A Comparison of Afriean Kingdoms J. Vansina Africa: Journal of the International African Institute, Vol. 32, No. 4. (Oct., 1962), pp. 324-335. Stable URL: ‘tips inks jstor.orgsiei?siciG001-9720%28196210%2932%3A4%3IC324%3 AACOAK3E2.0.CO®SB2-P Africa: Journal of the International African Instiuie is currently published by Edinburgh University Press. ‘Your use of the ISTOR archive indicates your acceptance of [STOR’s Terms and Conditions of Use, available at hntp: eww jstor org/aboutiterms.htenl. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in par, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not dowsload an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the [STOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use ofthis work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at bupd/wwjtorong/ournalsfeup ht Bach copy of any part ofa JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the sereen or printed page of such transmission, ISTOR isan independent not-for-profit organization dedicated to creating and preserving a digital archive of scholarly journals. For more information regarding ISTOR, please contact suppon @jstor-org. bup:tsvwo jstor.orey Sat Oet 14 16:39:11 2006(seat A COMPARISON OF AFRICAN KINGDOMS |. VANSINA -T has long been recognized that there is 2 distinctive category of Aftican political systems, Which is characterized by centralized authority.* The preliminary analysis and classification of African kingdoms proposed in this article are based on com- parison of most of the States in Central, South, and Bast Africa. Only a few data on ‘West African kingdoms have been incorporated, but we Feel that the clasification will prove generally valid for West Africa es well 1, Tas Coumon CHARACTERISTICS OP AFRICAN KiNGDOMs M, Fortes and FE, E. Evans-Pritchard defined kingdoms or states, which they labelled group A, by the criteria of centralized authority, administrative machinery, and judicial institutions—in short a government—in which cleavages of wealth, privilege, and status correspond to the distribution of power and authority. This opposed group A to group B, segmentary structures, which have no ceatesl govern ment or sharp divisions of rank, status, or wealth. Nadel characterized the states by territorial sovereignty, centralized government, specialized administeative staff, and the monopoly of the legal vse of force.t * Centralized authority "or * centralized government” means only that the state rust have a common head, the ‘king’, from whom all authority detives. It does not imply necessarily chat there must be other central institutions besides the kingship, although there are central councils, and coucts in many cases. ‘Administrative machinery” consists in essence in 2 1 Ef M. Poses and, E Beane Pritchard, Ajrean Pala! Sytem, London, 194, pp. 1-25. Fot he echnographic sources used to this atiele, cae Appendix, ‘Probably one would have co add a special dass forthe ater subSaburan States, Uhees che Hinge ae ne longer steed and share manp ofthe details of Sdminitation seem to stem fom Islamic models, ‘A further daubdul cae isthe Mende chiefdoms. Ie is sad tha chee the chief i not sated and that he shares politcal power with «be loca) Pore sciet Society. The dac se, however, confused, ecbably becaine the system had ceased to work eflectively bay the rar of he cenatey. We hk i git posinle ‘hae thece yas a rita aspect of cies. which rmarifesed itself oaly (the ince lodge of the Para, and belonged either to che person wih Is described asthe chien he Learanee orto wore othe higher- ‘nlkng ofical (a che Poro, wo would then Bethe equivalent of the "civine king” eleewhere. The “hie would then be only delegate ofthis king" Butthe available data in Lite,“ The Pa Soci sean Acbter of Crue fon Sat 14 Dp. 3-15, a8 his The Mend of Sera Lane, London, 13st, ate not clear TM Bowes and B. B. Brane Pritchard, ep. cit, pia, We have used goes and sate a non Teis possible 20 ditingsh herrcen the two eer. ‘A state would then be a policeal organization where hip tie aze 0 ued a basie prince of org nization in the pater of delegation of suhariy A kingdom wauld be aay palitial organization Shick hee s single hereditary ead frore whieb al authority ters, Used in those senses sot) states have tobe kingdoms, toe would all Kingoms me ‘tates, But in Aen al ingore seem in fact a be fates, iclading even ‘he celebrated Shilue cate, ‘This ig bused to such an extenc on Inheritance of cheftainep ia local doivent incoges that fe ca bse son as 4 cascofsegmentary lineagertmicnire But es equally ponte to sera the Sat that whoever feaides ind admicierative unis, watever hit in antexions, accepts the authority of the lea chi tain. Even thir cae cane considered tobe 4 eat, EA, Bast, The Nites of fe Angh Eaprian Sidon nd Upids, Etaagraphie Survey of Atriea. Fare Geowal Alsta, pari, London, 1438, 9p. 41-36 and cspeclly pp. ensy. Thae'a borderline cae should eens betwen diferent types of politcal organtna: tons i to be expeced, Osher sch cates ace the ‘Alue and ese Zande SUE Nadel, Black Ryscntan, London, 194%, P65,A COMPARISON OF AFRICAN KINGDOMS 35 delegation of authority hy the head of state to chiefs of smaller territorial units, the provinces, eventually to subchiefs of distccts, and finelly to headmen of villages ‘The inhabitants of the territorial subdivisions are not necessarily linked to their heeds by ties of kinship, and kinship does not necessarily function as the basic principle of organization in the pattern of delegation of authority. We should then define African kingdoms as sovereign political groups, headed by a single leader who delegates authority to cepresentatives ia charge of the territorial vaits into which the country is divided. If this definition is granted i will be seen that all the kingdoms in Africa have much in common. First they ail have 4 single leader, regarded as a ‘ divine king * in the Prazerian sense. ‘The ideology of kingship is very much the same in all these systems. ‘The king is thought of as enjoying special supernatural powers to ‘which are linked the well-being of his kingdom, If he cannot exercise them the country will suffer disaster in one form or another. These supernatural powers are sometimes thought of as inherent in the kiegship itself or they are bestowed upon the king by appropriate doctoring.* Associated with this hasic belief area number of other beliefs and customs. The kings ate of divine origin of at Jesst rule hy divine right. Their persons are not sacred, but royalty is, and this is expressed by the existence of and the ritual paid to the eoyal regalia, Special rites, taboos, the custom of royal incest, the killing of the old ot sick king, the ptesetving of the growing parts of hhis body— rails and hais—are ll linked with the same belief. “The king is also a symbol of the kingdom.? This is already evidenced by the belicf that his physical well-being is telated to the prosperity of the country. It is expressed in the royal rituals, in the organization of the courts, in the layout of the eapitals, and in the history of the kingdom itself. The king is the kingdom and as such all the land belongs to him in the sense that he has ultimate control over it. Ail the people belong to him. He can command their labour and the products of their lebour. He is their supreme judge and retains the power of life and death. But his power is not unlimited. In most cases his authority is balanced by other institutions—councils and courts—which arc said to represcat the interests of the country whenever they conflict ‘with the interests of the king 2s a person. ‘The delegation of authority is generally a total delegation and comprises legislative, administrative, judicial, military, and even religious authority. Chiefs hold authority ‘because they reccive it feom the king, and authority is often not thought of as divisible into pasts. In theie provinces they will give justice, raise tribute, issve laws, sometimes even wage war and be considered generally 25 ‘ owners” of their subjects, their labour, their goods, and their land all through the one act of delegation, Subchiets receive delegation of authority in the same way from the chiefs and they delegate it further to the headmen of the villages. This delegation of authority may descend for a maximum of three territorial levels below the king, if the kingdom is large, But rwo some believe thatthe king derives his eupemaeural 1 Wh che powile excetion of he Mende and powers diay fom the Kiogship, while overs the exception of tbe more cent subvSaharan #4 from Wada 9 modern Song. "Appropriate coctoring of the king ia very Frequest. CE. Schapers, Cosorset aad Pair ‘Tribal Scien London, 1996, 89. 105-8; A. Rey ard, East Aficon Chifry Loncio, 959) BP. 38, 4o-44 The cae of the Kuba i ilummating, soe rjc thet he derives them from special dactating. robably both atiadee ext o sore degese eee ‘phere a6 ell 2'See BE. Fvans-Pritchacd, The Disine Kighip of the Shit, Capt, 1948; Schapens, 0p 196,24 inttanes.