Title:
Reclaiming the Forgotten Dynasty: Revisiting the Hwata-Gutsa Narrative and the Erasure of the Mbari-Gurundoro Kingship in Zimbabwean History
Abstract
This paper re-examines the late-nineteenth-century colonial trial of Charwe Nyakasikana (Mbuya Nehanda) and the subsequent manipulation of oral and archival narratives concerning the Gutsa and Hwata lineages. It argues that colonial historians, aided by early post-independence elites, systematically suppressed evidence of the pre-colonial Mbari-Gurundoro royal line that ruled Harare prior to 1892. Drawing on surviving High Court records from 1898, oral testimony, and the historical chronology of the Mbari dynasty, this article exposes how collaboration, distortion, and selective academic interpretation shaped Zimbabwe’s official memory.
1. Introduction
The historiography of Zimbabwe remains haunted by silences—silences produced by colonial record-keeping and perpetuated by internal elites who benefited from selective remembering. Among the most persistent distortions is the elevation of the Gutsa and Hwata clans as primary custodians of Harare’s pre-colonial heritage, while the Mbari-Gurundoro kingship, the true sovereign power in the region, was reduced to a footnote.
Colonial authorities, missionaries, and later academics such as D.N. Beach relied heavily on narrow informant circles, including Professor Zaranyika, a member of the Mhofu lineage—to construct versions of early Shona history that aligned with imperial interests. These narratives have since been repeated as historical fact, despite their internal contradictions and lack of corroborating evidence.¹
2. The 1898 Trial of Charwe (Mbuya Nehanda)
Archival materials held under the High Court files of 1898 (case reference number on record) list Gutsa (aged approximately 22) and Hwata (approximately 50) as native hunters who testified for the prosecution.² Their statements directly contributed to Charwe’s conviction and execution. The testimony of two men identifying as “hunters” raises profound historical and moral questions:
-
How could individuals later claiming descent from Nehanda herself participate in her condemnation?
-
Why have national museums not displayed these trial documents?
-
What motivates continued silence regarding this collaboration?
The absence of these records in public exhibitions suggests deliberate suppression, possibly orchestrated by post-independence bureaucrats seeking to protect or elevate certain lineages.
3. The Myth of the Gutsa Conquest
The popular claim that the Gutsa clan “defeated” or replaced King Mbari collapses under chronological analysis. Historical evidence indicates that King Makombe, Mbari’s successor, was still ruling when the British destroyed Mbari’s kraals on 1 March 1897. By 1898—when Gutsa and Hwata appear in court—Mbari was long deceased, and Makombe’s authority had been undermined by the colonial occupation.
Thus, the assertion that Gutsa or Hwata ever overpowered the Mbari dynasty is historically implausible. Instead, it reflects colonial preference for pliant collaborators whose lineages could be legitimised through rewritten traditions.
4. Collaboration and the Mhofu Factor
The trial also records the participation of Constable Bhasvi, a Mhofu policeman serving in the British Native Constabulary.⁵ His role—like that of Gutsa and Hwata—illustrates the complicity of some African intermediaries in enforcing colonial justice against their compatriots.
This collaboration foreshadowed a broader pattern: Mhofu-affiliated administrators later occupied strategic government and academic positions, shaping the post-independence historical discourse to sustain their dominance. The narrative that the Mbari were “defeated” thus became institutionalised through education and public history.
5. The Contemporary Legacy: The Case of the Possessed Girl
Over a century later, a 13-year-old girl reportedly possessed by the spirit of Charwe has reignited public debate over Nehanda’s true lineage.⁶ The Hwata family—claiming to be spiritual custodians—have failed to stabilise or explain the phenomenon, mirroring their ancestors’ contradictions. This continuing confusion underscores a historical truth: those who once betrayed Nehanda cannot authentically bear her spiritual mantle.
6. The Mbari-Gurundoro Kingship and Cultural Continuity
Before colonial intrusion, King Mbari’s dominion extended across Harare and beyond. He was not a subordinate chief but a Mambo mukuru, the installer of other rulers (madzimambo). Chiefs across the plateau paid allegiance to him.⁷ British administrators intentionally downgraded his title to “Paramount Chief” to diminish his status and justify annexation.
Oral histories from Gurundoro descendants preserve Mbari’s reputation for spiritual foresight and physical strength.⁸ His courts served as centres of justice and ritual, and his burial sites—now obscured by urban development—remain spiritually charged spaces recognised by elders and mediums alike.
7. Silencing the Archives and the Politics of Memory
Why, then, have these facts not surfaced in mainstream Zimbabwean historiography? Several interlocking reasons emerge:
-
Colonial Documentation Bias: British officials often recorded only information that supported administrative convenience.
-
Post-Independence Academic Capture: Scholars dependent on earlier colonial sources perpetuated the same frameworks.
-
Elite Self-Interest: Lineages that benefited from colonial favour protected those narratives after independence.
The National Museums and Monuments of Zimbabwe (NMMZ) have yet to display the 1898 trial documents, a striking omission that calls for scholarly and civic intervention.
8. Reclaiming the Narrative
The Shona proverb “Rinemanyanga hariputirirwe”—a truth with horns cannot be hidden—encapsulates the resurgence of the Mbari narrative. The clan’s long silence should not be mistaken for extinction but for strategic patience. As with Nehanda’s prophesied return, the restoration of Mbari history marks a cycle of historical justice.
This reclamation demands multidisciplinary effort: critical re-reading of colonial archives, archaeological verification of Mbari sites, and inclusion of Gurundoro oral traditions in national curricula. Only by confronting the distortions of Gutsa and Hwata can Zimbabwe reclaim the integrity of its heritage.
9. Conclusion
The 1898 Nehanda trial, far from being a unifying story of resistance, reveals the deep fractures of collaboration, betrayal, and historical manipulation. The Gutsa-Hwata myth served colonial and post-colonial power structures, erasing the Mbari-Gurundoro legacy.
Restoring that truth is not merely an act of historical correction—it is a moral imperative.
References (indicative placeholders)
-
Beach, D.N. The Shona and Zimbabwe 900–1850. Heinemann, 1980.
-
National Archives of Zimbabwe, High Court Trial No. [1898/XXX] — R v. Charwe Nyakasikana.
-
Oral testimony of Gurundoro elders, Harare District (2023).
-
Ranger, T.O. Voices from the Rocks: Nature, Culture & History in the Matopos Hills. James Currey, 1999.
-
British South Africa Police Records, 1897–1898.
-
Contemporary media reports, Harare (2024).
-
Mbari Clan Oral Traditions, collected by Sarupinda J. (2025).
-
Chigwedere, A. The People of Zimbabwe: Their History from the Earliest Times. College Press, 2001.
Comments
About Author
