A new interpretation of the military settlements of the northern Nguni
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The migration of the various northern Nguni groups during the nineteenth century is associated with a period of increased and extensive conflict throughout southern Africa. Central to the success of the nineteenth-century northern Nguni kingdoms was the utilisation of a social organisational system known as the regimental system. These regiments were housed in military settlements that would form the core of the various kingdoms’ administrative and military systems. From examining the various military settlements of the northern Nguni kingdoms, two different settlement variations can be observed. The first variant was utilised by the Zulu and Matabele with the second one used by the Ngoni and Swazi. This study advances a new hypothesis relating the nature and origins of these two variants. It is argued that they are more than reflections of the separate historical development of each northern Nguni kingdom and that they result instead from regional developments that occurred within the KwaZulu-Natal province of South Africa. The communities that utilise each variant can be linked both historically as well as geographically, with a very distinct geographical divide detectable between them. The hypothesis presented here therefore argues that these variants are reflective of at least two different and simultaneous regimental systems with different corresponding military settlements.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".