gathered was also compared to material collected two years earlier during the investigation
of state-farm divestiture.
One limitation of the methodology of the study relates to the timing of investigation. Field
research was conducted over the course of one year; all sites were not visited at the same
time. Consequently, fluctuations in the process of land access or level of investment or
conflict may not have been discovered. Observed differences may be a result of inherent
economic, political, or cultural differences among the locations, or they may be part of a
larger pattern of development of the area over time in the postwar period made apparent in
particular sites only because of the timing of researchers' visits. Comparisons among the sites
should be made only on a general level. For this reason we have included four different cases
in this study in order to present a broad picture of land access and evolving tenure relations
in the immediate postwar period.
A second limitation of the study is that we have little or no baseline information regarding
land access, land tenure, and customary authorities in Mozambique from the prewar era.' S
It is therefore difficult to judge what transformations have taken place in local customary
arrangements as a result of war, drought, government policy, and so forth. In many instances
we have relied on the oral histories of the respondents to indicate what changes have occurred
in the cultures, rules, and authorities and what these changes mean for the residents. Oral
histories are an important methodological tool, but questions asked and responses given are
open to interpretation by both respondent and investigator.
18. See Alexander (1994).