what restricted by a council drawn from his relatives and the more influential heads of families. Within the tribe the outstanding social unit was the household, i.e. the group of people who clustered about a headman. The headman (umnumzana) was usually more than the head of a single family-he was the responsible head of a group of families who lived together in a single settlement or kraal (umuzi). Such a group might consist, e.g., of a man with three wives and their dependent children, a married son or two, a younger brother, also married, and perhaps a few dependants not related by blood. The settlement was arranged in what tended to be a circle of huts, with an inner circle for the cattle, and was clearly marked off from other settlements. Each wife had her own hut. Opposite the main entrance was the hut of the headman's chief wife, then came the huts of the other wives in order of importance, and then the huts of the married sons, relations, and dependants. The whole household and everything associated with it was under the control of the headman, who was responsible to the chief for the behaviour of its inmates. These households were scattered over the tribal territory at irregular intervals, say a quarter of a mile or so apart; and were not only the local units but also constituted the larger economic units in the tribe. They were the primary groups for the production and consumption of food.

For their subsistence the Natives depended mainly upon pastoralism and hoe-culture. They kept cattle and goats, which supplied them with much of their food, in the form of milk, which was drunk sour, and with the raw material (leather) for some of their industries. The cattle were rarely killed for food, save on ceremonial occasions, meat being obtained chiefly by hunting. In addition crops were cultivated, chiefly of millet and maize, but supplemented by vegetables such as pumpkins, peas, and beans. The cattle were herded and milked by the men, while the care of the fields was in the hands of the women, who were prohibited by religious sanction from having anything to do with the cattle.

The subsistence of the people was intimately bound up with their system of land tenure. In theory all the land occupied by the tribe belonged to the chief, not, however, in the sense of a personal possession of which he could dispose freely, but vested in him and

administered by him as the representative and head of the tribe. He parcelled it out in large areas to various powerful headmen, and by these the other headmen were granted land to cultivate and upon which to build their kraals. Once a man had his lands granted to him, he was secure in his possession of them so long as he continued to live at the spot and his fields were cultivated. The only way in which he could be dispossessed was if the chief turned him out of the tribe. If he left his land it reverted to the people as a whole, and could be reallotted subsequently. Only a small portion of the tribal land, however, was allotted for cultivation and residence. The greater portion, especially the open grass-lands, was reserved for pasturage, while much of the land was used as hunting-ground. Pasture-land was used in common, but its use was regulated by the chief, who decided which portions were to be thrown open to the cattle and which were to be set aside for future needs.

Only a headman would have land allocated to him, and he was at liberty to divide his land for cultivation among his dependants as he pleased. Usually each wife had her own field or fields, and these belonged to her and her descendants as long as she liked to use them. No one else had the right to use them without her permission. The ground was broken up and cleared by the men, and the women then had to hoe, sow, weed, gather up, and thresh the crops. They generally endeavoured to grow enough to last them from one season to another; and each wife had her own granary into which her harvest was put. From this granary she took each day what she needed for her supplies, and with this she fed her husband and her children, besides sending to each of the other women in the kraal a little of whatever dishes she had prepared. Each hut that contained a married woman was thus the centre of an independent economic group. At the same time all the people recognizing a common family head shared, as it were, in the produce of the whole settlement.

The same principle was found in connexion with the cattle. Every man who was the head of a household owned some cattle, but these were not used by the group as a whole. They were almost all distributed among the different huts. When a man married he set aside certain cattle from his general herd for the use of his wife, and

these cattle with their increase henceforth belonged to her hut, and could not be alienated without her consent. Their milk belonged to her particular hut, and the lobola (bride-price) for her son was taken from them. On the death of a headman the cattle attached to each hut was inherited by the eldest son of that hut, who would then become responsible for all the juniors under him. The general herd. which had never been distributed went to the principal heir, the eldest son of the headman's chief wife.

In addition to thus providing its own food-supply, each household also constituted an independent industrial unit. In the main all the articles of domestic use were made within the household. Each household built its own huts, the men erecting the framework and the women thatching the covering. Clothing was made of leather prepared in the household by the men, a woman's clothes being provided by her husband. Wooden utensils, such as milk pots, stools, and head-rests, were made by every man for himself, and similarly every woman made her own baskets and clay pots. Thus practically everything required within the household was made by its members. The one exception to their self-sufficiency was in the case of iron implements, for the making of which there were special smiths.

The division of labour was thus at a minimum, and was chiefly as between the sexes. This absence of specialization meant that there was a general even level of skill, and that not of a very high standard, although occasionally people would be found prepared to expend much trouble and care over the making of their utensils. It also meant that trade and exchange were of little importance, since each household produced what it required for its own use and consumption. There was, however, a certain amount of barter, as in the case of iron, for the smith exchanged the implements he made for grain and cattle. Sometimes, too, a woman who made better pots than others would exchange a pot for the value of the grain it held, if it were maize, or for half its contents if the grain were small; but there was no regular industry of making pots for exchange.

Once the Native had his huts, his utensils, and so on, the only form in which he could accumulate wealth was cattle. The wealth of a household consisted in its herds of cattle; and to a certain extent, indeed,

cattle may be regarded as a standard of value in native life-lobola was paid in cattle, the chief levied fines in the form of cattle, and so on. But there was, however, a limit to the accumulation of cattle by the ordinary Native. There was no motive in native life which would lead to a man's accumulating cattle beyond a definite point; once he had enough cattle to maintain his household, there was nothing more which he could hope to gain by their possession. He could not even contemplate-what we are able to do—a rise in rank or social status due to the accumulation of wealth.

In the native social system rank was confined to the chief and his family, and was dependent entirely upon birth. The chief occupied a very prominent position in native life. He was the head of the government and regulated the affairs of the tribe; he was the leader in war and the chief magician of his people; he settled disputes and tried misdemeanours. By virtue of his official status as head of the tribe, he also played an important part in the economic organization. He was, as it were, the only capitalist-the only person who was really permitted to accumulate wealth. He received tribute from his people, both in kind and in labour. He was given a portion of every animal slaughtered or killed in the chase; the lobola for his chief wife was paid by the members of his tribe; he had the right to call upon his subjects to perform certain tasks for him, such as building his huts or clearing the land for his wives' gardens; above all, he received fees for hearing cases and fines for misdemeanour, and in cases of homicide the culprit paid compensation not to the relatives of the deceased but to him. As all fines and compensations were paid in cattle, he usually became very rich in consequence.

At the same time all this accumulation of wealth by the chief was really made on behalf of the tribe. One quality which was always required of the chief was that he should be generous. He had to provide for the members of his tribe in times of necessity. If a man's crops failed, he would look to the chief for assistance; the chief gave out his cattle to the poorer members of his tribe to herd for him, and allowed them to use the milk; he rewarded the services of his warriors by gifts of cattle; his subjects frequently visited him at his kraal, and during their stay he fed and entertained them. A chief who was poor

or niggardly in providing for his subjects soon found them deserting him for some wealthier or more liberal rival. The chief, then, while accumulating wealth was also expected to distribute it. He had thus a very definite and important role in native economic life-it was he who scattered any surplus wealth there might be, when that surplus wealth was needed.

It was owing to this important economic function of the chieftainship that there was a limit to the accumulation of wealth by the commoner. A tribe was wealthy if its chief was wealthy, and important if its chief was important; but the commoner had no right to become a rich man—the social scheme did not permit of it. Moreover the chiefs were usually very jealous of their economic position, and looked with suspicious eyes upon any of their subjects who became too rich. The wealth of the chief was intimately associated with his office and economic functions, and any member of the tribe who showed signs of growing too wealthy was feared as a possible rival. An accusation of witchcraft would follow, and all the man's herds would be confiscated by the chief. There was thus no inducement for the Native to accumulate wealth either for its own sake or for the prestige it would bring him. Instead he used all the cattle he could afford for obtaining wives and thus increasing his household. The desire for children was, and still is, the fundamental motive in native life; and the larger a man's household was, and consequently the greater the number of his adherents, the more influential was his position. Hence the Native utilized his cattle both in order to obtain wives and to have the means of supporting them; and the desire for cattle, so important a feature of native life, was largely determined by this consideration.

III

Under the influence of European civilization this economic system has been very largely destroyed. The first contact of Europeans with the Natives took place at the beginning of the eighteenth century, in the course of eastward expeditions from the settlement at the Cape in search of cattle, ivory, or any other valuables which could be purchased for useful articles of barter. Generally speaking, this was the nature of the