattered patches of land required excessive labour to keep cattle out of crops. It also meant that while pasture around cultivated fields went to waste, areas set aside for grazing were denuded (Alvord, 1958). While colonialists criticised native farming, Bromley (1991) accuses colonialists of having undermined traditional collective management regimes over natural resources. He argues that the individualisation of property led to the breakdown of traditional authority and community regulation over resources. Consequently, common property resource regimes degenerated into open access. Metcalfe (1996) points out that by co-opting traditional authority into district administration, the colonial system created a problem of split authority. As long as communal land resources are both formally state, and informally customary lands, authority and management will be compromised, and open access tendencies will thrive (Metcalfe, 1996). As a result the evolution of a peasantry in Zimbabwe and the development of class- consciousness were all related to land and cattle. The geography of Zimbabwe was a contributory factor to the bitterness felt by the black peasantry. This is because the colonisers allocated land with poor soils to the blacks while they took all mineral bearing and fertile land.