The name is absent

Perspectives of Frank Derek Corfield

A classic perspective on the Mau Mau oath cornes from the official report,
Historical Survey of the Origins and Growth of Mau Mau, by Frank Derek
Corfield. He presented the report to the British Parliament in I960.² In this work,
Corfield traces the development of oathing in chapter six, “The Evolution of the
Oath.” Here, he attempts to trace how the oath transformed from a safe
allegiance oath to the dangerous Mau Mau oath based on “magic and unheard of
bestialities.”³ His account outlines ancient and other pre-Mau Mau Kikuyu oathing
ceremonies such as githathi, thenge, and guthi-urura. In summary, Corfield
suggests these oaths were acceptable. On this point, he states,

“...there was nothing bestial or particularly abhorrent about these early
ceremonies. They only adapted or perverted recognized Kikuyu customs,
and it is probable that the majority of those that took the oath were willing
recipients. The oath itself was almost identical with the original K.C.A
oath...”⁴

Corfield linked the oath with Kikuyu Central Association (K.C.A.) oathing
which subsequent scholars also explored for additional continuities. Corfield’s
account then moves on to describe details of the Mau Mau oath - showcasing the
oathing statements of killing, stealing, and facing the curse of the oath if
statements were broken. Corfield is particularly descriptive in his accounts of one
of the highest Mau Mau oathing forms called the batuni oath, often the fourth
oath type which he defines as,

“a shocking oath by any standards. By the breaking of every tribal
taboo...and by its insistence on the need to kill near relations...only those

² Corfield, Historical Survey, i.

³ Corfield, Historical Survey, 163.

⁴ Corfield, Historical Survey, 165.

30

<<   38   39   40   41   42   43   44   >>

More intriguing information