Nuer Religion - Evans Pritchard

Prévia do material em texto

) 
~ t...-J 
,-/ 
Youth 
NUER RELIGION 
BY 
E. E. EVANS-PRITCHARD 
PROP~SSOR OP SOCIAL ANTHROPOLOOY 
AND Pl!.LI.OW OP ALI, tDULS COLLEGE 
lN TU~ UNlVERSJTY OP OXPOR.D 
OXFORD 
z (/} 
(Jl 
I 
(}.) o 
_Q C() 
AT THE CLARENDON PRESS 
.J' 
·-.:' 
::: 
-:;. 
w 
O' 
Q\! 
J::. 
'·' •.: 
<P 
\'0 
SPIRIT AND THE SOCIAL ORDER 
study of religion, if we wish to seize the essential nature of what 
we are inquiring into we have to try to examine the matter 
from the inside also, to see it as Nuer see it, to examine how 
they differentiate at eadi-Tevelbetweeii-ori:espirit and another. 
Naturally, t)ley do not differentiate between them in sociological 
_terms, but rather by. grammatical distinctions, !Jy r~rences to 
~t, and by ~ of one sort or another. However, were the 
distinctions purely verbal, inevitable confusion, we may assume, 
would result. But the words a.re ljp.~ed _te! visible obj 
_fid to hold them,_ ana so keep them apart. 
sarne need -õf Visi5Je symbols in thinking of God. Signs 
are indeed required, for it would be difficult otherwise to think 
about him at ali, but what is one and has nane like it does not 
require concrete 4iacritical differentiation. Where, on the con-
trary, there are a number of like representations they can only be 
kept apart by concrete differentiation, some thing which brings 
the name and the idea it stands for to the mind: ln the case of 
the spirits of the air this requirement is provided by the prophets 
they possess, in the case of colwic spirits by the persons who have 
become such, in the case of the totemic spirits by the creatures 
they are beholden in, in the case of the nature sprites by luminous 
objects, and in the case of fetishes by the substances they are in, 
, or attached to. This differentiation of spiritual form~_thrm;gh 
) 
tlleir i._den_!ification wi~erial phenomena presents us with a 
very difficult and delicate problem in religious thought. If what 
< 
distinguishes one spiritual form from another is an object, we 
have to consider whether the object is the spiritual form or in 
l't!mt.§.~!ill.!UJgy_!:>~_§ªjcUg symboliz.ejt. 
( 122) 
I 
t 
I 
I 
! 
I 
I 
' I 
i 
CHAPTER V 
THE PROBLEM OF SYMBOLS 
IN the last chapter I discussed how the Nuer conception of Spirit _ ~ 
is figured in different ways to different persons and categori~!L•&Iid ___ .....---
groups. ln this chapter I consider the material fonns in which 
Spirit manifests itself ar is represented. _Ç_g_c;!J_~,_properly speaking, 
n.ot ~g!!r~Ç!..!!1}<11,y_material representations, nor are almostall the 
spiri \~ .. !"L!hç __ a,ggy~. th~ugp_]Jot~- Ç~r;t_a!lé:í_ h.\s_süpi,-tçr~e~tri~I -
_r"fr!!SÜQ!l~may _!eyellJJ:Ílen;>s~ly~"' in. si~. But the spirits of the 
!>~-'!I!'.I\'Pm.\'_I}J:ec!iE-_Ç'c:~'!E':'~.es.~n.<!.~ll.ÍI'gs. Our problem chiefiy 
concerns these spirits of the below. It can be simply stated by the 
question: What meaning are we to attach to Nuer statements that 
such-and-such a thing is kwoth,_2_pirit? The answer is not so sim pie. 
There are severa! ways in which what we would render as 'is' 
is indicated in the Nuer language. The one which coucerns us 
here is the particle e. It is used to tell the Iistener that !?_!Ilething 
belongs to a ~ertain class . or categ~_!Y, and hence about some 
character Or quality it has, as 'e dit', 'it is a bird', 'gat nath e car', 
'the Nuer is black', and 'Duob eram me goagh', 'Duob is a good 
man.' The question we are asking is~ what'meaning or méanings it 
has for Nuer when they say of something 'e kwoth', 'it is Spirit' 
(in the sense either of God or of a divine refraction). 
Nuer do not claim to see God, nor do they think that anyone 
can know what he is Iike in himself. When they speak about his 
nature they do so by a.~lj~cti~-~~".~h\SbJ~!~E.t~ attributes, such as 
'great' and 'good', or in metaphors taken from the world around 
them, J.il>m!!lgJJi.s ig_yj§\_bjli!Y ancJ,,n.hiq1li!Y !O .\l'ind and air, his 
greatne~s !e>!he universe)?-eh~~s~e~!ed, an~_his_ grandeur to an 
ox with widespread horns. They are no more than metaphors for 
Nuer, who do not say that any of these things is God, but only that 
he is Iike ( cere) them. They express in these poetic images as best 
they can what they think _must be some of his attributes. 
Neverth~less, -~~?:.~~~-(b:~g~ ... ~:r~ .. ~~lJ9-, ar may be said-, .ltf? b~' .. God 
-rain, Iightning, ~-'1\l:Yó!'::.L~11~~!!'.~!. .. 11~!11t..al-in the Nuer way of 
speech, created-things which are of comm.on interest. There is 
here an ambiguity, or an obscurity, to be elucidated, for Nuer are 
( 123) 
' ~-~ i ~ THE PROBLEM OF SYMBOLS not n~aying that G-od or Spirit is like this or that, but that this or th 'is' God or Spirit. Elucidation here does not, however, pre-
sent g t difficulties. 
.f{.~ ~ '·· 
God being !'?nc~ived .. <Jfas i!l_!he_s,ky, those celestial phenomena 
which are of particular significance for Nuer, rain and lightning, 
are said, in a sense we have to determine, to be him. There is no 
noun denoting either phenomenon and they can only be spoken 
of by verbs indicating a function of the sky, as 'ce nhial deam', 
'the sky rained', and 'ce nhial mar', 'the sky thundered'. Also 
pestilences, murrains,. death, and indeed almost any natural 
phenomenon significam for men are commonly regarded by 
Nuer as manifestations from above, activities of divine being. 
Even.~he ea~tilly totems a_r~.S'?!!S\'J.Y".cl.<Jf.~~11,re!"ti 
from some sinP"ular inte:rve:ntinn nf ~nirif" frnm a 
be found in the way Nuer sometimes speak of 
one or other of these effects. They may say of rain or lightning or 
pestilence 'e kwoth', 'it is God', and_in storms they_pray!oGod to 
co~e to earth gently and not in fury-to come gently, it wil! be 
noted, not to make the rain come gently. 
I do not discuss this ontological question here beyond saying 
that were we to suppose that such phenomena are in themselves 
regarded as God we would misunderstand and misrepresent Nuer 
religious thought,_ which is pr::~in~ntly..dualistk It is true that 
for them tJ.>.~.I.e is_ no ~fi~~~t çl~'ã1ityof nat\'I!L~!!~!o!R.~!!'ll!!e!i!), 
. ~ but there is such a duality between~woth, Spirit,_wbkh.l~.\rq:rna-. 
. tJ.._ !~!~~~ rather than supernatural, and. cak:, creation, .. !'h.~~--~~!~~i_ql 
V""i' Y.'2!!4Jmow!! to thç se.n~es. Rain and lightning and pestilences· 
0"' "'· ~nd murrains belong to this created world and are referred to by 
p~ Nuer as nyin kwoth,instruments of God. ' 
· Nevertheless, they and other effects of significance for men , 
are ~~oa'YJfL{a, signs or manifestatio11:s qf _divine ~çtivity; and since 
Nuer apprehenddivine activity in these signs, in God's revelation 
of himself to them in material forms, the signs are, in a lower 
medium, what they signify, so that Nuer may say of them 'e 
( 124) 
THE PROBLEM OF SYMBOLS 
kwoth', 'it is God'. Rain and pestilence come from God and are 
therefore manifestations of him, and in this sense rain and pesti-
lence are God, in the sense that he reveals himself in their falling. 
But though one can say of rain or pestilence that it is God one 
~annot say of God that he is rain or pestilence. This would make 
no sense for a number of reasons, In the first place, the situation 
could scarcely arise, God not being an observable object, in which 
Nuer would require o r desire to say about him that heis anything. 
In the second place, the word ~woth does not here refer to a par-
ticular refraction of Spirit, a spirit, but to Spirit jn its __ oneness, 
God, and he could not be in any way identified with any one of 
bis manifestations to the exclusion of all the others. A third, and 
the most cogent, reason is that rain is water which falls from the 
sky and pe~tilence is a bodily condition and they are therefore in 
·_._s:f_._·_·b_--_.~~.n... _íh_.ru. o_r_ .. ~_·· __ ·~._··-_:_·.·_. __ t_fl·_--.. ~.f_···r·-· __ .~----~ •• -..• ·.l .. ·~_t_. __ ~_-_ .••. n._'_·_. __ n.·Íl·_.r_.e_· __ .·_·_x.· __ ·_ .. --._-~-·-__ ._º·n··.·n. ••... -·d.·.·_·.·_w_n ...... _'_.º __ •• t._····_.~_·._·_ •. ·~ •• _·.-._._·i··~·-r·~--.·_t·i_._.~ .... ~_-_·.·.~.-.rr_d_. __ ··a __ ·.e.-.-~--i-.~--;ffi .. ··_ ·_·_·.e_·.·_r_a_. __ ·.e.-_--_~. -~_ .... _~~--··~º-r.·.··~-.-in_~--·_·-~·-.·-~.:_·_. ~~~~~~~)~~j~;~~~Tfíi~~J{1I~~r;r&fíi1í?l~:4P..i;;é,~~~§f'.~r·f~!Ís•i.~1t · 
l.~.~~xh:~~::~"i~~ll~'l~m~11z!B~~1~t~~w~~~~~iir~7íi,ír~rv~·~ · 
usa clu'e to what is meant when Nuer say of something that it is 
God or that it is ;< spirit of the air, as thunder may be said to be 
the spirit wiu or a prophet of the spirit deng niay be said to be 
tleng-especially as Nuer readily expand such statements by add-
ing that thunder, rain, and pestilence are ali instruments (nyin) 
of God or that they are sent by (jak) God, and that the spiritdeng 
~--s filled.(gwang) the prophet thr~':lg~:":.i1..9.~--~t __ speaks, In the 
statement here that something is Spirit or a spirit th".particle e, 
which we transJate 'is', ':_";!'not therefore have the meaning of 
~dentizy in a substantial sense. Indeed, it is because Spirit is con-
t:ived of in itself, as the creator and the one, and quite apart from 
any of its material manifestations, that phenomena can be said 
to be sent by it or to be its instruments. When Nuer say of rain or 
lightning that it is God they are making an elli tical statement. 
What is understood is nonhat·tpe t 1 m 1tse is p1rir but that 
it is what we would · call a medium or manifestation _2r sign o~ 
qivine activity in relation.t!Lffi~IU!P.d of significap.ce.for tlle!:'J. 
What precíseÍy is positecfbythe hearer of any such elliptica] state-
ment depends on the na&,rebf...J:'2e situation by reference to which 
it is made. Avulture is notthougnrof as being in itself Sp.irit; it is -
a bird. But if it perches on the crown of a byre or hut Nuer may 
( IZS) 
THE PROBLEM OF SYMBOLS 
say 'e kwoth', 'it is Spirit', meaning that its doing sois a spiritual 
signal presaging disaster, A lion is not thought of as being in itself 
Spirit; it is a beast. But it may, ~!'_accol!J1t of~ollle <!:V".!l!__l\'lokh 
!?.ü .. J?.g~--~t _i~~~ __ a __ p~~ul~ar __ ~elatiol:1 __ ~9 .!P_~p., such as being born, as 
Nuer think sometimes happens, astwin Wci!Jl!PBan sllild, be 
regarded as a revelation of Spirit for a particular family and Jine-
age. Likewise, diseases, o r rather thelr symptoms, are not thought · 
. of as being in themselves Spirit, but their appearance in indivi-S duais may be regarded as manifestations of Spirit for those indivi-
(_juals. Spiritacts, and therebyrevealsitself, through these creatures. 
This distinction between the nature of a thing and what it may 
signify in certain situations or for certain persons is very evident 
in totemic relationships. A crocodile is Spirit for certain persons, 
but it is not thought to be in its nature Spirit, for others kill and 
eat it. It is because Nuer separate, and quite explicitly when ques-
tioned about the matter, spiritual conceptio~~Jro!!l_8_!!Ch m_!!!erial 
things as may nevertheless be said 'to be' the conceptions, that 
they are able to maintain the unity and autonomy of SpiriUp, 
sp~~<:. ~L~.g~~~L~l:V~!.~i~Y: . .'!L':'cç~~~!lts and are able to speak of 
Spirit without reference to any of its material manifestations. 
So far I have been most!y speaking of the conception of God 
and of those of his refractions which belong to the category of the 
sky or of the above. With two possible exceptions, 1 we cannot say 
that the things said 'to be' these spirits are material s mbols or 
:}~~;!~ll~~:~%~~~i~~t~~~~t~i;í~~:l~If[.~~~Rf1itl!~ 
···.God,•stand~'\íf.·a•speqalrelauonsh'P•'YJ•!me'lges and 'ncl'Y!cll!a:!s~{' 
~·sudl1_4.f:Y.~f.~~-~tii.i_#gs·;~~)~~~:§.f,S!_~-~!.~4·s.~;_~~p~ti~~-s~·:·~f.~~~-~,·P~;?.~P:Ii6h~~:2~~l;i; 
obJ'.ecis; •ai'Jd. piécesccof·. WQod:,;:J])1~<~')êlê~k~r .·retJ:actigjls;:.of\iSp· ihtli<f;i 
·.. ..· · :-. · ·· ' · .. · .'· :··: · ' .... ,._.- :· .-.-:;.,1;·_ .. _ ":i_ci.}C:\~,,,h: >_', .. _,_- --.•-'-'····;_;:•:·"• .' .. ':;;·_v·"'.·.'·: ·>·,..;{··-:~i, rega~d~d ~); ·ais'tinct spjritsin r e)~ ~fip;~~ .~a.ç11_pt.~gfi:G.~J),$9Ji(ij~Ij)s;e';,{ 
. t~e: sp~riw!: .. 9f- t_~.~? · ~i.rr- ~~$.iJY!l?~.~.r~t>-~-g~r.~6(~?C~éPtA~::J~1~.Ei~~l!:S!i~!1A;_~~ ~~~?s~,,~l;l'-1~1~~:Y1~tn~~~i1~[~it~ir~~,~~~2~~rr1~fu~~~~~7!?! 
When, therefore, Nuer say that the pied crow is tpespirit buk 
or that a snakei~.§I'.~~~t, the word 'is' has a different sensefrom what 
it has in the statement that rain is Spirit. The difference does not 
1 The spear ~~~ may be said to stand for the sp~r·L~~- (pp. 31 and 241), and 
rhe pied crow may be said to stand for thc; spir~~-p~~ which is the most terres~ 
trially conccived of among the greater spirits (pp. 31-3:2 and 81). 
( !26) 
I 
I 
:~i 
THE PROBLEM OF SYMBOLS 
merely lie in the fact that kwoth has here a more restricted con-
notation, being spoken of in reference to a particular and exclusive 
~fraction a spirjt rather than comprehensively as God or Spirit 
in its oneness. It !ies also in the relation understood in the state-
ment.\l~nY.ml..i!~subj~ct (snake or crow).~~d i~p.!_edi~~re (Spirit 
or a spirit). The snakein itseifis not divine activity whereas rain 
, ,:;~.~ 1!~:;>1,~!; ~.~<J'l'~~;~Jpfy:~f~ig~tlhg:tº~,'t ~~~iê:r~l~t~õri~hip), ' ~~ici1l<lY.~Rres~!lt~1~1.~~'a"sulg #rqm·.·~,~~Y~!!\,t!(lll~~t '!.!YmJ?~~~nvtty;·. J?qt ,, :~.~~~f.~i.jt.rl.".t.~i.~r~.,~t.cMXili~~~~t1t~-Wl~t~mº~~~~~;~~~;~t::' ~ t~·§qtf:i:t:t~Q;:tb~Jiíiêk'cif:VWnat il~~irhe'"f!gmeafi.f-#keil"'it''is·s·ãld~th1ff"·' ,_,,_~"or;f;,_..,~~ ... ·~;;,-·-·-'cb;Jf ~· • 
tlie piea crów ''i'irbuk or that a snake 'is' Spirit: that the symbol 
'is' what it symbolizes? Clearly Nuer do not mean that the crow 
is the sarne as buk, for buk is also conceived of as l?.,i!lKÍ!lth<:A<y 
and ~!~9J~"'~~..Y.~! which the pied crow certainly is not; nor that a 
snake is the sarne as some spiritual refraction, for they say that the 
snake just crawls on the earth while the spirit it is said to be is in 
the sky. What then is being predicated about the crow or snake in 
the statement that either is Spirit ora spirit? 
It will be simpler to discuss this question in the first place in. 
reiation to a totemic reiationship. When a Nuer says of a creature 
'e nyang', 'it is a crocodiie', heis saying that it is a crocodiie and 
not some other creature, but when he says, to explain why a person 
behaves in an unusual manner towards crocodiies 'ekwothdien', 
'it (the crocodile) is their spirit:, heis obviously making a different 
sort of statement. Heis not saying what kind of creature it is (for 
it is !lnderstood that he is referring to the crocodile) but that ~-!:'~!.. 
h<:n:.~e!s_ t~ is.~I'.iri~}?.r._~".::!=aJ.U._people. But he is also not saying 
that the crocodile is Spirit~it is n-õi'so for him~but that certain 
people so regard it. Therefore a Nuer would not make a general 
statement that 'nyang e k?J9~h', 'crocodile is Spirit', but would 
only say, in referring to the crocodile, 'é ll-?!!~~h'.~ 'it is Spirit', the 
distinction between the two stateriients being that the first would 
mea'). .. that the crocodile is Spirit for everyone whereas the second, 
being made in a special context of situation, means that it is Spirit 
for certain persons who ~re being discussed, or ~re understood, in 
that context. Likewise, whilst it can be said of the crocodile that 
i_!_ls §pirisj_t C~!'n9l.P.!'_~'!!ª._if8P.:\!ft~ili~Ut._E:~~~~~;_;;~~ª-iie: o r 
rather, if a statement is framed in this form it can only be made 
when the word kwoth has a pronominal suffix whichgives it the 
( 127) 
"-'\ 
THE PROBLEM OF SYMBOLS 
meaning of 'his spirit', 'their spirit', and so forth; in other words, 
where the statement makes itclear that what is being spoken of 
is Spirit conceived of in relation to particular persons only. We, 
still have to ask, however, in what sense the crocodile is Spirit for 
these persons. 
Since it is difficult to discuss a statement that something which 
can be observed, crocodile, is something more than what it ·appears 
to be when this something more, Spirit, cannot be observed, it is 
helpful first to consider two examples of Nuer statements that 
things are something more than they a!'!'ear to be when both 
the subject terín and the predicate term refer to observable 
phenomena. 
.:WJ:l~n a cucumber ,is u~ed a~ A sacrificial victim N!J"I -~P~ak of 
.\t_as_:l.ll. . .2!:. In doing so they are asserting something rather more 
than that it takes the place of an ox. They do not, of course, say 
that cucumbers are oxen, and in speaking of a particular cucumber 
as an ox in a sacrificial situation they are only indicatíng that it 
may be thought of as an ox in that particular situation; and they 
act accordingly by performing the sacrificial rites as closely as 
possible to what happens when the victim is ali ox. ':Çl:J~~esem.-
~ h,lancejs conceptual, not_pe,rceptual. The 'is' rests on qualitatiy_ç · .~ , analogy. And the expression is asymmetrical, :': cucu~be~- i~ q_n \11/' ox, but an ox is nota cucumber. 
\
- A- rather different example.of this way of speakin_giMh.e Nuer. 
,.._ assertion that twins are one person and that they aré.hll;d.sl When 
they say 'twins are not two persons, they are one person' they are 
not saying that they are one individual but that they have a single_ 
P.ersonality. It is significam thatin speaking of the unity of twins· 
they only use the wordran, which, like our word 'person', leaves 
sex, age, and other distinguishing qualities of individuais un-
defined. They would not say that twins of the sarne sex were one 
dhol, boy, or one nyal, girl, but they do say, whether they are of 
the sarne sex o r no~! that they ·are one ran, person. Their single 
. social personality. js_S()Illething . gver and_ '!JJ()V~ __ their J'!ly~çal 
c:!!l.!!!ity, a dualitywhichis evident tothe sensesandisindicated 
py.JhC:.P!~_:.al_~_()'.m used when speaking of twins and by their treat-
ment in ali respects in ?rdinary sociallife as two quite distinct in-
dividualstrrf:'íii;#ii~f!ti 2éhà_in:iittüalsití.ú1tíótis,)1~4.~iriBoHc'â!.IY;',!; 
i;--.. ;,-·,_- ·•:~J- ,:,;:::";~.·,,:!·\''~>-''.''·.'i'': .•. ''··· .: •> • o:>,·,· • -•• _. '·''·'- ":''·''' :;.L,:C. ,~i _. -.· .. ,_ lf· ,. o;;,;-:·,_. {•-... :_::;,.:f. 
t I have given a in~ri:'· detailed account in 'Customs and Belicfs Rclating to 
Twins among the Nilotic Nuer', Uganda Journal, 1936. 
( 128) 
THE PROBLEM OF SYMBOLS ji~~~~~~;f4W;.b~~;~~~~ =~~r~==~h,Pi~t~h16~f{~~ ~:~~::~t:;.iJ; !i-:]~%~~~â~~riv1i~T!:· ~n;~:t~~~~tor-otmalecwirisiriàrries;'' · 
f~rnJll<;_!win.s ought to be married on the sarne day; and no mor-
tuary ceremõniesãf<!heldfortwinsbecaÜse;for-one reasoti,"õiie 
of them cannot b~ cut off frorr{. the Üvl;,g· without--tlie oihér: A 
~~-,-~----~~-·---~-·----~ .. -----···"""'' ·-~--- ---·· ···-----·-......... ___ ... __ ._ ---
woman whose twin brother had died some time before said to 
Miss Soule, to whom I am indebted for the information, 'Is 
not his sou! stillliving? I am alive, and we are really childreti 
of God.' · . - · 
There is no mortuary ceremony even when the second twin 
dies, and I was told that twins do not attend the mortuary cere-
.monies held for their dead kinsfolk, nor mourn them, because a 
~s a _T_tlfl< 1'?/?-~l, _a person of the sky or of the above. He is also 
spoken of as gatfrwoth, a child of God. These dioscuric descrip-
tions of twins are conimon to many peoples, but the Nuer are 
peculiar in holding also that they are birds. They say 'a twin is not 
'! person (ran), l1~is_abird (dit)', although, as we have just seen, 
. they assert, in another sense, that twin~ are one person (ran). Here 
they are using the word ran in the sense of a human being as 
distinct from any other creature. The dogma is expressed in 
various ways. Very often a twin is given the proper name Dit,. 
bird, Gwong, guineafowl, or Ngec1 francolin.1 AJl]'-J.uercO!J:sider 
it~h~llleful, ~t "llY_!ate_fo!_ad.t!lts, !2..~i!t~!!X.~9EU{.!lli:4. or._it~ 
~g~, but were a twin to do this it would be much more than 
shameful. It would be 11ueer, a grave sin, for twins respect (thek) 
birds, because, Nuer say, _birds are also twjns, and they avoid any 
-sort of contact with them. The eguivalence of twins and binjs __ is 
""P.~~~ed p!'!ticularly ill:_.SE_nn_exi~_'!i!h death,_jVhen an infant 
twin dies people say 'ce par', 'he has flmvn away:', using the word 
denoting the flight of birds. Infant twins who die, as so often 
· happens, }!~~ not_ ·buried, as other infants are, p~~--~E~--Ç~Y~t?~_ç_~J~ . 
1 That thc namcs, at least ali those I havc heard, are taken from birds lowest in 
th~...!!~~~e of ~ucr _!~km!_i~g requires comment, especiaíiY'iü'VTCWõfth~ ;~~g·~~~ü! 
I later devclop. It may be due to the Nuer habit of sp~aking of thcir relation 
to God-the birth of twins constitutes such a context-by comp~ring themselves 
with lowly things. On thc other hand, it may be simply in keeping with the Iogic .1 
of the ánalogy. '!.'Y~~-~ .. J?..~!~!!g~~o_!~_: ~~~~S!__f:!~ ... t~~ -~~?-~.e f~~---~!~_!]e!~~; .. just as· j' 
guineafowl and francolin belong to thc class of birds, whtch as a class is in the . 
category of the above1 but are almost earthbound. 
5583 ( 129) K 
P' 
I 
THE PROBLEM OF SYMBOLS 
a reed basket or winnowing-tray a11<! pl~cec\ i11 tb,e _for)<_ of a tree, 
becãuse birds. rest in trees. I was told that birds which feed on 
earrÍonwÕulcl--ÍÍÕt-moiest the bodies but would Iook at their de~d 
kinsmen~_and birds _are_ ~IS()_sai<f ~()_)l., __ ki!l, though the 
usage may be regarded as metaphorical-and fly away again. 
When I asked a Nuer whether adult twins would be buried like 
other people he replied 'no, of course not, they are birds and their 
souls go up into the a ir'. A platform, not used in the normal mode 
of burial, is erected in the grave and a hide placed over it. The 
body is Iaid on this hide and covered with a second hide. Earth 
is then carefully patted over the upper hide instead of being 
shovelled in quickly, as in the burial of an ordinary person. I was 
told that the corpse is covered with earth Iest a hyena eat it and 
afterwards drink ata pool, for men might drink at the sarne pool 
and die from contamination (nueer) . . 
It is understandable that ~ue_r_dr_a'\V_'!!L'!!l~logy,beqv~en the. 
multi pie hatching of eggs a,nd the dual birth of twins. The analogy 
is explicit, and, through an extension of it, \he._!!~§h.QLcrocodiles 
.a!l<i..~ is __ also forbidden_!o twins on the_groulld _ that t\w~e 
creatures too, Iike birds, Iay eggs. Miss Soule once had a girl twin 
in her household who refused fish for the sarne reason-the only 
case of its kind known to either of us. But tl;J.e analogy between 
inultiple births in birds and men does not adequately explain why 
it is with birds that human twins are equated when there are 
many other creatures which habitually bear severa! young at the 
sarne time and in a manner more closely resembling human par-
turition. It cannot be just multiple birth which leads Nuer to say 
that twins are birds, for these other creatures are not respected by 
twins on that account. The prohibition on eating eggs is clearly 
· secondary, and it is extended to include crocodiles and turtles-
and by Miss Soule's girl fish also-not because they lay eggs but 
because their ~yinKeggs __ l1l'.'l<es_th~ll!likç .b.irc:ls, Moreover, it is 
difficult to understand why a resemblance of the kind should in 
any case be made so much of. The multiple hatching of chicks is 
doubtless a resemblance which greatly strengthens the idea of 
twins being birds, but,it is only part of a mo~~-complex analogical 
representation __ ~lli~h _!'e__q!Jirss_}<:'.lJ~~~l'~ineci)!l._IIIore_ gener~I 
tenns ofNuer religious thought. A twin, on account of his peculiar 
maríii.er óf éÕn~eption is, though not Spirit himself, a speci~I crea-
tion, and, therefore, manifestation of Spirit; and when he dies his 
( 130) 
I 
~ 
i 
I 
I 
I· 
l 
I 
ii 
' r 
··! 
t 
., 
THE PROBLEM OF SYMBOLS 
sou! goes into the air, to which things associated with Spirit belong. 
H e is arannJ.ial,a person of the above, whereas an ordinary person 
i~ a[_qrz_p_i'!-Y• a person of the below. A bird, thoughalsonot initself 
Spirit, belongs by nature to the above and is also what Nuer call, 
using 'persori' metaphorically, a ran nhia/, a person of the above, 
and being such is therefore also associa~ed with Spirit. It cannot, 
of course, be determined for certain whether a twin is said to be 
a person of the above because h e is a· bird or whether h e is said 
to be a birçl because heis a person of the above, but the connexion 
jn thought between twins and birds is certainly not simply derived 
from the multiple birth similitude but also, and in my view 
primarily, from both birds and twins being classed by Nuer as 
gaatkwoth,.children of God. Birds.!'.!E chjl_<fr5:.~qf_Ço<f.?I1 'lcc9':'nt 
!lf!h~ÍfQ<;]gg_j!!J..h~-~ir,_~':l<i. twins b_elo_gg to _;h~_airon_,~cou!lt ot 
tl:wir __ b.,jllgchil<ir,en __ of_Q_od by the_J!lanner_o_f_t),e~r__conceptio.n 
and birth. _ 
ít'seems odd, if not absurd, to a European when heis told that 
a twin is a bird as though it were an obvious fact, for Nuer are not 
saying that a twin is like a bird but that he is a bird. There seems 
to be a complete contradiction in the statement; and it was pre-
cisely on stateme ts,Á'f-t:his-k)nd recorded by observers of primi-
tive peoples th t ,L~vy-~~based his theory of the prelogici'I 
mentality of these peop es, i!.U!lÍef ch'\E~~teristiç.J?Ü'!g, i,'!_J:l:~~ 
yiew, tJ!.a.t .i!_P!'EI1li!~-~!!~h__<;yjç!~1lt contradictions-'-that a thing 
can be what it is and at the sarne time something altogether dif-
ferent. But, in fact, no contradiction is íilvolved in the statement, 
which, on the contrary, appears quite sensible, and even true, to 
one who presents the idea to himself in the Nuer Ianguage and 
within their s stem of reli ious thou h .-He~dq_es not thén take 
their statements about twins any more literally_jhan they make 
and understand them themselves. hey are not saying that a twin 
has a beak, feathers, and so forth. Nor in their everyday relations 
with twins do Nuer speak of them as birds or act towards them as 
though they were birds. They treat them as what they are, men 
· and women. But in addition to being men and wqmen they are of 
:'- twin-birth, and a, twin-birth is ~eci~I revelat!<:'!!.~f§p_iri.t; and 
Nuer express this special character of twins in the 'twins are 
birds' formula because twins and birds, though for different 
reasons, are both associated with Spirit and this makes twins, Iike 
birds, 'people of the above' and 'children of God', and hence ~-E~!:!! 
( !Jl ) 
o 
~ 
THE PROBLEM OF SYMBOLS 
!!..~uitable •ymbol i11 which toexpressthespecial_relatiollsi:üpin 
~hich atwin .stands toGoci,_ When, therefore, Nner say that a 
twin is a bird they are not speaking of either as it appears in the. 
f!esh. They are speaking of the anima of the twin, what they cal! 
his .tie, a concept which includes both wh~t we cal! the personality 
and the sou!; and they are speaking of the association birds have 
with Spirit through their ability to enter the realm to which Spirit 
is likened in metaphor and where Nuer think it chief!y is, or may 
be. Thefo!ll}'l.l:u:!g~s,nlll:c!CX !~.s~ .1L.d.Y~cJif..E~!'!tiQ~s}1ip_~e-~w.,en 
twins and birds but triadi · relationshi between twins, birds, 
:!_~d Ggd." i,;: r~~p~ct tb-Elod twins and hi;ds h~:;;~ -~ sl-;,;Ü~r 
character. 
It is because Nuer dq,po~ake, or take, the statement that 
twins are birds in any ol:"cÜnary sense that they are fully aware 
that jn ritual relating to twins J.J:le actions are a kind of mimii]g. 
This is shown in their treatment of thé corpse of a twin, for, 
according to what they themselves say, what is a bird, the tie or 
.anima, has gone up into the air and what is left and treated-ili 
the case of adults platform burial behig a convenient alternative 
to disposal in trees-as though it might be a bird is only !he ring, 
the flesh. It is shown also in.the convention that should one of a 
· p~;r:.of_t\Vill~<:l!e, th~child \vh_c>_coll}~s-~ftéi'"ih-émtafeãE!s j)fàcé, 
co_un!illg_~~- c:>J:le~o_ffh~!:?- in the various ceremonies twins have to 
· perform and respecting birds as rigorously as if he were himself 
a twin, which he is not. The ceremonies have to be performedfor 
!~e her:c:fit o.t~l1."}iyi_llg_l;\l'_iJ:l_ U.ll.c!.their: strÜcture il~9: pl1rpose_ar:.e 
~_!:_ tg_a_U!>':~~-.h~_ye_~().)~ __ t\1'2.E~J:s?.ll~ .to_.P''J:~O.~!" ~hern•. so a 
brother or sister acts in the place of the dead. 
This discussion of what is meant by the statement that a twin 
is a bird is not so far away from the subject of totemism as it might 
seem to be, for tJ:l~ sto_sk eJ<:p!.~n'!!!()ll_~!J:l2!!g.lJ:.~.~'!~E.2f.'l totemic 
·relationship !~_!h~u]le all~gor.!'!'.!L!l1l,_ag' a!!<:l_a_me_!!l]l_er_t:>f.!' 
~at':I~!-~P.~.::ies ~."~~ . .IJ.o_':";}\l'ill __ s: The relationship of lineage to 
species is thereby made to derive not only from the closest of ali 
possible relationships but also from a special act of divine revela-
ll2!!; and since 1l1"-..lin\0>_'.'tween a li~ge an--ª_i!~.t-~m is_!)'~ 
tutelary spirit of the lineage ass."_c_Íl>ted witl:_ the totem_it is appro-
. priate that the relationship should be thought of as having come 
about by an event which is a direct manifestàtion of Spirit. 
However, an examination of the Nuer dogma that twins are' 
( 13Z) 
~ 
I 
ir r j, 
! 
'i 
I j, 
I 
i 
li 
li 
i! 
I! 
li 
I 
I 
! li 
I 
J 
! 
l/i 
jl 
lj 
1: i 
PLATE V 
Windscreen 
THE PROBLEM OF SYMBOLS 
birds was made not on account of totemic relationships com-
monly being explained in terms of twinship but because it was 
hoped that it would be easier to understand, in the light of any con-
clusions reached about what is meant by the statement that a twin 
is a bird, what Nuer mean when they say that some totemic crea-
ture, such as the crocodile, is Spirit. Certainly there is here neither 
the sort of metaphor nor the sort of ellipsis we found in earlier 
statements. Nor can Nuer be understood to mean that the creature 
is identical with Spirit, or even with a spirit, Spirit conceived of 
in a particular totemic refraction.They.say quite definitely them-
·
! .. '~~[ff~ih~~~;;TtÍ~j~~~~~~ft7.~t~~f~i&Tiiki]!.~ir~~~~~.· · i:,th~k::i'l'hiffi;;,i~,-~yin!!~m~_;f'J!fmrrl'ietêss,-'~nõügln:tocodilêãna·· 
-spi:i'it are qüi'fe-díffcrennmd unconnected 1deas, when the croco-
dile is for a certain lineage a symbol of their special relationship 
to God, then in the context of that relationship sxmbol and what 
it symbolizes are fused. As in the case of the twins are birds' 
formula, the~relation is a triadic one; between a lineage .anda 
r.~tll~'!!_:;p_e_cies ~11.<! _Q_?_d. . - ------------- - -: 
There are obvious and significant differences between the 
creature-Spirit expression and the cucumber-ox and bird-twin 
expressions. Cucumber, ox, man, and bird are ali things which 
can be known by the senses; but ~h.".~ Spirit is_e)(p(!Eieil(;ed other 
'h~!!i!! !h<?'-!ght it ~s_o11ly ig !!~ ~-or tlmrygh material re!ill-
sentatior:~_<?f.i!:_We can, therefore, easily see how Nuer regard it 
as being in, or behind, the crocodile. The subject and predicate 
terms of the statement that something is Spirit are here no longer 
held apart by two sets of visible properties. Consequently,while 
Nuer say that totemic spirits and totems are not the sarne they 
sometimes not only speak of, but act towards, a totem as if the 
spirit were in it. Thus :_h~y_,~ive som~_ meat of a sacrifi~e to :~e 
lion-spirit_E()_!ion~ and when they sacnfice to the durra-b1rd-spmt 
~hey address also the birds themselves and tell them that the 
victim is for them: Nevertheless, fll~L~:!~~JL~!~~·LLil.!!ll'>jgg 
a,~~!:'.t tJ1Ü!:. ~ !h!!L!!:he!. rç§pççphçy .show for. them .is çn 
acçQIJ!lt()t t)l~i~ rel'!'"~~!!!Lilg.!.h~_s!'iQ!8_a~sc:>~!!!tf<Lwi!h Jh<m!. a!l<! 
not for their own sake. 
---A,;~th;;~ diff~;en~~ is that whereas in the cases of the cucumber-
ox and twin-bird expressions the eguivalence rests on analogies 
which are quite obvious even to us once they are pointed out-
( 133) 
_o 
THE PROBLEM OF SYMBOLS 
the cucumber being treated ~n the ritual of sacrifice as an ox is, 
and twins and birds both being 'children of God' and also multiple 
births--analogy is lacking in the creature-Spirit expression. There 
is no resemblance between the idea of Spirit and that of crocodile. 
There is nothing in the nature of crocodiles which evokes the'idea 
of Spirit for Nuer, and even for those who respect crocodiles the 
idea of Spirit is evoked by these creatures because the crocodile is 
.<lrepresentation of Spiriti_g__r~l!'_goll_!l)_!ll~i!_lineage and not ]).;::-
cause there is anything crocodile-like about Spirit or Spirit-like 
about crocodiles. We have passed from observation of resem-
blances to thought _Ey means of symbolê in the sort of way that 
the crocodile is used as a symbol for Spirit. 
We are here faced with the same.pr9blem we have been con-
sidering earlier~ but in what, in the absence of analogical guidance 
to help us, is a more diflicult form. The difliculty is inúeased by 
Nuer symbols .being taken from an environment unfamiliar to 
us and one which, even when we familiarize ourselves with iç,, we 
experience and evaluate differently. We find it hard to think in 
terms of crocodiles, snakes, and fig-trees. But reflection shows us 
that this problem is common to ali religious thought, including 
'
our own; that a religious symb~l}_l_a.!_~!...'!~Y~---~.!!...~~,~!~~~~-~~.~qs~a­
t_~o~_W.it~ .. !".P!'.t..Ü.~.~P!es~m.s, that 'YJlicl~:2!l~gUQ.!h<;'min~ with 
~ll~t_it_b_:_i~_g:;_t:?_.f:ll_':_mind._ Nuer know that what they see is a 
crocodile, but since it represents Spirit to some of them it is for 
those ]Je~pl~,~w_!leil_~h_'?~gllt?U!l. tha~ way, aiS() _,vhatjt_st"lld~ ,, 
___ 0_r.JThe•· reJationship ~f_.ffi.e!';l)e!s :_~f;'a':l,'T~ér;1?;-~a~~to:·~p~r,ft .. j~;.\ 1 ---~l~~Fi~gf:r;~d~~~v~:ir:~~~~~~t;~;~rjl~i~ih~~f;g~~~~~~~;l 
. r~lau~I'stnps_;pf,:p\1;'"-I'H~~g~~;<t?•·.~pJPt:'i\Yh~t;t~e .sym1Jp]s;·~~~~&'!;{J 
fo_ r_. is·_'_t_li~:.same th_ .. 'h __ g·· : T •.. t_ ".'".···.;the __ y,;"an __ d.,· ,I),Qt.what they, stand,,fotl~'Ji:l· 
' :-yli[~~-'diff~tenÍ:iati the i~l~i]?~s~~P.::ftl1ere' resülis; -~jf;~~\Vliii,..': 
- acr§_ as a syiiílíõris-regãrdeêi iri tliis way, a fusion berween Spirit, 
l)U<l..rewe~~!l!~d, anç!jts mat,srial_Eeru:rse'lWiml.Jl wóulâ say 
-tliãttnenNÜer regard Spirit as being in some way in, or behind, 
the creature in which in a sense it is beholden. 
The problem is even more diflicult and complex than I have · 
stated it, because we might say that ~h_at are fused are not so 
mucli the idea of Spirit and its material representation as the idea 
of Spirit~nd the idea of its material representation. It is rather 
the idea of crocodile than the saurian creatures themselves which 
( 134) 
I 
'! 
I 
r 
,, 
THE PROBLEM OF SYMBOLS 
stands for Spirit to a lineage. If a. Nuer cannot see Spirit he like-
wise in some cases seldom, if ever, sees his totem; so that it is no 
!?_~g"E_a_gue~!!9n of a material obj~~ymbolizing an ide~ ,~~!:~t 
one idea symbolizing another. I doubt whether those who respect 
monorchid bulis or waterbuck often see a member of the class or 
species, anâ chÍ!dren hi' tlÍ.es~ and other cases must often be told 
about their totemic attachments before they have seen their 
totems. There must also be Nuer who respect -~orn_ pallll~ who 
live in parts of Nuerland to the east of the Nile where this tree 
does not grow.1 Indeed, I feel confident that one totem, the lou 
serpent, a kind of Loch Ness monster, does not exist, and lf this 
is so, i!2!~m can be purely_j!f)~g!!!..".EY: As this point has some 
theoretical importance for a study of xotemism I draw attention 
to a further.significant fact. Nuer do not speak of the spirit of 
cro"codiles, lions, tamarind-trees, and so on, but always of the spirit 
of crocodile, Iion, and tamarind-tree, and they would never say 
that crocodiles, lions, and tamarind-trees were somebody's spirit 
but always that ~rocodile, Iion, and tamarind-tree was bis spirit. 
The difference in meaning between the plural andsliíg!iiãrusage 
is not, perhaps, very obvious in English but it is both clear and 
vital in Nuer. It is the difference between crocodiles thought of as 
they are seen in rivers and crocodiles thought of as crocodile oras 
. the crocodile, as a type of creature, crocodile as a conception. The 
point I am making is exemplified by the story already recorded 
(p. 65) of amanwhogave uprespec;ting lions because they killeg 
his cattle. He still regarded lion-splrit, Spirit in the representation 
of lion, as a spirit connected with his family. But if a totemic 
relationship l!!;l}'_E~~!l ideal one, _a.nc!.!>.!!~_i!!~ªY~..ê.Qffi!:!!hl.!lg_Q.f 
!llei<!eal in it!.!. would still say that Nuer regard Spirit as being 
1 Dr. ;Liénha~dtl.tells me that a number of lineages in western. D~nkaland 
respect ~ieaf:uies ·;hich no longer exist there. A }?~~~li who tfclVCned with. hiín 
to other parts of the Southern Sudan was astonished when he first saw bis totem, 
an_ elephant, Nana Kobina Nketsia IV of Sekondi permits me to say that the first 
time he saw bis totem, the buffalo, was last year in a film at Oxford. Professor I. 
§9hape:r_~·tells me that the ruling family of the s~n.i<?!-"_ t_rip~Jn .. ~~~ ~echuaq~!a~p. 
P~ofeê-~orate, the_Kwena, have been living for a hundred years in a region where 
ilieir totein, tli·e' éróCodile, is unknown (see also what he says in Thc Tswana 
(International African Institute), 1953, p. 35• and Hugh Ashton, Thc Basuto, 
1952, p. 14). Other examples could'be cited. It may help us to appreciate the point 
better if we consider the nearest parallels in our own country. When we think of 
the lion as our national symbol we do not think of the mangy creatur.es of the 
African bush ai in zoos. Nor does it incornmode us that there are no unicorns 
and never have been any. 
( 135) 
o 
THE PROBLEM OF SYMBOLS 
in some way in, or behind, totemic _creatures when they .thínk.of 
them as representations of Spirit. 
This must be ai! the more so with the other spiríts of the below, 
the _bieli, nature sprites, and the kulangni, fetishes. ln general 
much of what has been said in this chapter about the totemic 
spirits applies to these other spirits also, but there is one important 
difference. ln the statement 'crocodi.le is their spirit' both terms 
of the proposition can be thought of quite separately and are 
indeed so presented in the statement. This is partly because the 
crocodile is Spirit only for some persons and not for others, and 
also because, even for those for whom it is Spirit, it also exists in 
íts own right as a reptile and may be so regarded by them without 
the idea of Spirit being involved. 'J:')le.s~:etil~n~lJ"-.§~_i!UÇl_Qe 
§:eirjt,Ç>nlyjle~"o~§~.!!l§ something; which may represent it an.<l)s, 
therefore, different from it. But in the case of a Ivminescence, such 
~;i;üi~~'-the::-;;8:p-r;~;;:;-;:~tting swamp vegetatio;;, ·the appearance 
can scarcely be represented in thought apart from what appears 
in it. It does not seem tobe regarded, as rain may be, as a manifes-
tation of Spirit through a medi um which can be said to be sent 
by, or to be an instrument of, Spirít, but as an emanation of Spirit 
or as Spirit itself revealed in the lig:ht, a theophany like the burn-
ing bush in Midian. Nuer speak of it sometimes as the spirit's fire, 
and of its fire burning. Nor is it, as a crocodile may be, regarded 
as a representation of Spirit which, being apart from what it 
represents, can be said to be what it represents. On the contrary, 
whilst the lights are easily kept apart in the mind from the things 
on which ihey are. accustomed to appear-swamp vegetation, 
hippopotamuses, meteorites, and other objects-they are not 
themselves conceived of as other than _Spirít in the f~m of />.i~H 
an<!_lf.'!~~r_!:p~_t.!l!!!"!~· They are not something that is thought to 
exist in its own right but can be said to be Spirk They are in 
themselves Spirit, in however lowly a form. Consequently, though 
they have a special significance for those persons who have 
acquired a relationship to the bieli spirits, they are Spirit also for 
those not directly concerned with them. Rain and crocodiles are 
created things with which Spirit may, or may not, be associated, 
according to circumstances and persons, but a w:il!:o'-the:wisp is 
\'_prope.!'ty_<?L~pidt.fractionally conceived of as a spirit of a special 
kind, and it cannot be thought of in terms other than of Spirit. 
So when a Nuer says of a light in the bush that it is Spirit the 
( 136) 
j. 
' 
ii 
.f 
r 
I 
:1 
I 
,i 
I' 
" :I 
li 
I' i 
ii' !.\ 
.l:i 
!H 
'('~· 
ii 
iii 
'i, 
THE PROBLEM OF SYMBOLS 
problem we have been considering has changed its form and, at 
least on first considération, seems to elude, if not altogether to 
escape, us. For us the light is a gas arising from swamp vegetation, 
so that the statement that it is Spirit is of the sarne kind as the 
statement that a crocodile is Spirit; and whatever meaning might 
be attached to the one would be the sarne for the other. But we 
cannot say that they are statements of the sarne kind for Nuer. 
For them, whereas the crocodile is a thing conceived of separately 
from Spirit, even though in a certain sense and for certain people 
it may be said to be Spirit, the phosphorescence is a descent of 
Spirit in the form of light on to something which is not in any way 
said to be Spirit, such as a hippopotamus, and on which it may 
appear at certain times and places and not at other times and 
places. So we are no longer asking what sense it has for Nuer when 
one of them says of a thing, which is not for them in itself Spirit, 
that it is Spirit. Yi'_e_".re...a_s]<J.!lg\'Vl:J..":~ i!~a.!'Jor_!he~~hen_()I1C 
oft]1~~_:;~y_s_~f a.Jei!lg_':'Yh!~!J:.h~.· !'.().11.!~~11ii1gf~!!_h"-.rn()!_ho~!.!!lan. 
al1ÇI!!'!!m!!Q!L9f.!lp!rit thªtitis ~pi!it. In the case of the _crocodile 
what is perceived is the reptile, and in certain circumstances it 
may be conceived of as Spirit for certain persons. In the case of 
th~ bieli wll~t is_l'':~~:Í":~d-~ayin.ªe~d __ be_~~id,_t()_he just light bu~ 
itÇ"'-.l!.~mly be conceived of_~s-~pi!!t, for it has no other name which 
differentiates it from any other sort of light or fire than bieli. 
When, regarding such a light, Nuer say 'it'is Spirit' they arena 
longer saying that something is something else but are merely 
giving a name to what is observed; so that here 'it is Spirit' be!ongs 
to the sarne class of statements as ~it is a crocodile', and it might 
be held that the question we have been examining does not 
properly arise. Nevertheless, this is not entirely the case, as I will 
explain !ater. 
What has been said of the lights of the nature sprítes can be 
said also of the litt\eJ~I1g_~~~.~f W'?~!U .. ~~b!~b_t_h~-~~~!l!lgni, fhe. 
fetish spirit§J!!\Y~lli~irl!RQ!:\.e, but for a different reason. A bundle 
of wood in which a fetish spirit has its abode is not a symbol of 
spirit, as a crocodile may be. Nor is it, like the bieli, a visible 
appearance of Spirit. It is a thing where a particular spirit abides. 
Nevertheless, it must be difficult for a fetish-owner to regard the 
bundle as being just anything which serves _as a lodging for the 
spirit. It is before the bundle that he makes his offerings and it is 
the bundle he points at an enemy he wishes the spirit to harm. 
( 137) 
THE PROBLEM OF SYMBOLS 
Moreover, the bundles are fa~J;lioned sole[y __ '\.S._ habitations for 
.§llirits an~-~~Y.~()_ significance other tha_n is_~eriy~df~()_!ll t:h_is 
P!o!!P_()_se '!_~E__11~~-c Hence when Nuer say of a fetish-bundle tbat it 
is Spirit they are not saying that something which also has for 
them a separate meaning as something in itself, which is other 
than Spirit, is something else, namely Spirit, but that something 
which has no meaning of any kind outside its being an abode and 
a material sign of Spirit is Spirit. So the .fetish-bundles cannot 
easily be thought of, as can rain or crocodile, either in terms of 
Spirit or in terms of their purely material natures, but only in 
terms of Spirit. 
But though in the case of both the lights and the bundles there 
seems to be a more complete and fixed fusion between things and 
ilr>irit than in the case of the totems, the problem of something being 
something else is stiH present, though in a more complex, and also a 
more obscure and roundabout, form. Here again, although it can 
be said of a light in the bush or of a fetish-bundle that it is Spirit, 
the statement cannot be reversed. It cannot be said of Spirit that it 
is the light or the bundle, for that would mean to Nuer that Spirit 
in its oneness, conceived of as God, is entirely in the light or the 
bundle, which would make·no sense to them. ln the statement 
that the light or bundle is Spirit what, therefore, has to be under-
stood by Spirit is a refraction of Spirit, or a spirit. But, even so, 
the.'is' is __ ":".~E."..()!}dentity, for though a phosphorescent light is 
a nature sprite exhibiting itself and is not conceived of as anything 
else, the nature sprite may be thought of independently of the · 
light; and though the fetish-bundle may be a meaningless object 
except in relation to the fetish-spirit which occnpies it, the spirit 
which occupies ít can be thought of independently of it. When 
the light is no longer visible ~he biel sprite is none the less present 
for certain people as their .~P.rite, which is Spirit in relation to 
them as an idea quite apart from its sporadic appearances as a 
light .. A fetish-spirít takes its abode in a fetish-bundle of wood 
and it may leave it; and it is also present for certain people as 
Spirit in relation to them as an idea quite apart from its material 
home. In either case the spirits are thought to come, or at some 
time to have come, from above to eartb and to be independent, as 
Spirit, of any material forms. Consequently !h~.!'l!!!le nature sprite 
pr.-fetish-spirit_ca~_]J_e_ig~~IJ;e~ntJig)1!s_()rjp._diff(!fent b!,!ndl"_S_!lt 
the.sAme time, justasan air-spirite<ln _b~_ig_<:\lff.e.L~!l.!.R!S!Ph!'!~ at 
( !38) 
i 
.f 
., 
I 
:· 
THE PROBLEM OF SYMBOLS 
the sarne time ora totemic spirit_çaii.iJe__i_!l__,!lLfi.-'1I~~e_r _of_melll-
bers_()f_a_~!'."_".Íe~ at the sarne time. · 
There is a furt:fi.effãci!Obetaken into consideration. When 
Nuer speak oflights in the bush or of fetish-bundles as Spirit they 
normally would not use the generic-word for Spirit, kwoth, or 
even its plural and fractionary form. kt~th,_ spirits. Tliey would 
say of them that they were bieli or kulangni. So whilst it is true 
tbat bieli and kulangni are kuth piny, spirits of the below, the fact 
that they are given distinctivê class names and that consequently 
it is possible for Nuer to explain them by saying that they are 
Spirit or that they are spirits attached to certainpersons shows 
that though they are regarded as Spirit or spirits they are also 
somehow regarded differently from the way in which Spirit is 
usually regarded. So the problem here is further complicated by 
a third term bdng understood in the statement about something 
that it is sometbing else: the light is bieli, and the bieli are Spirit; 
the bundle is kuldngni, and the kulangni are Spirit. This added 
complication may be supposed to be due to the fact that though 
these spirits cannot be said to be identical with things they are 
more closely bound to them than is the case with other, and 
. higher •. ~Pi~i~p.-~!..S<>l1~~R!i()p.~; andi]lem~_esp_@js t!joirght to ]:,_e 
~O~!l':L!() visj]J_]:._Kor_!lls the _l~ssJU~..!J.l_<;>.!:tgl!~.()f_a.o;_ Sp,j,-ü ªp.d t!le 
1)1c;>r_e_iti.Ul1-<>!lg]l_L()_f in t<:r._!ll,!l __ ()f_~ll,~t}t_i~ l:Jo_up.d_to._ In other 
words, there are gradations of the conception. of Spirit K!om pure 
.U.P.ii!ti!~hed ~P.iriu_Q.§[>irit as.sgçj~~-"ª-.TiiihJ}!!.!B!!!!• a!.'if.llà.L ~!!<i I 
. !if~]~§§_QQj\<çt§.JlUd more an.cl _ _!ll.<>!'.e...slose[y_)J.()g!ldlj~()_!\':h~UUs. _· 
"ssºga!~d-~it.ll_t.h~_farth~~ down tbe scaleone goes Thfs-s·cale-ôf ·•· 
"Wirit-;-"asThãve'e'Xpfà1ru!d"-êai'liei';·is'·reiãted"'i:o's-êgmentation of 
!;he social order and is represented by Nuer by leveis of space as 
.well as by leveis and degrees of immanence. So when Nuer say of 
. · something that it is Spirit we have to consider riot only what 'is' 
means but aiso what 'Spirit' means. N evertlJeless, tll:<:>!Jgl>_!Qe 
~of.:"'11)oth' yaries with the context, tJ:e wordrefersalwªY~ to 
sor:n,ething of the sarne essence; and what is being said, direct!y o r 
indirectly, in the statements is always the sarne, that something is 
that essence. · 
We can make some contribution toWards a solution of the 
problem in the light of this discussion. When Nuer say of some: 
thing~~.&'f"olh'1 'it is Spirit', or give it a name of which it can be 
further said 'thads Spirit', the 'is' does not in ali instances have 
( 139) 
-~~ 
0 
\'-..l 
THE PROBLEM OF SYMBOLS 
the sarne connotation. It may be an elliptical statement, signifying 
that th~_t):lj~g~(!fe~~e~_ tois_a ma~ifestati~_g_ of Sj)i_!:_Ít_i~_!h<õ!!<:_n!e 
'!~~-()<!r"_v__e~_lillghi11l~elfjgjgstmme!1!s oLell'em. Or it may be 
a symbolical statement,, signifying that 'l.'.h1!:t in i!"~! is n<_>~_~pjrit 
hut_!!p,!:"Sents .ê!'!Ei~_!:.<?~!!'l.~P.er.;;!:'lls is t~r_lh<!~e---I'"!:~9E~l'Ei!;Ít 
ill such contexts as direct attention to the symbolic character of 
!ln object ~() \he_ ~"cJy~i()ll <>L'Yhat~ver.__otll_e_r_q]l_1lli.tjes it may 
possess. O r it may be a statement signifying sol!l"!_hi_llg :cioserto 
identitz of_the thh1gspçl<"110L'Yith whªt!t!uª!c!_!Q. be, Spirit. 
The statements never, however, signify complete identity of any-
thing with Spirit, because Nuer think of Spirit as something more 
than any of its modes_, signs, effects, representations, and so forth, 
and also as something of a different nature from the created things 
which they are. They are not able to define what it is, but when 
it acts within the phenomena] world they say it has come from 
above, where it is conceived to be and whence it is thought to 
~d. Consequently Spirit in any form can be detached in the 
mind from the things said to be it, even if they cannot always be 
so easily detached from the idea of Spirit. 
I can take the analysis no farther; but if it is inconclusive it at 
least shows, if it is correct, how wide of ilie mark have been an-
thropological attemots to exolain the kind 
11)1ope at 1 
the two things. They may say 
that one is the other and ·in certain situations act towards it as 
though it were that other, or something like it, but they are aware, 
no .doubt with varying degrees of awareness, and readily say, 
though with varying degrees of clarity and emphasis, that the 
two things are different. Moreover, it will have been noted that in 
the seemingly equivoca! statements we have considered, with per-
haps one exception, the terms cannot be reversed. The exception 
1 I rcfcr to his earlier writings, in particular ~<::~ F9rH,:tiçms _rn,e~~ales d_a_!ls l~s 
s._o~t!t~~ inférie~res (rgro) and 4 __ M.ertpljté prfrniti1?e (1922). The second pal-t 
of his hist· b6ok, f...'[';_x,pé_rfe_n_ce mY~~~quf! et les sym!Joft:s .9fiH_ le~. prf:l!itíf~ _(1938), 
which took account of modern research, is a brilliant discourse on the problems 
wc havc beco discussing. 
( 140) 
THE PROBLEM OF SYMBOLS 
i• the statement iliat twins are birds, because it can also be 
said iliat bird~ are twins:·Thaúi hittch of birds are twins is a state-
ment, to whiéh 'we' also can give assent, which does not derive 
logically from the statement that twios are birds but from a 
perception independent of that proposition; so it does not concern 
our problem. Raio may be said to be God but God cannot be said 
to be rain; a cucumber may be called an ox but an ox cannot be 
called a cucumber; and the crocodile may be-said to be Spirit but 
Spirit cannot be said to be ilie crocodile. Consequently the~<;_ 
not statements of identi,J=V· I_!)~y_!'re stateii1~11!~ __ I1()t__t_ll~L1l'?me­
_![ljngi'L2LQer than it is but that in a certain sense and inparticular ~ 
~ts so111ethiog has some extra 'luality which does not belong 
!O it in its own natur.e; and this quality is not contrary to, or in-
compatible _with, its nature but something added to it which does 
not alter what it was but makes it something more, in respect to 
iliis quality, ilian it was. Consequentl y, !J-O contradiction, it seems 
to me, is involved in the statements. 
Whether ilie •predica te refers to a conception or to a visible 
object the addition makes ilie subject equivalem to it in respect 
to the quality which both now have in common in such contexts 
as focus the attention on iliat quality alone. The things referred to 
are not the sarne as each other but they are the sarne in iliat one 
respect, and the !'Suivalence, denoted by the copula, i~_ll_<?t_~_Il_~-~f ff 
.~\!R~!!!I1ce_!:>_11_t_of quality. Consequently we cannot speak here, as I' 
Lévy-Bruhl does, .;r" mystical participation, or at any rate not in 
his sense of the words, because t!J._<õ_!:".<:J_Q:_~g~~E~-t_-~l!.'?.ught_!() 
!J<õ li!!~~5!__]?.y~a mystical bond b';!!__~i!l!P.!Y...RY.JI: __ symbolic nexus. 
Therefore, what is dane to birds is not thought to affect twins, and 
if a totem is harmed the spirit of that totem may be offended but 
it is not harmed by the harm clone to ilie totemic creature. 
That the relatio!)__R~!!"~~!!. the th~g said to be S?._~hir:_g__el~~- _
1 
G) 
!'nçi thj\fSO!llethi~g-.,_!~e it js_said to be is an _ideal one is indeed 
obvious, but kanthro o lo 1cate1< Ianauons-:õLíiiõaeS"'õf'""nifiiiivê''j, 
km.fôlriHii~i;i'S'~wr(fe:a: an'its':tho~e'ôfT-Iiif'1:M:ãx''I\.1iíllei; ;irid-I;év ;',: f!BrulíÍ?tà1-~ ba;éd. ~~!tliifiifgs~\hBt'r6i'i1~~tfh'ritighf6;'ti~·tiié r~Giitf:it!: !,~.:~;~~F~li~:i'tl~~F:ón~~,ÊH~~.üY~fR~qp!§~.)!i(~F~~~tr~~~.~~~·;~\~·l.tP,.bne i·:.~#~i!:,: 
' .tlíõsel'ãnthro ôlo ist~5:whó~~·····ólís'8ri1•~'s 'C!!í'íllli í'cidhx · {a!l ti · · ,;) 
•·.· .•. .,,.", .. ___ .,_.,.......... P ...... w .. ,_.,,_,"····· ... _p. _ ._·· ..... r.:x,-..... w,_, ... -...... ,B-.,7í! .. JJ:rlt i''ôften.máke'the·:samê'àssiim_Etion: · This'is'tlié:'secõnd eribi If my 
interpretation is correct, Nuer kno;;;;;;y well when they say iliat 
a crocodile is Spirit that it is only Spirit in the sense that Spirit is 
( 141 ) 
-\..;.1 
THE PROBLEM OF SYMBOLS 
represented to some people by that symbol justas they know very 
well that a cucumber is only an oxin the sense that they treat it 
as one in sacrifice. That they do not mistake ideal relationsfor real 
ones is shown by many examples in this book: the ·identification 
of a sacrificial spear with that of the ancestor (p. 240), the identifi-
cationof man with ox in sacrifice (p. 262), the identification of a 
man's herd with that of the ancestor of bis clan (p. 258), theidenti-
fication of sickness and sin in a sacrificial context (pp. 191-2), and 
the identification of the left hand with death and evil (pp. 233-6). 
It is shown also in the symbolism of many of their rites, where 
their purpose is expressed in mimicry (pp. 231-2). 
I think that one reason why it was not readily perceived that 
statements that something is something else should not be taken 
as matter·of-fact statements is that it was not recognized that they 
are made in relation to a third term not mentioned in them but 
l!!lcl~-~St()gd, They are statements, as fa·;:· ~s-thé'N'~~r-;,:;~ c~n.--: 
cerned, ~o.! __ t1Ilit4~j~)~, htlnJ:la~ A and B have something in com-
mon in relation to C. This is evident when we give some thought 
to the matter. A cucumber is equivalent to an ox in respect to God 
who accepts it in the place of an ox. A crocodile is equivalent to 
Spirit only when conceived of as a representation of God to a 
lineage. Consequently, though Nuer do not mistake ideal relations 
for real ones, an ideal eguivalence is none the less true for them, 
because ~~!..!J:i!J_tEe_ir system of religious thought thin.:gs~_":!:':.!!".~ 
i'!It..':'?~tth:y_app_e:\r_t_ç>_~~-Etit a~_tll_~y_are ~()!!~~ved çfin...!~!!'n 
to God. · 
···-t.ii.ls implies experience on an imaginatiye_ l~;_yel of thought 
:-:~er_e_ the min~--~~VO:~.ln.: . .!igl!~L~ymll:<>.!~~l'hor~nal_<>g~es, 
an.:ª '!':~Y-~P._e11ill:()ra!~?_I.! .. ()f.P9."!Í.ÇJ'!Ilg..!!!!ªE!!g!!!'g<:; and an-
other reason why there has been misunderstanding is that the 
poetic sense of primitive peoples has not been sufficiently allowed 
for, so that it has not been appreciated that ~hat th~J::.2!Y. is of!!:!_l 
!O be und~~oo~i_n th~!~~ al'il .. not in any ordinary sense. This 
is certainly the case with the Nuer, as we see in this cllapter and 
in many places elsewhere in this book, for example, in their hymns. 
In ali their poems and songs also they play on words and images 
to sucll an extent that no European can translate them without 
commentary from N uer, and even :ç-;fuer themselves cannot always 
say what meaning the)' had for their authors. It is the sarne with 
their Càttle- and dance-names, which are chosen both for euphony 
- ·--~-----
( 142) 
! 
1 
I 
I! 
i 
I 
I 
•I 
i 
i 
\ 
r 
' 
' I 
I 
~ 
! 
THE PROBLEM OF SYMBOLS 
a!14.1R~l>PI~~S..'!!l"!<?gie~. How Nuer delight in playing with words 
is also seen in !!lU!!!!.... they h~e in making_EP. .. !'!..":gue:!~is!~!!'L 
sentences w.llich.!!~.iliffi_ç1J_h_J:\' .. R':Q!!Q!!!lCe '."ithom .. <t mistake, and 
slips of the tongue, ll!!!m!!y.§!ips.inJ.h~pr~~mçeQfffiQthm·in,law. 
whif!:!..Jl!r!l_qJ!!!~.2rdi!!..'!!Y~m~Eks_jg!Q. .. ()bsc~!!i!!.es. Lacking 
plastic and visual arts, the imagination of this sensitive people 
fii1\!s_iJ:§..§Q!'...!?3PI~~sieg..[!Ü~~"~' i~~g~~-~nd~()!._d_~. 
In this and the last chaptér I have attempted to lay bare some 
features of the Nuer conception of Spirit. We are not asking what 
Spirit is but what is the Nuer conception of kwoth, which we 
translate 'Spirit'. Since it is a conception that we are inquiring 
into, our inquiry is an exploration of ideas. In the course of it we 
have found that whilst l\!_!!er conceive of Spirit as creator and .. 
fath~r jn rl)e h~avens th_rr_al!i~_QlinJs..2.f it i!!..El~_"!Y ... ªi.f!~~"nt 
r"m:~~~!!!~Ü()_Il!?_,(what I have called refractions of Spirit).in_~l~!i~n 
.tQ.~qçill.lgrQ1!P..S, .S'\!~gori~s, !!!:'s!.P~f~~~- -The conception of Spirit 
has, we found, a social dimension (we can also say, since the state-
ment can be reversed, that the social structure has a spiritual 
~imension). We found also that Spirit, in the Nuer conception of 
it, is experienced in signs, media, and.symbols through which it is 
manifested to the senses. Fundamentally, however, this is not a 
relation of Spirii: to things but a relation of Spirit to persons 
through things, so that, here again, we are ultimately concerned 
with the relation of God and man, .and we have to consider not 
only what is the God-to-man side of the relationship, to which 
attention has so far mostly been given, but also the man-to-God 
side of it, to whic'h I now tum. · 
( 143) 
J::'--
SACRlFlCE 
variations of a single general meaning, are logically intercon-
nected, and shade into one another, but they indica te nevertheless 
distinct dilferences of emphasis. What ali of them express, how-
ever, istbe central piacular idea of substitution of lives of cattle 
for lives of meu. Tbat is on the surfa~e._W~hªY-~JJÜ~!!l.J:eJJWfu:r 
if we are to understanêl-i!s-interiõi:-meaning. 
-····. - '" -·- ······. ~ ..• ,., ... _, ___ ~=-... ---"·"' 
( 2JO) 
, 
I 
1 
I' 
CHAPTER IX 
SPEAR SYMBOLISM 
WHEN I think of the sacrifices I bave witnessed in Nuerland there 
are two objects I see most vividly and wbicb sum up for me tbe 
sacrificial rite: the spear brandisbed in tbe rigbt hand of tbe ofli-
c;:,i"-'-"·as he walks up and dÕwn pasi tbe vktim defivering his'iuVõ-
cation, and the beast,a:-v_a.i!_i!?:g its dc:~Ql· It is not the figure of tbe 
ofliciant or ~bat be says whicb evokes the most vivid impression, 
but the brandished spear in his right hand. 
We have noted that the Iam or invocation states the intention 
~f_!be s_~crJ~~e·l~ W()rds are.~- projection <Ji!he-W.l.i(~~ª~~slre_ ()f 
the l'erson as be turns towards Spirit; and an essential part of the 
àction--is-thebrãnélTshing-Õl'thes~âr. As tbe ofliciant walks up 
and down delive,-ing bis oration the movements of tbe spear in bis 
right band emphasize his words: opening and closing his fingers 
on it, poising it in bis band, raising it as tbough to strike, making 
little jabs with it into the air, pointing it towards the victim, and 
so on. These movements are an integral part of the expression of 
intention, and there is more in the action than meets the eye. 
In Nuer ritual the meaning of sy_!!l]lolism is generally at once 
evident to ourselves, at any rate in its main import, for there is an 
intrinsic relation betw~~n the_!lymbol and wbatitstands for. Wben 
an animàl is cut iTI. half in cases ~f incest, .!o all.'i!!).~~!:E!.~~!~_a.ge 
between distam kin, before a man takes his dead brother's wife in 
íê:V"ffãiiCUiiiõll,it the closing of an age-_set, in mortuary cere-
monies, and on other occasions, we can at once perceive how the 
purpose of the rite ͧ.E>Pl~~~d ill..!h\'. severing of the carcass. ~­
r;la.~i_c>_~s_l>ip _ _f:Jf_()~e _ _l<_i~~_<J_l:'_~_n!:'!h~r_l!.~!,yee_l1_l'~'::s.~_n_s i~-~!'illg_ 
~!'~<:_red. Likewise the symbolism of the rite, common among 
primitive peoples, of putting out fires and relighting them at a 
mari's mortuary ceremony, and in the case of the rehabilitation 
of a bomicide the relighting of them with fire-sticks, is at once 
evident for us. The past is finisbed with; one begins anew. 
The shaving of the head of a bride at her marriage, of a boy at 
his initiation, of a· kinsman at a mortuary ceremony, and of a 
homicide at the settlement of a feud expresses, and brings about, 
( 2Jl) i I 
I 
r 
V'\ 
SPEAR SYMBOLISM 
tbe passing from one state to anotber as obviously for us as for 
Nuer. Again, we can see immediately also tbe appropriateness of 
the action to tbe situation and purpose in the ritual making_.QÚI 
line or boundary_(kegh), A leopard-skin priest cuts a line between 
opposing factions to forbid combat. The dominant lineages of the 
Gaagwong and Leek tribes may not, for a mythical reason, tether 
their cattle in a common kraal, but if they cannot conveniently 
avoid doing so a line of earth is thrown up b_etween the sections 
of tbe kraal occupied by each. On the otber hand, whilst there 
is generally a ridge of raised earth dividing adjacent gardens of 
neigbboursthis is absent wben tbe owners of tbem are members of 
the sarne ric or age-set. When in c.~rt~!g_ççn::!!!Q!Ü~~-.NH~!' .. !f?JQW. 
ashes into tbe air()! __ ~sperse !h~!r.!?<>Eii~s we do not bave difficulty 
in perceiving that th~y_ar~- ~!'P.~~s.s.!ng_!h~jg~~-Qf_~yj!_b~i.!KlJ!O\V_I! 
or wasbed away. Another, and final, example is that of a man who 
ii!avestii'e-trlba-1 territory wbere be was bom and brougbt up to 
reside in the territory of a different tribe. H e may tben-it may not 
be a regular practice, thougb I was told that a man might die of 
nueer were he not to take the precaution take a pot of earth from 
bis natal territory and mix it in an infusion with earth from the 
territory of bis adoption,. ~nd drink the infusion, on each occasion 
adding more of the new earth and less of tbe old, thereby slowly 
making the transference from his old to his new home. We have 
no difficulty at a!! in understanding and entering into tbis sym-
l:>O!ism. Likewise we readily understand tbe imagery of various 
rites I have described in this book, suchas tbe bending of a bracelet 
to dose the jaws of crocodi!es, tbe placing of the corpses of infant 
twins on branches of trees, and many other rites. 
Since we at once perceive the meaning of the symbolism of the 
ritual action we may suppose tbat Nuer also perceive its logical 
fitness to its purpose; and, indeed, it is often certain that they do 
so, for if asked to explain what they are doing t!!ey intem!et tbe 
~y_mb2]j~m _2f_~_rite jn_!erii~l~ __ ()f its _purpose. The symbolísm is 
manifest to them, as it is to us. But th<o!~l~_a_deeper symbolism 
whicb is so embedded in ritual action that __ ~ts meanin.g_is n,eith_e_r: 
?!iviõ~~!ior explifit:'T!:le performer may-be only part!y aware or 
even unaware that it has one. Interpretation may tben be difficult 
for a person of alien culture, and the door is open for every kind of 
extravagant guesswork to enter. Nevertbeless, ifit be rasb in such 
drcumstances to put forward symbolic interpretations of ritual 
r 232 > 
• 
" 
,! 
SPEAR SYMBOLISM 
acts, or features of them, we are sometimes compelled to make tbe 
attempt, as in this excursus on tbe spear, by tbe very empbasis 
given to them by the culture we are trying to understand. 
Since we have no spears ourselves and notbing wbich takes tbeir 
place in our lives it is difficultfor us to appreciate their importance 
for Nuer. Nuer have no knives, other than that (ngom) used for 
cuui!!g.th~lllªrk~.9f.@P..h224.i\U!!i!iê!i<Jn, so that their iighifiig: 
.spears, besides their use as weapons, have to serve where other 
peoples use knives.1 A man's fighting-spear {171~1) is constantly i'!_ 
.hiê g:gg!, formi!lg3!!!!~!'1!rl.2!Ài!P.-when h e is fighting, hunt-
ing, travelling, herding, dancing, displaying bimself with bis oxen, 
playing with bis comrades, and so on-and _;vh"n he lays it down 
it is within bis reacb; and ~e is never tired o!_!'ha.rpen!!!g and 
p_o!!§hingJ!cfor '!J'l'l!~LÍLY!::IY.l'!oud.2f..hl~ .. ~P.ea~. In writing a 
preliminaryaccount of :t-J'uer age-sets many years ago and witbout 
reference to the symbolic significance_ of the speari wrote that 'one 
is surprisedat_theJealfeeljllg a :tfuer. ~xpresses fo_r lüs spear, 
almost as thol1gh, it wereanimate and nota lllere weapon'. La ter 
I carne to realize better that in a sense it is animate, for it is an 
e.'!'!,!)g9_!!_'!..~E_5Xternal symbo! of the right hand, .:Y.~ich_ .. ~l':ll_is 
tor.th~ .. §.!!~g!h, .YH~!f!y2_anq..Y._irtu~f the p~n. It is a projec-
tion of tbe self, so when a man hurls bis speár he cries out either 
'!llyright bane!' or tbe name of tbe ox with whicbhe is identified. 
Tbe spear, being an extension-of th~ right band, stimds for ali 
tbat tbe rigbt hand stands for, for w~at is strongc v_i_E~~-!'n.~!ra.l, 
'\!'cl .. ".()!!~~'l~ .. ~~!]y_for _J?asculinity ~d be11_ce for tbe paternal kin 
a_g<:'_!)le lineage. Therefore during the discussions about bride-
wealth in tbe byre of tbe bride's bome on ber wedding day tbe 
~ricl~gi'!om'~P-".~Pk~\L9~!f>e right sid~-of t'h_e__!ryre an_<L!~e 
!JrLq<;,';;_J'.S'?P.le 2!Uh.e_)eft side. Therefore, also, wben tbe carcasses 
of oxen sacrificed at marriage ceremonies are divided among the 
kin, tbe rigbt fore and bind leg~_!'!e the l:'?.'êt~<l_ns of_!be fa.tb,_<'{s 
I?!Q_L~rs andsisters and theleft fore and bind legs .•!_e_!.ll". J'O!ti,ons 
çf!.~~'!the(s_l>rothers and sist~rs. Th~~sy111b'?.!iE:~-".'.'i! 
1 Being the only thing they have. which cuts and is therefore suitabie for 
shaving-their other spears only pierce-the verbal form of the word for fighting-
spear, mut, besides its meaning of 'to spear' means 'to cut' or 'to shave hair'. 
When used in the last sense it often rcfers to ritual shaving of the head, and it 
may then Qe used for the whole ceremony of which shaving .of the head forros 
part, as the fina~ marriage ceremony of Consummation and ceremonies in con· 
ncxion with death. 
( 233) 
I 
I 
I 
I 
.i 
li 
----0' 
SPEAR SYMBOL!SM 
.?:~.-~~!li'~ femininity; and there is here a double assodation, for the 
female principie. isa)so_as_s_o~!_a_!:ed_:vithevil <\irec!!y,,as it were, and 
not mere!y through the convergence of femininity and evil in the 
f 
concept of the left side. Thus we have two opposites, the one com-
prising the left side~~-akn!_~1 f~~i?J!!i!Y1 and ev[IJ_and the other 
comprising the right side.._§~rengª'-~ rQas~!l.!inity, an':!_goo~ness.• 
That the right side is the good side and the left side the evil side 
may have been noted in various places in this book. When a fruit 
2.E....~~!}l~U.!! . .S~tJn..!~2..1!! sacrifices !he left h'!lf n;:;i;y.:_~~-çj!Q~r 
t~_r_9~~-or_g!~~n. a"!~Y.and g~ly__t:!>_e right halfbe cons_t!.~~d I,y_~ge 
P.''':>P!!'...~f_!he_g()!!)e. It J8__P.!.()Pi!.i."E~9 .. L'!_sacrifidal ox stabbed 
with the spear to f~_ll_on 1ts right side a':lc<!.1l_l}p.!QP.it!Q.l!.~.!or iU2 fali 
on its left side. A dead man is buried to the Ieft of his hut or wind-
scre~n, th~-;;ide of misfortune. A woman is said to warn her son 
that when he visits his bride to cohabit with her she may crouch 
to the right side of the entrance to the hut so that he has to enter 
by the left side. If she does this he must order her to the other side 
Iest some iii come to him.2 
When I was in Nuerland I was only half aware of the signifi-
cance of left and right for Nuer. When writing this book I found 
therefore that in severalrespects my observations, or at any rate 
what I had recorded, were insuffident to answer certain questions 
that arose from a further consideration of the left-right gólarity. 
It occurred to me that if the representations were as I supposed 
them to be then, for example, when Nuer deform the horns of 
their favourite oxen with which they identify themselves, it 
s.!::o_uL<1__3.lway~!Je the left, and never the right, horn w_hich.___is 
trained downwards (Plate XIII). Or again, when Nuer erect the 
saêreêipõle7ãssõcíated with God, the spirits of their Iineage, and 
also with its ghosts, at the entrance to their windscreens, which is 
their practice, it should always .be to the right of the windscreen 
(taking, in this case, bearings from within it). My recollection, 
1 Among many primitive peoples the slight organic asymmetry between the 
left hand and the right is made the symbol of absolute moral polarity. Robert 
Hertz has treated the subject systematically in a brilliant essay, 'La prééminence 
de Ia main droite', Revue philosophique, xxxiv, 1909 (reprinted in Mélanges de 
sociologie religieuse et de folklore, 1928). 
:t Left and right are 'of cour!ie rela tive to the orientation of the person. Thus 
when a man takes his bearings from the entrance to hut or windscreen what is 
left from the inside will be l-ight from the outside. I do not think, however, ~at 
the point of orientation affects the argument, for it is conventional that inreference to any particular matter the one side is left an'd the other right. 
( 234) 
I 
·I 
I 
I :I 
li 
'i I: 
I J, 
r I 
PLATE XII 
Youth wearing thiau (arm-rings) 
I 
·I 
SPEAR SYMBOLISM 
confirmed to some extem by tbe evidence of my photographs, 1 
supported these conclusions, but I asked Dr. Lienhardt and Dr. 
Howell to verify them, which they have been able to do. It should 
follow also that a husband sleeps on the right side of the hut and 
h~swife .. on.theJeft.$ide~ and here again Dr. Lienhardt hasbeen 
good enough to confirm that this is the invariable practice. He has 
made a further and importam observation. I was aware that the 
west is associated with death and the east with life, but I did not 
know, til! he told me, that east is identified with right and ~t 
with left, thus bringing into the left-right polarity tbe polar repre-
senta dons not only of life and death but also of the cardinal poims 
east and west. I am indebted to Dt. Mary Smith for the further. 
observation that Nuer speak of 'rightchanded peace' ('mal me 
.cuec'). They would never speak of left-himded peace. 
It is in accord with what we have learnt of the associations with 
left and right in Nuer thought that Nuer youths should ~.!!PE~­
~~~-the contrast .between 'the two h~~~s EYY..!:!.!ting the left ":':E'· 
o~~Laction_!!]tog~ther for months or eve~~Y~:'~':~ .. !~o. This 
tbey do by pressing a series of metal rings(thiau) into tbe f!esh of 
the IEft arm from the wrist upwards so tight!Jthat sores and great 
pain result and the arm is rendered useless for any purpose other 
than the display of fortitude and as a passive instrument for the 
right hand to play upon (Pia te XII). A ring on a finger of the right 
hand is rubbed up and down tbe discs on the imprisone(i left arm 
to accompany the compliments and endearments of courtship. 
Such a mutilation is_ on]:Y_f.ullyj}1tellig!!;_!:_i~~'!'~!.,symbolic 
associations. Here the fact that it is only the left horn of favourite 
oxen which is debased (if the right is trained at ali it is trained 
upwards) is of great significance, for, as will be seen, a man and 
his favourite ox are identified. What he does to his left h~nd he 
does to his ox's left horn: what he does to the ox he does to himself. 
It is perhaps importam to add that Nuer do not think of the 
left hand as being in .a material sense evil. Left-handed persons 
suffer no disabilities at ali and are not considered in other respects 
as different from other people. Nuer do not, in my experience, 
attach any importance to the matter, but simply say of a left-
1 All deformed horns in the photographs are left hoi'ns. Some branches in 
them, however, are to the left of the windscreens, but Nuer erect branches for 
practical purposes as well as for religious reasons, and I do not think it is possihlc 
to distinguish between them by sight. 
( 2 35) 
,__..-~ .... 
SPEAR SYMBOL~SM 
handed man that bis left hand is his right hand. 
It is the guality of leftness, not the thing that is 
left, the hand itself, which is significam for them. 
Similarly, the left half of the severed carcass of 
a sacrificial animal is not intrinsically evil. It is 
always eaten by someone. It is _bad symbolically, 
not in itself, and symbolically only in certain 
comexts or for çertain people. 
It is suggested that the spear as a projection of 
the right hand E!Il9oli~..!h~Ü!!EW-2Lilli!!l• 
the manhood of man with the associations of 
Ihi~;g~:·:;~i!le~~that .. go with it. It is ,.;ithin the 
IQgic of the represemation that we speak only of 
men. The spear stands for masculinity. W omen 
do not bear fighting-spears. The spear does not 
go with femininity. Hence also -~oy~_dg_!l()_t _ _!J~~~ 
§g)!ting;~p,<.:~,!'S t~L'!t.!\:.l'ir i11itiation to manhood 
~h!<Y.i!r~. given them hy their fathers. Before this 
event they are something in hetween men and 
women, and this is shown by the fact that they 
milk the cows, a feminine task that men may not 
undertake. That neither women nor boys bear 
spears means that they do not go to war and also 
that they do not sacrifice. It is not just that a 
woman may not slaughter· the sacrificial victim 
~it.is llOt, i!). an'y case, iiriportam who slaughters 
it-but that, 'lot he!_I)g able to bear th~P.ear, s):l--" 
cannot make the sacrificial invocation, which is 
~;·.:r~·bytb;-;p<;;; in the right hand as well as by 
the mouth. She can indeed address Spirit at sacri-
fices, but if she does so _s!!_o:_~(pa0; _s_l}~_ª<:J~S 
~ot invocate (!~m). This is understandable when 
we think of the spear as an extension of the right 
hand and hence as representing strength, mascu-
linity, and goodness. Sacrifice, _!jke war, E-~~ggs 
to that side of life, what we ourselves cal! the 8i?<'ãr:;1d;;;------ --- - - · ------- -- · 
1 I was told that a wife may actas _master of ceremonies 
in her husband's place and shout out the spear~name of his 
~ at a wedding. This is the twoc ghok mentioned later. 
( 236) 
~ 
'" ~ 
" ;:: 
§ 
:1 
FIG-4 
Instrument used 
in wedding invo~ 
cations 
SPEAR SYMBOL!SM 
It is importam here, and before we proceed further with the 
argument, to note that the spear we are concerned with is the mut, 
the metal fighting-spear (or, in a more restricted sense, spear-l::Íead), 
the only spear used in sacrifice. It is not a bidh, a metal fishing-
spear, and it is not a giit,_~_fig!>til.lg:~R~~da,~g[()";eçi __ ~l!t ots!l~­
stances other than metal. We have further to bear in mind that 
· tiloU:gÇspeãrs.are-nàw easily obtained by purchase from Ara h 
traders this is a very recent development. There is no iron in Nuer-
land,'andiYh1l t metàl seears tge ~uer us_ed to p_Qssess w_c:r~ P.E()~1l~ed 
il_l_()E-e way~r an_()th_c:~l~.mE"igil!Jou_!:il1g_p~()p!es, and it is certain 
that til! recently there were very few of them. Nuer made up for 
the deficiency by fashioning spears from horn and bone and hard 
~ Spears fashioned from these materiais were still plentiful 
when I was living in Nuerland, though they were taking on more 
and more a purely sentimental and ceremonial value, being often 
used in dances but seldom for fighting and huming. Since, how-
ever, the spears of the ancestors, the names of whi·ch are cried out 
in invocations, were [ron fig]1ting;!lfl.Ç~S, and since Nuer could not 
have done without some of these cutting blades, there must always 
have been a certain number of them, and also a certain number 
of iron fishing-spears (for which horn, bone, and wood substitutes 
are unsuitable), but, as Dr. Howell has pointed out, they were few 
in number, this accounting, in his opinion, for the high value-
several head of cattle-placed upon them.1 I agree with,him that 
it must have been very rare for a manto have had more than one 
.mut, the giit ~pe_,rs_Eeillg_regg_ç!<:_<!_!!s supP.kill~!lt_acry_sg_it. This 
must consequently have been a very valuable possession and, if 
lost, most diflicult to replace; and it was not:just ~priv:ate pos_se~­
~OQ b~~ family heirloom p;tsseç!.from father !~2!l down the 
generations. This does not mean that it was a relic. It was for 
r.ractical use and therefore when worn was presumably replaced; 
otherwise one would see these ancestral spears today. However, 
the age of a spear has no great significance for Nuer.- For them, 
It is not a sacrificial invocation. It must be a very rare occurrence for a woman 
to play this role. Probably she can only takc the part if she is acting on behalf 
of the bridegroom's family and hence holds in her hand, not a spear, but Jhe 
instrument called c{g_Egjfig. 4), and also if she is" an old woman, of whom Nuer 
say 'she has ~ç_~.Q!!!!:.i..m!!P.'· There is one occasion when women bear spears. 
Twins go through a fictional wedding before they can go through a real one. In 
this ceremony men array themselves as women, and women