The question was something like, do you think the Mugabe (king in Nkole society in Uganda) should be considered a divine king? But I also go into some present day differences between nomadic and agricultural tribes in Kenya/Sudan…

Observations from the field: Divine Kingship, Nilotes, and Circumcision

After having read the debates, I agree with most that the issue of divine kingship is a tricky debate. As pointed out, he was the servant of the Bagyendanwa, and also his health was critical for the well-being of the kingdom. Also, according to the lecture 3 notes, divine kingship was associated with the ‘killing of a dying king’. However, it’s not apparent that the Bahima and Bahima believed that the Mugabe was a god himself. And if we take that as the definition of divine kingship, in the sense of the pharaohs and sun-gods of ancient Egypt, then the Mugabe was not divine.

Following, the theory of diffusion and cultural borrowing is central to the argument. Essentially, attributing one culture’s ideology to another’s and interpreting the results through that lens can lead to false assumptions. As stated, cultural borrowing is not an indication of inferiority on the part of the borrower; rather, ideas are borrowed because they are in some way useful. Given the position of the Nile and the Nkole kingdom, it’s likely that people and ideas did intermix and spread, giving rise to new manifestations or adaptation of cultural ideas. Further, the intralacustrine kingdoms have many similarities, and one could conclude that the regional closeness, mostly centred around Lake Victoria, gave rise to cultural borrowing between many kingdoms.

Nilotes did spread to the intralacustrine region and East Africa, and even today they are quite distinct from the other (Bantu) tribes in language, culture, and appearance. It’s interesting to see the similarities in today’s Kenyan and Sudanese Nilotes – for instance, the Maasai, Turkana, Luo, and Nuer still usually remove most of their front bottom teeth. The Sudanese (Nuer and Dinka) and the Kenyan (Turkana and Maasai) Nilotes are still pastoralist (nomadic cattle herders). However, at least in today’s economy, the status formerly attributed to cattle herders is no longer valid – it’s the agrarian tribes such as the Kikuyu, Kalinjin, and Luhya, (and Nilotic Luo) who are now primarily business-minded and dominate the political economy. This is in keeping with the suggestion in the lecture notes that ‘settled farmers contribute more to economic, social, and political development.’

However, ideas have spread among the tribes. I’ve read that out of 43 tribes in Kenya, only 4 do not traditionally practice female circumcision (FGM), and those 4 tribes are a mix of Nilotic and Bantu tribes (as are the other 39). Where did the practice originate? It surely suggests diffusion from other cultures as opposed to their Nilotic or Bantu roots. (Note that in today’s society, most tribes no longer require FGM).

Another observation is that male circumcision is practically universal in this region, perhaps in most of Africa. I haven’t heard of a single male who hasn’t been circumcised as their initiation into manhood. The ceremonial details differ, but the procedure endures. It’s likely that no one culture is responsible for that phenomenon, but that the diffusion was complete. The question you may have is how a practice such as male circumcision could be considered ‘useful’ to account for the widespread diffusion. In brief, the initiation ceremony (of which circumcision is the finale), is a measure and proof of a man’s strength and courage. Even to this day, if a boy winces, cries, or makes any move during the procedure, he will be beaten to death on the spot. In this way, the society weeds out the weak – brutally and finally. Therefore, every man that survives is accepted and integrated as a full member of society, and accorded the associated rights, privileges, and respect. I imagine this had great impact during the warrior-class days. Even today a man cannot show fear or trepidation due to his thorough socialization into manhood.

As for FGM, that’s another story altogether..!

 

Copyright Johanna Voerman Khisa, 2002-03. Reprinting or reposting without permission is prohibited.