History Grade 10 P1 November Mock Exam 2 2026 Addendum (Eng)

Mock hlayiso mock exams Practice Series: Grade 10 Exam Preparation WWW.HLAYISO.COM NATIONAL SENIOR CERTIFICATE GRADE 10 HISTORY ADDENDUM NOVEMBER EXAMINATION 2026 (MOCK) This addendum consists of 13 pages. Copyright reserved Please turn over

History 2 Hlayiso/Gr 10 Mock 2026 NSC – Addendum Mock QUESTION 1: HOW DID SHAKA TRANSFORM THE ZULU CHIEFDOM INTO A POWERFUL KINGDOM BETWEEN 1816 AND 1828? SOURCE 1A The source below was compiled by the examiner from various historical accounts. It describes the early life of Shaka and how he became chief of the Zulu. Shaka was born in about 1787. He was the son of Senzangakhona, the chief of the small Zulu chiefdom, and Nandi, a woman of the Langeni people. Because his parents’ relationship was not approved by the elders, Shaka and his mother were not accepted at Senzangakhona’s homestead. While still a boy, Shaka and Nandi were sent away from the Zulu. They first lived among the Langeni, where Shaka was teased and bullied by other boys, and later they were forced to leave the Langeni as well during a time of famine. Shaka and his mother finally found a home among the Mthethwa, a large and powerful chiefdom ruled by Dingiswayo. As a young man Shaka joined one of Dingiswayo’s age regiments, where he soon became known as a brave and clever warrior. Dingiswayo had already begun to build a larger state by bringing neighbouring chiefdoms under his control. He made Shaka a commander in his army. When Senzangakhona died in about 1816, his son Sigujana became chief of the Zulu. Shaka was not the heir. With the help of soldiers lent to him by Dingiswayo, Shaka returned to the Zulu, Sigujana was killed and Shaka took his place as chief. The Zulu chiefdom was still small, with perhaps only a few thousand people, and it remained under the protection of the Mthethwa. [Compiled by the examiner from various historical accounts] *heir: a person who has the right to become the next ruler Copyright reserved Please turn over

History 3 Hlayiso/Gr 10 Mock 2026 NSC – Addendum Mock SOURCE 1B The source below was compiled by the examiner from various historical accounts. It explains how Shaka reorganised the Zulu army and built a centralised kingdom. As soon as he became chief, Shaka began to reorganise the Zulu army. He replaced the long throwing spear with a short, broad-bladed stabbing spear, the iklwa, which was used at close quarters. Each warrior also carried a large cowhide shield that could be used to hook the enemy’s shield aside. Shaka trained his soldiers to fight without sandals so that they could move faster over rough ground, and they practised running long distances. Young men of the same age were grouped into regiments called amabutho. The regiments lived in large military homesteads (amakhanda) that were controlled by the king’s officials. They looked after the king’s cattle and were fed from the king’s herds. Members of a regiment were not allowed to marry until the king gave the whole regiment permission, which usually happened only when the men were in their thirties. In battle the regiments were organised in a formation that allowed them to surround the enemy. Discipline was very strict. Soldiers who showed cowardice in battle were put to death, those who lost their spears were punished, and regiments that performed badly were publicly shamed. Brave warriors, on the other hand, were rewarded with cattle and praised in public. After Dingiswayo was killed by Zwide of the Ndwandwe in about 1818, Shaka took control of the Mthethwa. He defeated the Ndwandwe at the battles of Gqokli Hill (1818) and the Mhlatuze River (about 1819). Defeated chiefdoms were not destroyed: their young men were placed in Zulu regiments, their chiefs were replaced by people loyal to Shaka or allowed to rule under him, and their cattle became the property of the king. In this way people from many different chiefdoms came to see themselves as Zulu. [Compiled by the examiner from various historical accounts] *centralised: controlled from one central point, in this case by the king Copyright reserved Please turn over

History 4 Hlayiso/Gr 10 Mock 2026 NSC – Addendum Mock SOURCE 1C The diagram below was drawn by the examiner. It shows the ‘cow-horn’ battle formation (impondo zankomo) that the Zulu army used under Shaka. ENEMY ARMY CHEST (isifuba) LEFT HORN experienced regiments RIGHT HORN (uphondo) attack the enemy from the front (uphondo) young, fast young, fast regiments run regiments run around the around the sides and meet sides and meet behind the enemy behind the enemy LOINS (umuva) reserve regiments sit with their backs to the battle so that they do not become excited; they are sent forward when they are needed commanders watch from high ground and send orders by runners [Diagram drawn by the examiner from various historical accounts. Not drawn to scale.] Copyright reserved Please turn over

History 5 Hlayiso/Gr 10 Mock 2026 NSC – Addendum Mock SOURCE 1D The source below was compiled by the examiner from various historical accounts. It explains why Shaka has been remembered in very different ways. In 1824 a small group of British traders from the Cape, including Henry Francis Fynn and Francis Farewell, set up a trading post at Port Natal (present-day Durban). They were later joined by Nathaniel Isaacs. The traders visited Shaka’s capital, kwaBulawayo, and received land and permission to trade from him. Years later Fynn and Isaacs wrote accounts of their time in Natal. Isaacs’s book was published in 1836, and Fynn’s diary was rewritten from memory and published only long after his death. These accounts described Shaka as a cruel and bloodthirsty tyrant who killed people for no reason. Some historians believe that the traders exaggerated his cruelty. Books full of shocking stories sold well in Britain, and the traders hoped that the British government would take control of Natal, which would protect their land and their business. Describing the Zulu as savage helped to justify colonial rule. Many of these stories were later repeated in school textbooks as if they were facts. Shaka was murdered in September 1828 by his half-brothers, Dingane and Mhlangana, with the help of his servant, Mbopha. Dingane then became king. Today many historians argue that Shaka should be seen as a nation builder who united many small chiefdoms into one of the strongest African kingdoms of the 19th century. In Zulu oral tradition, especially in the praise poems (izibongo) that were passed down from generation to generation, he is remembered as a great king and a brilliant military leader. Historians point out that both the traders’ accounts and the praise poems must be read carefully, because each was produced for a particular purpose. [Compiled by the examiner from various historical accounts] *oral tradition: history that is passed on by word of mouth rather than in writing Copyright reserved Please turn over

History 6 Hlayiso/Gr 10 Mock 2026 NSC – Addendum Mock QUESTION 2: HOW DID THE DISCOVERY OF DIAMONDS AND GOLD CHANGE THE LIVES OF BLACK SOUTH AFRICANS BETWEEN 1867 AND 1899? SOURCE 2A The source below was compiled by the examiner from various historical accounts. It describes the discovery of diamonds and its early effects. In 1867 a diamond was found near Hopetown on the Orange River. In 1871 large deposits of diamonds were discovered at a small hill that later became the Kimberley mine. Within months thousands of people rushed to the diamond fields, and a town of tents and iron shacks grew up. The discovery of diamonds began a period of rapid economic change that historians call the mineral revolution. The land on which the diamonds lay was claimed by the Griqua leader Nicolaas Waterboer, by the Orange Free State and by the South African Republic (Transvaal). Britain supported Waterboer’s claim and in October 1871 annexed the area as the British colony of Griqualand West. The Orange Free State was later paid £90 000 as compensation. The diggings needed large numbers of workers. Men came from far away: Pedi from the northern Transvaal, Basotho from Basutoland, Tsonga from the area around Delagoa Bay, and Xhosa and Mfengu from the eastern Cape. Many of them walked hundreds of kilometres to the diamond fields. They usually worked for a few months and then returned home with their earnings. Many workers used their wages to buy cattle, ploughs, blankets and, until this was restricted, guns. Chiefs often sent young men to the diggings so that their communities could obtain guns to defend themselves against the Boer republics and the colonial governments. At first some black people owned claims and dug for diamonds themselves. Soon, however, white diggers demanded rules that prevented black people from owning claims, and most black men could find work only as labourers for low wages. [Compiled by the examiner from various historical accounts] *claim: a small plot of ground that a person was allowed to dig for diamonds Copyright reserved Please turn over

History 7 Hlayiso/Gr 10 Mock 2026 NSC – Addendum Mock SOURCE 2B The source below was compiled by the examiner from various historical accounts. It explains how the mining companies controlled black workers. By the 1880s the open pit at Kimberley had become very deep, and mining had become difficult and expensive. Small claims were bought up by large companies. In 1888 Cecil John Rhodes formed De Beers Consolidated Mines, which soon controlled almost all diamond production at Kimberley. The mine owners complained that workers stole diamonds and sold them to illegal buyers, and that they left their jobs whenever they wished. From 1885 the companies began to house black workers in closed compounds. A compound was a large fenced area with rows of rooms around an open yard. Workers signed contracts of three to six months and were not allowed to leave the compound until their contracts ended. They bought food and other goods at a store owned by the company. At the end of a contract each worker was searched carefully, and sometimes kept in a separate room for several days, to make sure that he had not swallowed any diamonds. A system of passes was used to control the movement of black workers in Griqualand West. A worker had to carry a pass that showed the name of his employer, and anyone found without a pass could be arrested and fined or jailed. White workers were not placed in compounds. They were allowed to live in the town with their families. Most of them did skilled or supervisory work and earned many times more than black workers. [Compiled by the examiner from various historical accounts] *illegal buyers: people who bought stolen diamonds (illicit diamond buying, or IDB) Copyright reserved Please turn over

History 8 Hlayiso/Gr 10 Mock 2026 NSC – Addendum Mock SOURCE 2C The sketch map below was drawn by the examiner. It shows the mining centres, the railway lines and the main areas from which migrant workers came by 1895. It is not drawn to scale. Limpopo R. Pedi N (northern Transvaal) Witwatersrand Lourenço Marques (Johannesburg; gold, 1886) (Delagoa Bay) R. al Va Tsonga Bloemfontein (southern Mozambique) Kimberley (diamonds, 1871) Orange R. Basotho TIC (Basutoland) ATL AN Durban Xhosa and Mfengu (eastern Cape) KEY Mining centre Cape Town Port / town Port Elizabeth Railway (by 1895) Migrant workers INDIAN OCEAN [Sketch map drawn by the examiner. Positions and coastline are simplified and approximate; railway routes follow the main lines open by 1895.] Copyright reserved Please turn over

History 9 Hlayiso/Gr 10 Mock 2026 NSC – Addendum Mock SOURCE 2D The source below was compiled by the examiner from various historical accounts. It focuses on the discovery of gold and the new social classes that developed on the Witwatersrand. In 1886 gold was discovered on the Witwatersrand in the South African Republic (Transvaal), and the mining town of Johannesburg was founded in the same year. The gold reef was very large, but most of the gold lay deep underground in hard rock and was of low grade. Deep-level mining needed expensive machinery and huge amounts of money (capital), which came mainly from investors in Britain and Europe. A small group of very wealthy mine owners, known as the Randlords, controlled the industry. Because the price of gold was fixed on the world market, the mine owners could make profits only by keeping their costs low, especially the wages of black workers. The Chamber of Mines, formed in 1889, helped the companies to agree on low wages and to recruit workers from all over southern Africa. Colonial governments and the Boer republics made black men pay taxes, such as the hut tax, in money. To earn this money, many men had no choice but to work on the mines as migrant labourers. A new society with clear divisions of class and race developed on the Witwatersrand. At the top were the Randlords. Skilled white miners, many of whom were immigrants from Britain, earned high wages, and they demanded that certain jobs be reserved for white workers only. At the bottom were black migrant workers who did the hard and dangerous unskilled work underground, lived in compounds and received low wages. Many of them died in accidents or from lung diseases. At the same time a small group of educated black people worked in towns as clerks, teachers, interpreters and traders. [Compiled by the examiner from various historical accounts] *low grade: containing only a small amount of gold in each tonne of rock Copyright reserved Please turn over

History 10 Hlayiso/Gr 10 Mock 2026 NSC – Addendum Mock QUESTION 3: WHY WAS THE NATIVES LAND ACT OF 1913 A TURNING POINT IN THE DISPOSSESSION OF BLACK SOUTH AFRICANS? SOURCE 3A The source below was compiled by the examiner from various historical accounts. It explains why the Natives Land Act was passed and what it laid down. The Union of South Africa was formed on 31 May 1910. Only white men could be elected to its Parliament, and outside the Cape Province black people could not vote. The new government, led by Prime Minister Louis Botha, was under pressure from white farmers who complained that they could not find enough cheap labour. Many black families lived on white-owned farms as sharecroppers or rent-paying tenants. Some had become successful farmers who sold their crops in the towns. White farmers saw them as competitors and demanded that they be forced to work as labourers instead. The Natives Land Act (Act 27 of 1913) came into force on 19 June 1913. It divided the land of South Africa into two parts: • Black people could buy or rent land only in the ‘scheduled’ areas (the reserves), which made up about 7% of the land of South Africa. • Black people were not allowed to buy or rent land from white people outside the reserves. • Sharecropping was made illegal. Black people could stay on white-owned farms only if they worked as labourers for the farmer. A commission was appointed to find more land for the reserves, but very little extra land was added for many years. Because of the protected voting rights of black voters in the Cape, the courts later ruled that the Act could not be enforced there in the same way as in the rest of the country. Its effects were felt most severely in the Orange Free State, where many sharecroppers were evicted from the farms in the middle of the winter of 1913. [Compiled by the examiner from various historical accounts] *sharecropper: a person who farms another person’s land and gives the landowner a share (often half) of the harvest as rent Copyright reserved Please turn over

History 11 Hlayiso/Gr 10 Mock 2026 NSC – Addendum Mock SOURCE 3B The source below consists of a short extract from Native Life in South Africa (1916) by Sol Plaatje, followed by a summary compiled by the examiner. Plaatje was a journalist and the first general secretary of the South African Native National Congress (SANNC). Extract from the opening of Chapter 1: ‘Awaking on Friday morning, June 20, 1913, the South African native found himself, not actually a slave, but a pariah in the land of his birth.’ Summary compiled by the examiner: In the winter of 1913 Plaatje travelled by bicycle through parts of the Orange Free State to see the effects of the Act for himself. He met black families who had been ordered off the farms where they had lived for many years because they refused to give up their cattle and work for the farmer without pay. With their wagons, furniture and livestock, the families moved along the roads, looking for a place to settle. Nobody was allowed to rent land to them. Their sheep and cattle died of cold and hunger, or had to be sold very cheaply. Plaatje described how one family buried their baby, who had died in the cold, at the side of the road at night, because they were not allowed to bury the child on a white-owned farm. Plaatje collected statements from the families whom he met and wrote articles for newspapers. He used these experiences in Native Life in South Africa, which he wrote in Britain to win support for the cause of black South Africans. [Extract: S.T. Plaatje, Native Life in South Africa (1916, public domain). Summary: compiled by the examiner] *pariah: an outcast; a person who is rejected by society Copyright reserved Please turn over

History 12 Hlayiso/Gr 10 Mock 2026 NSC – Addendum Mock SOURCE 3C The graph below was drawn by the examiner. It compares the population of South Africa in 1911 with the division of the land under the Natives Land Act of 1913. 100 93 90 80 70 67 Percentage (%) 60 50 40 33 30 20 10 7 0 Share of the population Share of the land (1911 census) (Natives Land Act, 1913) Black Africans (population) / Land in the reserves (land) All other groups (population) / Land outside the reserves (land) Notes: • The 1911 census counted about 5,97 million people, of whom about 4,02 million were black Africans. • ‘All other groups’ includes white, coloured and Indian South Africans. • Black people were not allowed to buy or rent land outside the reserves. Figures have been rounded. [Adapted from figures quoted in various histories of South Africa] Copyright reserved Please turn over

History 13 Hlayiso/Gr 10 Mock 2026 NSC – Addendum Mock SOURCE 3D The source below was compiled by the examiner from various historical accounts. It describes how the South African Native National Congress (SANNC) responded to the Natives Land Act. The South African Native National Congress (SANNC) had been formed in Bloemfontein in January 1912 to unite Africans and to defend their rights. Its leaders were mostly educated, Christian men who believed that they could change unfair laws through peaceful protest, petitions and appeals to the British government, which they still regarded as the protector of black people’s rights. When the Land Bill was discussed in Parliament in 1913, the SANNC protested and asked the government to delay it, but the Act was passed. The SANNC then decided to appeal directly to Britain. In May 1914 a deputation of five leaders, John Dube, Sol Plaatje, Walter Rubusana, Saul Msane and Thomas Mapikela, sailed to London. They met the Colonial Secretary, Lewis Harcourt, but he told them that Britain would not interfere in the affairs of the self-governing Union of South Africa. In August 1914 the First World War broke out. The SANNC decided to support Britain in the war, and the deputation returned home, except for Plaatje, who stayed in Britain until 1917. The Act remained in force. In 1936 the Native Trust and Land Act increased the reserves to about 13% of the land of South Africa. Laws on land and segregation that followed the Act of 1913 later formed one of the foundations of apartheid. [Compiled by the examiner from various historical accounts] *deputation: a small group of people sent to represent a larger group Copyright reserved