This paper reports the S.O.A.S. conference on African chronology of July 1966. The poor quality of much of the published work in this field posed serious problems. An analysis of the data assembled indicates 13 years as the most probable value for an average length of reign, and 30 for an average dynastic generation. The conference was, however, impressed by the limitations of this method, and emphasized the need for a many-sided approach. Chronological reconstruction is best attempted on a wide regional base to make the fullest use of both cross-traditional tie-ups and dates fixed by documentary evidence.

The character and quality of the available evidence on the pre-colonial history of the Interlacustrine region of East Africa limit the possibilities of applying any more than roughly estimated dates or eras to events and persons of the region's pre-colonial past. By pooling and comparing the available chronological evidence (genealogies and tie-ins) relating to the dynastic units of the region, one has the means to test the accuracy of the genealogical evidence as well as the evidence linking rulers in one dynasty with rulers in others. Such pooling permits a closer examination of the ‘average dynastic generation’ which is the most useful chronological measurement for the region's past and which is the basis for the existing chronological constructions. With the available eclipse and carbon dates, it is possible to build a reasonably estimated core chronology for the region on the basis of the average dynastic generation. This core chronology may be extended to include states and dynasties—such as those in Busoga—which are connected to the core through tie-ins but for which no eclipse or carbon dates are available. The ‘average dynastic generation’ is not a useful chronological measurement in those Soga states which are marked by extended fraternal and collateral succession. By working through the tie-ins which suggest contemporaneity between certain Soga rulers and rulers in the Interlacustrine core dynasties (particularly Buganda), it is possible to extend the central chronology, and therefore credibly estimated dates or eras, to events and persons throughout Busoga.

The two most obvious conclusions to be drawn from this material are that interlocking relationships and reasonably accurate dating are most reliably established for the very early and the very recent periods. The eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, in particular, seem to be a period of confusion. Even in the best of circumstances this result might reasonably be expected as a consequence of the telescoping of events in a coherent body of genealogical evidence. In this instance, coincidentally, the hiatus in knowledge from traditional sources corresponds to a parallel decline in contemporary Portuguese knowledge of the region. More positively, on the basis of Abraham's scattered notes, there does seem to be a solid base line linking the ‘princely’ dynasties which were established in the eastern part of this zone to the parent Mwene Mutapa dynasty. The mfekane, too, constitutes a major point of reference in a great many of the traditions analysed above. If more dynastic traditions and genealogies can be systematically collected, evaluated, and published for the Mutapa–Rozwi complex, the original goal of this inquiry may yet be fulfilled.

The main reference point for the chronology of the Bemba is their paramount chieftainship, Chitimukulu. A comparison of written records of traditions with the results of fieldwork in 1964–5 shows that it is impossible to determine the antiquity of this title with any precision, or to demonstrate any very clear connection with Luba or western Lunda history. There is however a strong probability that the Chitimukuluship was created some time in the seventeenth century, and it is certainly older than the eastern Lunda kingdom of Kazembe. There is no continuous genealogy of Chitimukulus before the end of the eighteenth century, but from this period it is possible to construct an approximate chronology of their reigns on the basis both of genealogy and of comparison between Bemba, Lunda and Portuguese sources. The first firm dates are supplied by Livingstone, in 1867 and 1872, and Giraud, in 1883. The chronology of Chitimukulu is compared, in two tables, with the chronology of other Bemba chieftainships and certain other chiefly dynasties in north-eastern Zambia and south-western Tanzania.

The tradition of Ngalangi sets out to relate the beginning. It was Feti who began: whence he came is not known. Seeing that he had no companion, but only a dog, he was hunting, and he went to a certain lagoon of the Kunene River and there he caught his wives as they came up out of the reeds. His wives were Tembo and Cĩvi and Coya. Thus they say, Feti wa fetika Coya woyapo, i.e. ‘Feti began, Coya completed.’ Feti and his eldest son, Ngalangi, were hunters of elephants and roan antelopes, and they continued in that wandering life. The kingdom of Ngalangi was founded by Ndumba Visoso, probably a son of Ngalangi, who assaulted and took the town from the ‘va Ngangela’, renamed it Ngalangi and there established the new kingdom. Ngola Ciluanji, another son of Feti, went, it is said, first to Wambu and later to ‘Luanda’ (meaning probably Ngola or Ndongo), establishing in turn these two kingdoms. After Feti's death his wives married: Tembo in Humbi (or Cilengi), Coya in Ndulu and Civi in Ngalangi, thus becoming the mothers of many peoples.

In 1964 the Bamenda Grassfields, then composed of the three West Cameroon prefectures of Bamenda, Wum and Nkambe, had a population of almost 575,000, which was densest in the Bamenda prefecture, adjoining the populous Bamileke prefectures. By 1967 these three prefectures had been increased to five–Bamenda, Gwofon, Nso, Wum and Nkambe– by division of the former Bamenda prefecture into three (Bamenda, Gwofon and Nso) and the addition to Gwofon of the Widekum-Menka area formerly administered as part of Mamfe Division. The distribution and age and occupational structure of the population are discussed in The Population of West Cameroon: Main Findings of the 1964 Sample Demographic Survey (Ministry of Economic Affairs and Planning, 1966). A census was carried out by the British administering authorities in 1953, based on socalled ‘clan areas’—a misnomer. The general picture given in administrative reports and reproduced in the 1953 census ethnic categories was of the broad division of the region into Tikar, Chamba (Bali), Tiv (Munshi) and Widekum, with small refugee enclaves on the northern borders. The significance and doubtful validity of these categories will be discussed in our forthcoming contribution to the Histoire des peuples et civilisations du Cameroun (ed. Claude Tardits), and are dealt with in some detail in E. M. Chilver and P. M. Kaberry, Notes on the Precolonial History and Ethnography of the Bamenda Grassfields (cyclostyled, 1966, for the Ministry of Education, West Cameroon).

The formation of Bono-Manso appears to date from the early fifteenth century, perhaps c. 1420. It is concluded that it was not until the late sixteenth century, during the reign of the ninth king, that the procedures still in use at Takyiman for recording reign-length were first introduced. Muslim influence is strongly to be suspected. Perhaps at the same time, perhaps later, factitious records of reign-length were supplied for earlier generations of the dynasty, on the assumption that three generations make 100 years. Fairly accurate dating is possible for the kings and queenmothers of Bono-Manso during the period 1577–1723, and of Takyiman since its formation in the 1740s. It is no part of this paper to explore the implications of the shortened chronology suggested here, but a date in the early fifteenth century for the establishment of Bono-Manso seems to square well with current thinking.