Where Have All Their Lineages Gone? Cattle and Descent Among the Nuer

Abstract

Evans-Pritchard"THE NUER" ACQUIRED JUST FAME as one of the paradigmatic ethnographies that apparently solved urgent theoretical problems of the time. With the model of "segmentary lineage system," Evans-Pritchard thus accounted for the manner in which a society "without government" could exist through a process of "ordered anarchy" because this system served to "regulate political relations between territorial segments" (Fortes and EvansPritchard 1940:6). Ironically enough, Evans-Pritchards earlier writings about the Nuer (from 1933 to 1938) did not make any mention of a segmentary lineage system. It suddenly surfaced in 1940, certainly a convenient analytical tool, but perhaps not a most faithful representation of Nuer society, as later exegetists were to suggest (Glickman 1971; Holy 1979a).The segmentary lineage model's appeal extended far and wide, accounting for the social organization of various polities, such as the Tallensi or Tiv. But problems soon arose. To take but one instance, the "regulation between territorial groups" exerted by the segmentary lineage system seemed to vary significantly between the Nuer, on the one hand, and the Tallensi, on the other. The more inclusive territorial segments among the Nuer emerged in action only, and lacked permanence or reality except in opposition to segments of coordinate status. Fortes also read the same relativity in Tallensi lineage segments but, in reality, every level of segmentation among the Tallensi is clearly identified at all times. Every segment has a permanent representative who acceeds to a position according to clear rules and criteria of eligibility. The segment head is also entitled to perform certain political or ritual activities on behalf of the group, or to convene a subgroup for the performance of these activities. The problem was solved by claiming that the Tallensi lineage segments were corporate, whereas the Nuer ones were not. This distinction, however, only introduced a basic contradiction. Since corporateness implied perpetuity, corporate groups were by definition endowed with the attributes of permanence (a name, a representative, recurrent activities, and so forth). If the groups formed through the merging of lower groups (the lineage segments) were essentially relative, gaining substance in complementary opposition only, they could therefore not be corporate at the same time. Thus, either lineages could never be corporate (because of their essential relativity) or they could never be segmentary (because of their corporateness). Unfortunately, this contradiction was tolerated to save the category.As a first step toward a solution, we could thus rid ourselves from the notion of corporateness, but this would be far from sufficient. The very notion of lineage (or descent group) came indeed to subsume a number of disparate phenomena and, to clarify matters, we must define our concepts in a way that is mutually exclusive. The problem has been tackled from a purely theoretical point of view elsewhere (Verdon 1980a(Verdon , b, c, 1981 but...

Torture by Cieng: Ethical Theory Meets Social Practice among the Dinka Agaar of South Sudan

“…Cieng , as I found expressed and defined among the Dinka Agaar, is distinct from the identical word used by the nearby Nuer (Evans‐Pritchard 1951, 1969; Hutchinson 1996; Verdon 1982). Cieng , as used in this context, is more precisely defined by Francis M. Deng in its verb form as “to look after, to order, to inhabit, to treat [a person], and to relate to a person.” He further defines cieng in its noun form as “human relations, conduct, behavior, habit, personality, custom, law, rule, way of life, culture, essence, and nature” (1972:185).…”

Torture by Cieng: Ethical Theory Meets Social Practice among the Dinka Agaar of South Sudan

“…Cieng , as I found expressed and defined among the Dinka Agaar, is distinct from the identical word used by the nearby Nuer (Evans‐Pritchard 1951, 1969; Hutchinson 1996; Verdon 1982). Cieng , as used in this context, is more precisely defined by Francis M. Deng in its verb form as “to look after, to order, to inhabit, to treat [a person], and to relate to a person.” He further defines cieng in its noun form as “human relations, conduct, behavior, habit, personality, custom, law, rule, way of life, culture, essence, and nature” (1972:185).…”

The multiple meanings of moongo : on the conceptual character of doorways and backbones in K ilimanjaro

“…In a similar way, Verdon (: 572) argues that the Nuer notions of mar , buth , and thok dwiel refer not to groups, but to categories that concern claims to cattle in different forms, notably as shares of bridewealth, ceremonially slaughtered meat, and inheritance. Mar , buth , and thok dwiel are thus concepts that cut, channel, and configure the movements of cattle in specific ways, on the basis of past, present, and prospective relations.…”

“…Mar , buth , and thok dwiel are thus concepts that cut, channel, and configure the movements of cattle in specific ways, on the basis of past, present, and prospective relations. Verdon (: 573), moreover, argues that these movements occur between houses, cieng , whose heads may mobilize temporary alliances, thok dwiel , on the basis of such relationships, where genealogical connections predominate. The notions Evans‐Pritchard translated as ‘lineage’ hence concern not groups, but flows of cattle between houses, which they cut in different ways to yield different relational figures.…”

The values of ‘anarchy’: moral autonomy among T ubu‐speakers in northern C had

“…In Evans‐Pritchard's own terms:

We would … suggest that Nuer political groups be defined in terms of values, by the relations between their segments and their interrelations as segments of a larger system in an organization of society in certain social situations, and not as parts of a kind of fixed framework within which people live (1940: 149).

Much ink has been spilled over segmentary systems since then. Nuer ‘segmentation’ is analytically incoherent (Smith ), primarily a gloss for economic strategies (Glickman ), merely representational (Holy ), non‐existent (Verdon ), or the result of a male‐centred view that ignores domestic relations (McKinnon ); but what seems to be at issue mostly is a confusion between conceptual statements (of how we all relate, of what ought to happen) and ethnographic description – or, to borrow Bourdieu's (: 89) terms, between the principle of segmentation and ‘practical kinship’. As Dresch notes, echoing Ardener's comment,

Lineage theory and segmentation are not at all the same thing; indeed, they represent two different types of anthropology.

…”

Torture by Cieng: Ethical Theory Meets Social Practice among the Dinka Agaar of South Sudan

“…Cieng , as I found expressed and defined among the Dinka Agaar, is distinct from the identical word used by the nearby Nuer (Evans‐Pritchard 1951, 1969; Hutchinson 1996; Verdon 1982). Cieng , as used in this context, is more precisely defined by Francis M. Deng in its verb form as “to look after, to order, to inhabit, to treat [a person], and to relate to a person.” He further defines cieng in its noun form as “human relations, conduct, behavior, habit, personality, custom, law, rule, way of life, culture, essence, and nature” (1972:185).…”

The multiple meanings of moongo : on the conceptual character of doorways and backbones in K ilimanjaro

“…In a similar way, Verdon (: 572) argues that the Nuer notions of mar , buth , and thok dwiel refer not to groups, but to categories that concern claims to cattle in different forms, notably as shares of bridewealth, ceremonially slaughtered meat, and inheritance. Mar , buth , and thok dwiel are thus concepts that cut, channel, and configure the movements of cattle in specific ways, on the basis of past, present, and prospective relations.…”

“…Mar , buth , and thok dwiel are thus concepts that cut, channel, and configure the movements of cattle in specific ways, on the basis of past, present, and prospective relations. Verdon (: 573), moreover, argues that these movements occur between houses, cieng , whose heads may mobilize temporary alliances, thok dwiel , on the basis of such relationships, where genealogical connections predominate. The notions Evans‐Pritchard translated as ‘lineage’ hence concern not groups, but flows of cattle between houses, which they cut in different ways to yield different relational figures.…”

The values of ‘anarchy’: moral autonomy among T ubu‐speakers in northern C had

“…In Evans‐Pritchard's own terms:

We would … suggest that Nuer political groups be defined in terms of values, by the relations between their segments and their interrelations as segments of a larger system in an organization of society in certain social situations, and not as parts of a kind of fixed framework within which people live (1940: 149).

Much ink has been spilled over segmentary systems since then. Nuer ‘segmentation’ is analytically incoherent (Smith ), primarily a gloss for economic strategies (Glickman ), merely representational (Holy ), non‐existent (Verdon ), or the result of a male‐centred view that ignores domestic relations (McKinnon ); but what seems to be at issue mostly is a confusion between conceptual statements (of how we all relate, of what ought to happen) and ethnographic description – or, to borrow Bourdieu's (: 89) terms, between the principle of segmentation and ‘practical kinship’. As Dresch notes, echoing Ardener's comment,

Lineage theory and segmentation are not at all the same thing; indeed, they represent two different types of anthropology.

…”

Torture by Cieng: Ethical Theory Meets Social Practice among the Dinka Agaar of South Sudan

“…Cieng , as I found expressed and defined among the Dinka Agaar, is distinct from the identical word used by the nearby Nuer (Evans‐Pritchard 1951, 1969; Hutchinson 1996; Verdon 1982). Cieng , as used in this context, is more precisely defined by Francis M. Deng in its verb form as “to look after, to order, to inhabit, to treat [a person], and to relate to a person.” He further defines cieng in its noun form as “human relations, conduct, behavior, habit, personality, custom, law, rule, way of life, culture, essence, and nature” (1972:185).…”

The multiple meanings of moongo : on the conceptual character of doorways and backbones in K ilimanjaro

“…In a similar way, Verdon (: 572) argues that the Nuer notions of mar , buth , and thok dwiel refer not to groups, but to categories that concern claims to cattle in different forms, notably as shares of bridewealth, ceremonially slaughtered meat, and inheritance. Mar , buth , and thok dwiel are thus concepts that cut, channel, and configure the movements of cattle in specific ways, on the basis of past, present, and prospective relations.…”

“…Mar , buth , and thok dwiel are thus concepts that cut, channel, and configure the movements of cattle in specific ways, on the basis of past, present, and prospective relations. Verdon (: 573), moreover, argues that these movements occur between houses, cieng , whose heads may mobilize temporary alliances, thok dwiel , on the basis of such relationships, where genealogical connections predominate. The notions Evans‐Pritchard translated as ‘lineage’ hence concern not groups, but flows of cattle between houses, which they cut in different ways to yield different relational figures.…”

The values of ‘anarchy’: moral autonomy among T ubu‐speakers in northern C had

“…In Evans‐Pritchard's own terms:

We would … suggest that Nuer political groups be defined in terms of values, by the relations between their segments and their interrelations as segments of a larger system in an organization of society in certain social situations, and not as parts of a kind of fixed framework within which people live (1940: 149).

Much ink has been spilled over segmentary systems since then. Nuer ‘segmentation’ is analytically incoherent (Smith ), primarily a gloss for economic strategies (Glickman ), merely representational (Holy ), non‐existent (Verdon ), or the result of a male‐centred view that ignores domestic relations (McKinnon ); but what seems to be at issue mostly is a confusion between conceptual statements (of how we all relate, of what ought to happen) and ethnographic description – or, to borrow Bourdieu's (: 89) terms, between the principle of segmentation and ‘practical kinship’. As Dresch notes, echoing Ardener's comment,

Lineage theory and segmentation are not at all the same thing; indeed, they represent two different types of anthropology.

…”