..-11- 11
1l AFRICAN ilITCHCRAFTUITCHCRAFT\"lITCHCRAFT BELIZFS:BELII:FS:BELIEFS: TEETHE DEFIIUTIONALDEFllUTIONALDEFINITIONAL PROBLEl!IPROBLEl'IPROBLEHl
In any comparative studystu~ the initial problem to be faced by the analyst is that of defining tiletlle phenomena he has selected for examination. This is rarely an easy task. lJhetherI1hetherWhetl1er one focusses on totemismtotez:ri.sm (Goldenweiser(Golden1treiser(Goldemreiser 1910; Levi-Strauss 1964), marriage (Leach(Leacll 1961), incest (Fox 1967), ma;erilinealma:erilineal descent (Richards 1990),1990),' ancestor cults (Kopytoff 1968),1968).1968) t or age sets (Eisenstadt 1956), usually one of the first things to be found by tlletile analyst is the fact thatt11at a single termte~ has been used to cover a number of often .ridelyllidelywidely varying, although related phenomena. 'I1henllhen this .happens one may 't-lellI·rell~lell be tempted to invent a number of nevInevTne~1 termterms to cover all 'thethe possiblep'ossible refractiol1srefractions and ma.nifestationsmanifestations cifof the phenomena·phenomena being studied, but as Leach has so \iellw'ellwell demonstrated, this can only lead to the excessiveexcessive-development development of terminological classifications, an effort that he has so aptly termed 'Butterfly collecting' (1961:2). He strongly suggests that 'tiewe~ie must seek other met110dsmethods of organizing and defining our phenomena.
Needham has indicated an awareness of this problem as 1'lell,Hell,uell, and has pointed out that:
••• social anthropology is in a state of conceptual confusionconfl~ion expressed in proliferating technical taxonomiestaxonornies and definitional exercises, each nel'Tne~Tne"T field study offering enough ''anomalous' anomalous t features to lead to yet more typologicaltypolOgical and methodological pronouncements. (1963: xli).
It "1ouldwould~1ould probably be a fair statementstatecent to say that the tackling of defini tional problems is one of the most basic tasks to be faced in our discipline toclay.today. Real advances in our understanding of social phenomena can onl~Tonl:,'onl~r' be made thr01."!.c;hthrouchthr01.lc;h intensive comparative analysis aimed at establishing 110rkable,rorkableworkable definitions as ,iellHell as the essential features aridand range ofof. variability of the particular phel".or.J.enaphe~ooenaphel".of.1ena being examined.
The stwlys·h~.rlys·h~.'ly of .ri'toriui tchcraft belief~beliefs is one partparticular icular example of a field of stud;:rstud.~rstud~f th:::tt~-:,::.-!;tb.:~t 1,.:'1,.:L..:"' . :';11ffered:-:uffered?;11ffered from a lacklacl{ of adequate definition.definition. Although ue do not findfil'!.d. i::i2:L-~ ',:'".J,'l',;"t~:; " . ~~;!".~rature_>,rature_,;,;rature on 11il1itchcraft~iitchcraft tchcraft beliefs that they are divided intoint 0 'Haint1'Nainilain 3u~;,-::;:;·pe ty}?oO\ty;;ntY})o .••• It·J ,o 3uJ··~~r·cJe3U~i··¥,t:;~pe ••• Sub-sub-type', (Leach 1961: 3) the ,myI'TayTvlay sooesomeSOlJe social phenomena ha,YG"bAen}·haYGh.~vG ;y,"::m,bAcm} there is, nevertheless, a certain cmount of conceptual confusion about 't"lb.o:ti'Tho.tuhnt ~;.,.tt";hc~~-s.ft~;_.-t,;nc"'::£t~; .':;: ,;h (''' 2i't really is, and the grounds upon 'TtThichvThich it may usefully be distin gt,ishedguished frumf:cuLlL:0@ sorcery.sorce~.
Turner (1964:322), in a reviewrevie~1reviel'!' of i'litchcraftWitchcraftiiitchcraft and SorcerSorcery in East Africa (},Iiddleton(Hiddleton(Niddleton and 1iinter~linter 1963), refers to the rterminologicaltterminological 1-TOod~10odl-TOod (oror jungle)'jungle')jungle I' one encounters in reading profes~ionalprofessional accounts of 't'ritchcraft"uitchcraft beliefs. After surveying the literaturelite~atu~ on uiwitchcraft tchcraft beliefs inin' a number of AfricanAf'rican societies, he concludes, 'It 110ulduould seem, therefore, from the various usages 1ihich't'lhichl"1hich I have discussed that there is little general agreement on the criteria '1hich\'1hichl"1hich distinguish sorcery from vIivdvdtchcraft.' tchcraft.tchcraft.' ' (1964:(1964:322). 322) • _ - "'
Turner is not entirely accurate in making the above statement hmrever.hmlever.hmtever. 1·lost1·1ostnost Africanists base their distinction bet~leenbetueen the tl'10tl'TO on the one :nademade by Evans
,I Pritchard for the Azande, despite the fact that many systems of belief do not easily fall into the polar oppositesoppositea Characteristiccharacteristiccha:racterist~c of the "AzandeAzande .system. Evans-Pritchard states:
.,Azande AzandeAZa.l1de believe that someSODe people are witchesui tches and can injure~nJure tllemthem in virtue of an inherent quality. A llitchuitch performs no rite, utters no spell, and possesses no medicines. An act of "TivIiwitchcraft tchcraft is a psychic act. They believe also that sorcerers may do themtllem ill by performing magic rites ,nthl"1ith~nth bad medicines. Azande distinguish clearly betlieen·betl'leenbe~'Teen witchesuitchesnitches and sorcerers. (1937:(1937:21). 21) . .'
AlthoughAltliough Evans-PriEVrulS-Pri tchardtchard. does -notnot indicateindic.ate in the Azande tTorknorkuork that the the 1"1iwitch-sorcerer tch-sorcerer distinction has any ~riderwider\1ider application beyond Azande society,socie~, the the I distinction has,has. been rudely"ddelyvTidely adopted by Africanists. Ex~t1plesEX~t1plesEx~mples of its use cancan I I I - 12 -~,'
be found in the "orkwork~lork of Scha.peraSchapera (1934a:293-4,(1934a: 293-4, 1934b:43); Hunter (1936:275);(1936: 275); 1Iilsonililson (1951:307-8); Gluckman (1955:87); I'iitcheilIviitcheilN:itcheil (1956: 1'53);153); Bea:ttieBea~tieBeaj;tie (1963: 29-30); Douglas (1963:220); Har'liickMarwickMar\'/'ick (1963a: 7.-8,7-8, 1963b:264, 1965a:69, 1965b:2l-51965b:21-51965b:21-5~ 1967: 232); l~liddletonr,liddleton and 1'linterUinter (1963: 2); Reynolds (1963:14) and HairI~Iair (1969:21-3).(1969:21-3~.
Careful research and analysisanalys~s ..,illwilluill ShOHshowshoH that in manyr:lany cases the use of Evans-Pritchard'sEvans-Pritchard's.Evans-Pritchard'~. distinction has, ho\,/,ever,how'ever,hOl'1eVer, been highly inappropriate. Although many ~lritersvlritersvTriters do appear to appreciate the fact that their material'materialr:laterial ~aymay not easily .'., fit into the Azande frame'liorkframe\'I'orkframeliork (see for example Schapera 1934a:294, and IJIarvTic~Harvdck 1963a: 7-8), they nevertheless feel they must adopt the terminology, and ,ifif a uitch in tlleirtheir society uses medicines, they tend to 'fall intoin~o line' as Douglas (1967:72) has put it, and the 'Intchbecomes\'I'iwitch tchbecomes ,becomes te.rmedt~~edtarmed a 'sorcerer'. Exam:plesExam~les of this usage of terms can be found in studies of the Cewa (Iilanlick(HanTick(Hanlick 1965a), and Yao (Mitchell(Mi tchell 1956) as 'Iiell\'/'ellwell as Douglas'sDouglas' s o'l'mo~m ethnography of the Lele (1963).
, Douglas statesstates, that 'Evans-Pritchard ••• vigorously disavowed the intention of foisting a terminological straight-jacket on future generations.' (1967:72) This has, ho't'lever,houever,hOvTever, been the effecteff.ect of his diatinction.dis.tinction. Use of the .AzandeAzande model has imposed a straight-jacket of thought which has 'blindedblinded people for many years and k~ptkept them from seeing "Thatwhatuhat the essential characteristics of ",i,dwitchcraft tchcraft beliefs are.
Implicit in this criticism of the use lihichwhich has been made of Evans-Pritchard's distinction, is the conviction that it is the imageimage, of the lntch'Intch\n tch that is im-im~ portant for definitional purposes, not the use or non-use of medicines, or unconscious use of evil pO"Ter.po't'ler.povler. 1ilhenHhenwlhen we ask ourselves 't'lhatuhatVThat it is that many of the African systems of b'e1iefbelief have in common, 't"Ieneue find the ''Ii'Iii\dtch tch image occurring in a large number ofof. cases - combinedcOl:lbined 'VTithvTithuith the use of medicines as 'fellwell as the possession of innate mystical ability to cause l1arm.harm.
Audrey Richards,Ri chards , in a revie,\frevie\'1review of ilitchcraftUitchcraftWitchcraft and Sorcery in East Africa.Africa, has commented on the fact that 'The similarity of the "dinvd tchtoo image in all thesethese societies is striking.' (1964:188) She points out tl1at:that: tllat:
Essay after essay describes illlaginaryi1Ilaginaryi:maginary figures, usually vTiuith~Ti th hereditary attributes, thought to be able to fly by night, to produce glO'Vl a glorTglovT in the sky, to eat corpses or theth·e entrails ,?fof human beings, to t be accom.paniedacconl.::paniedaccom~nnied by familiars and to act contrary to all moral rules. I. The similarity of these images is not of course limited to East Africa. (1964:188).
It is somewhat remarkable to note however,hOliever,hOl'Tever, that in all the African literature"literature on s"ocietiess'ocietiess·ocieties 'tfith,'/'ithliith vTitchcraftvlitchcraftvd t chc raft and sorceryso'rcery beliefs·beliefs'beliefs" (of 'l'lhich~lhichuhich there are at leastl~ast sixty':'fivesixty':'£ivesixty~£ive available accounts),acc.ounts), not one 'I'Triterifri,·r.riter ter has ever thought to focus on this image as the defining characteristiccharacter~stic o,fof ,·Titchcraft.'I,dl·Ti tchcraft. Unfortunately, it does not appear toto.have have .been,been as clearly evident as 'itit might have been that the features'featuresfeatut'esassociated assocl.atedassociated In'tiith'In th this image~age themselvesthemselv~s form a cp.tegoryc~tegorycfl,tegory of symbolicsymbolibsymboli"c phenomena worthy of investigation.investigation.- ",' Once the pattern had been set by Evans-Evans PPritchard, rit chard , it i'/'aswas all too easy for othersoth'ersoth"ers to follo,'rfollowfollm'T what"rhiltrih.at hadhad. become established categories of classification, despite the all too obvious fact that ~4e~he categories werei'/'ere\Vere often inappropriate. "'
It isis' not possible to define witchcraftuitchcraftui tchcraft until it is recognized that thethe definitional problemprob19l:l is a problem in symbolic classification. llitchcraftWitchcraft IIitchcraft beliefs form a special category of classificationclaSSification to 'l'lhichwhichuhich a great many varyingvarying elements or components may be assigned. The solution to the definitionaldefinitional problemproblem is implicit in the literature;literature; the problem has not been sosolvedIved becausbecausee no one has ever thought to ask the right Cluestions.questions.question~. The main questionCluestion ..ileuele must must ask ourselves is "ThyvThy does the image of the 1'1ivTiI'Ti tch take the form it does from from society to society throue;houtthroughoutt~oughout Africa and indeed throughout the 'Iiorld.i'/'orld.world. FollO'ldngFollolfingFollOidng that, vIeue must a~lca~k ourselves vrhyvThy does this imageimag~ occur so universally.univ~rsally.
The solution to the first question 'I'raslTasuas found by John }'Iidd1etonHiddleton and its "~I earliest statement can be fou,ndfound in tvlOtvrohro articles, 'Some Social Aspects of Lugbara Itlyth'I'Iyth'I\'Iyth' (1954), and 'The Concept of Bel1itchingBeuiBe'tfitchingtching in Lugbara'. (1955),(195'5).(1955). - 13 -
In analyzing Lugba±a mythology, :Mid.dletonl-liddleton~Ud.dleton found that 'onet one of the general characteristics of Lugbara myth is the inverted character of its actorsactors. and events'. (1963:195).(1963: 195) • . .
The theme of inversion is found not only in mythology, but in 1Iiwitchcraftuitchcraft tchcraft beliefs as l'1ell.''1ell.vTell. To tIlethe Lugbara the normal is 'good' and the abnormal is 'bad', and this dichotomy is related to the distinction they make bebreenbetvteenbet'l-leen ;Thatvlhatuhat is socialsocial. and ..l-ThatwhatThat is anti-social. The difference bebTeenbetweenbetlleen the tHOtwotuo is expressed in terms of inversion. The iI:lageimagewage of the Lugbara"t'1itchLugbara\'ritchLugbara i'litch is that of a being characterized by inverted attributes.
A 'i'l'itchwitchId tch has the characteristics of an abnormal person. His face is grey and dratffi,dralm, 1'like''like· like .a a corpse',co·rpse', he may have red eyes or a squint, he may vomit blood, he 1'1alksi1Ulkswalks at night, and is associatedassociated' ,nthldthI'Tith night·creatures.night creatures. (1955:258).(1955:258).· .
A ..witchl'litchritch is also associated l1itllI-Tithuith incest, cannibalism and filthy behaviour (Ihddleton(Middleton(Hiddleton 19601248),1960?248), and 'may be visible as a light on thetile top of a hut, or as a light moving rapidly across fields.' (1955:255).
1'lhat"That~'lhat is most inverted aboutabout. 1·dvIi\'Ti tcl}est~estcl!es hOl'l'ever,hm'1ever,hOt'1ever, is the factf~ct thattbat they have perverted noroalnormalnorcal kinship and authorityauthority·relations. relations. Middleton states;states:
••• a lritchl1itchuitch is the embodiment of thosethose' attributes that are in direct contrast to those ideally pqssessed byb~r elders or senior kin. Senior kinsmen ••• should be 'sl01'1",'slo,,',ISI01'1', understanding, gentle, generous, angry only uhent!hen the interestsinte~ests of their familyfmnilyclusters 'clustersclusters are concerned and not on account of their OlmOlInO1-m personal pride. A 1Uldtchwitc~ tch behaves in a diametrically opposite manner. (1960:(1960:244-4) 244-4)
From the above we can see'see that l1iuitchcraft~litchcraft tchcraft for the Lugbara is a conceptual categorycategory,J one tbD.tha tist is bound up liitlltiithl'lith the anti-social. It tends thereforetIlerefore to find expression in invertedinverted'symbols . symbols that are opposed to 1'111atvrhat\-lhat the society values and considers nomal.normal. Knowing this provides an element of predictability. " 11eUe 110ulduould expect that other elements associated 1'1iuithth 't'lil'UI·d tchcraft by the Lugbara "Touldl'Tould~1ould bebesomew'hat 'someli'hatSOmel'1hat abnormal or unusual. The followingfollouingfollolling confirms this suspicion,
Certain animals are associated li'ith"Tith'-Ti th 1utches;uitches;IU tches; they are both omens of ldtchcraftt'l'itchcraftuitchcraft and may be velliclesvehicles for witches, and they are als"Oals-oals~ used as ingredients in sorcery-poisons. They include the jackal, the leopard-cat, tIlethe bat, the screechs'creech monkey, snakes, the ol'll011101'11 and several other0 ther birds, the 1'1aterlfaterl'1ater tortoise,tortOise, if iti t leaves itsits· riverine home and comes to the compounds, andand. certain frogs and . toads. All these creatures are 'like i1itchesl-Titches~1itches I1t and are much feared. If a man sees them at night, and especially in a dream,dream, he is seeing a ,utchl1itchldtch or thetbe soul of a ,utch.'tiitch.ldtch. All are night.night creatures or, likelik!elike' the water-tortoise, out of their normal habitat. Indeed anyallYal~ animalanima.l away from its usual home may be suspected of being something to do ..with11th ;'litchcraft.Idwitchcraft.tchcraft. (Middleton(}I1ddleton(~liddleton 1960:241).1960: 241).241) •
All of the above is somelmatsome'illhatsomelllhat reminiscent ofof·'Chapter Chapter Three of Purity and Danger, 'The Abominations of Leviticus' (Douglas 1966:41-57). Douglas is able to demonstrate that Hebrew dietarydieta~ lawslal'ls stem from a system of symbolicsYmbolic classification. Traditionally JewishJevlishJeuish people have considered certain animals to be either 'clean','clean!, and therefore edible, or 'unclean' and therefore unfit for human consumption. The usual rational has been that certain animals such as pigs, lobsters and other shellfishshellfish. 'tereuere scavengers, and therefore 'unclean'.tunclean'.
By looking at the relevant selections from Leviticus and Deuteronomy in a nel'1ne,'1 1-ray,"lTaY,lray, houever, Douglas was able to offer a completely nevrnew'new and highly satisfactory interpretation, one that is expressed in terms of symbolic classification.classification~ She finds that 'Any class of creatures l1hichuhich is not equipped for the right 'kindkind of locomotion in its element is contrary to holiness.' (1966:55) Therefore anything in the llater\lateruater that does not have fins or scales is unclean, or four-footed creatures capable of flying are unclean.unclean;anduncl:ean~and and so on. - 14 - The above example demonstra.tesdemonstrates that analysis of ethnographically puzzling practices "'inin terms of symbolic classification can sometimes be extremelyextrenely illuminating, or as Needham might put it, be successful in termsterins of 'rendering many aspects of social life intelligible.'intelligible.' (1963:xliii) Needham has demon strated in sever~severE:1lsever~l papers that tInsthistl1is can be an effective analytical teclUliqueteclmique particularly~articularly in 'The Left Ho..TldHandHu.TJ.d of the T-Iugt'1e'Hugt'l'e'H1lg'\1e' (1960), and 'Shiva'stShiva's Earings' (1966).(1966)\1966). • .
Use of the concept of symbolic classification cancan' also be an effecti~ . technique for one attempting to understand and definedefine· llitchcraftuitchcraft belie:tTs.beliefs.belie:fi's. If VTe1tie~re adopt the symbolic approach in attempt:ingattempt ingi.ng to define 't"litchcraft,I'ritchcraft,Nitchcraft, ;leHev'le find that the category ~ can be expressed as the follolling:follouing:following:
A llitchuitch is an individual thought capable of harming others super-naturally through the use of innate mystical po"rer,power,pOl-1er, medicinesmediCines or familiars, and ;rhouhowho is associated with~li th inverted characteristics that areaare a reversal of social and physical noms.norms.nor.ms.
Adoption of such a definition immediately rids us.ofus of one difficulty, that of attempting to classifyclas·aify. the inverted. being uho't'1ho consciously makes use of medicines. As ~'1ell,l'I'ell,~1ell, it explains the image of the 1"itch,w'itch,~1itch, an image w'hichuhich con sists of characteristics the.thatt are inverted, reversals of the harm,horm, or simply things that are defined by a particular society as bad, harmful, unusual or abnormal. lIillitchcraft t chc raft beliefs form a category of classification in whichvThichvlhich a great many varying elements or components may be found. TurnerTurne.r has sholmshmmshmffi an appreciation of this point. He states:
. ManyMany.African African societies recognize the ,samesame range of components: 'innate', 'acquired';tacquired'*'acquired'~ ilearnt','learnt', 'inherited'inherited'ti skills to harm and kill; pOlferpOvlerp01ier to. kill immediately and.and pOl-rerpOi'TerpOl-ler created by medicines;medicines·; the use of familiars, visible and invisible;.theinvisible; the magical introjection of objects into enemies; nocturnal and diurnal hostile magic; invocation of ghosts by a curse; andand. so on. But as betweenbet1'leen SOCieties,societies, and often in different sisituati6nstuati6ns in a Singlesingle society,SOCiety, these components are varyingly clustered and separatedseparated~.., (1964:324) .
He suggests that 'Clues to their clusterings andand. segregations mB¥may be found if societies are an3.1~rzedan:lljrzeda~:ll~rzed in terms of process-theory'. (1964:324) 1!hatUhatl.lhat he fails to realize h011ever,hOliever,hOl'l'ever, is that these components are always found combined in a particular pattern, and that it is more useful to analyse their symbolic elements than it is to look at them in terms of process-theory. If i're."lel-Te con centrate on the symbolic approachappro·ach it is impossible to find a ,'lorkablel'1orlmblei'1orkable definition for the termte~ I'witchcraft','Witchcraft', wi tchcraft I, and find our l"myway'tTay out of the 'terminologicalI terminological ..woodI'TOodlood (or jungle' Turner hashas. indicated. t
vlhileUhile it.~t. may be said that vIevTe are determining uhat 'V1itchcraftvTitchcraft~litchcraft is 'by definidefinition'definition'., tion I .,._. the point is that 1'1'e'\'1ewe canca.n find a large numbenumber r of examples ~f the phenomena so defined throughout the 't'lorld.'forld.uorld. These phenomena form an interesting category of associated elementselement~ that I'relTe may study quite usefully and profitably. The definition of witchcraft beliefs that has been offered is applicable to a wide number of cases both withinvTithin and outside of Africa and it can certainly be applied to European 'tn.ui tchcraftt chcraft beliefs as 11el1.\lell.uell.
If thetIle form of iliui tchcraftt chc raft beliefs is determineddeterx:ri.nedby .byby the fact thatthat' tOOythey are a reversal of social and physical norms, it is only to be expected that certain features of this form liill'iilll'1'ill vary from society to society. ThereTllere is one constant hO't'Iever:hOl'Tever:houever: the uii·d. tch is aluaysallTays thought to do ,{hat''lhaliha t is most abhorred by other . members of thetoo society.society.. The witch is the ultimate anti-social being, a fact llhichIIhichuhich is symbolized by the inverted aattributesattributersttributers making up the image of tIlethe uiuitch.tch. This latter point provides the anal-Teransl-Teranswer to our second question, 'v!hy'~1hy'~lhy does the image of the "Titch.,Titchwitch occur so universally?'
In concluding, it should be mentioned that one of thetoo reasons many lrriters't'TriterslTriters havel1ave given for separating ui tchcraft from sorcery on the basis of use or non use of medicine (for exaopleexampleexaIlple 1iilson11ilsonIlilson 1951:308, and lIairlIuirHair 1969:23), is the fact - 15 -
that sorcery is something 11hichwhich,'rhich can actually be practiced ~Thereaswhereasl-Thereas lvitchcraftwitchcraft witchcraft (at least as it has usually been defined), cannot. Mair feeisfeels that the factfact that:that:
••• the sorcerer uses material objects and the vlivIi~ri tch does not ••• is by no means insignificant, since it is possible to'to find evidence of sorcery, and indeed many objects used for'for that purpose have been found when people are accusedaccused... ••• But there can never be evidence of 1"1i,dlvi tchcraft, and so accusations of 't"Tirriui tchcrafttchcruft can only be pursued by means as mystical as.as thet~e supposed offence. (1969:23)
WilsonI'lilsonIlilson stresses thethe~ distinction as well and says it:~t:
••• is an importantimporta:q.t one; for sorcery, as I have defined it, is practiced, that is people use medicines (WhiCh(which(whiCh are sometimes poisons) .'rithwith~ri th the object of harming others, .thilewhile~Thile fe,',fewfelv anthropologists ;iouldwould,'Tould admit the reality of ,Titchcraftuitchcraft - the exercise of an innate power to harm others directly. (1951:308). '
1:lhileHhile\1hile it 'is true thattllat the distinction may have some importance legally, as ::leynoldsaeynoldsReynolds (1963:(1963:14)14) for example,example; has shOrTn,shorln,shmln, this is an -importanceimportance that may ultimately be significant only to Europeans - and ll21~not to the people concerned. It does not really essentially matter that one may be practiced and thetlw otlwrotl~r not, ,\'That'tihatl1hat does matter is that ~both are thought to exist and be practiced. 11e''.le~re have no right to presume that just because something may matter to us legally, that it has any relevance whatsoever for the members of an African tribe. ~lisTnis~nis is, in effect, imposingimpOSing our own categories of classification upon those of the people liewe are studying, a far cry from the cultUralcultural relativity and un prejudiced accuracy of repo~ingreporting and interpretationinterpretat~o~.which vThichvthich is supposed.supposed to be the hallmark of anthropological research. "leitleWe must lceepkeep i'llw.t't"ll111tt'11illt matters to us legally, separate from those things whichwhiCh matter to the people themselves. It is only by looking at the latter that we 1;1111,filll'1'i11 be aided in the task of understanding how . they do in fact order their universe and conceptual categories. Once l'1e,'le have done thistIl.is it becomes clear what a witch and witchcraftwitChcraft are.
Roma Standefer
References
1. 1. I wish to express my gratitude to the Canada Council for the support itit has given to my doctoral programme. Miss Anne lu.eeroydAkeroyd and Mr. T. S. s.S. Murty read drafts of tllisthis manuscript, and Ilam 'am gratefulgrate'ful to themt11em for for theirt11eir helpful suggestions. I am also grateful to liIr.£lIre£IIr. and Mrs. E. i,i.i:f. i:f. Ardener and Miss Akeroyd for l1elpiJighelping me to refine mY~Y definition of of witchcraft. .
Bibliography
Beattie, Jolm,Jop,JoPn, 1963, Sorcery in Bun-,oroBun-;yoroBunJlOro inin\'litchcraft \'1itchcraftUitchcraft and Sorcery in East Africa,Africa ed. J. I>1iddleton~Iiddleton and E. H.H•. W'i.llter,Winter, pp. 27-55. RoutledgeRout ledge and !{eganKegan Paul, London.
Douglas, Mary, 1963, The Lele of the Kasai, Oxford University Press, London.
______----,, 1966, Purity and Danger, Routledge and KaganKegan Paul, London.
______, 1967, vTitchvlitch Beliefs in Central Africa, Africa 37:72-80.
Eisenstadt, s.S. N., 1956, From Generation to Generation, The Free Press, Press, Glencoe, Illinois. Illinois.
Evans-Pritchard, :G.E. E., 1937, i'litchcraft.vlitchcraft,vfitchcraft. Oracles and Magic Among the Azande,Azande, Oxford University Press, London. London. - 16 -
Fox,FOx, Robin, 1967, Kinship and 11arriage,Harriage,r1arriage, Pelican Anthropology Library, Penguin Penguin Books, Baltimore.Baltimore.
Gluckman, Hax,Max, 1955, Custom and Conflict in Africa, Basil Blac~vell,BlacIDiell,Blackt'1ell, Oxford.
Goldenweiser, A. A., 1910, Totemism, an 1U1alyticalAl1alyticalAnalytical Study,study, Journal of American American Folklore, 23: 179-293.179-293.
, ". . Hunter, M.,H., 1936, fteactionFeactionJteaction to Conquest, Oxford UniversityUniyersity Press, London.
Kopytoff, Igor, 1968, AfricanA£ri~an "Ancestor Cults" llithout ,Ancestors?,Ancestors?, Bulletins Bulletins of the American Anthropological Association, September 1968, Abstracts, Abstracts, 67th .AnnualAnnual Meeting. Heeting.
Leach, E. R., 1961, Rethinking Anthropologv,Anthropology, University"University of London, The AthloneAth10ne Press, London.London.
Levi-3trauss,Levi-5trauss,Levi-Strauss, C., 1964, Totemism, Translated by Rodney Needham,Ueedham, I:IerlinHerlin Press, Press, London. London.
l-'Iair,I>Iair,~iair, Lucy, 1969, 1'litchcraft·,1'litchcraft,1litchcraft, l,Iorld~'lorld University Libra.ry,Library, IlcGrallr.'IcGrauHcGrau Hill Book Co., Co., NevlNewNeli York.Yorlt.
lla.r"Ticl:,tlar't'lick,Ha.r~licl:, Ir.li.G.,II.· G., 1963a, The Sociology of Sorcery in a Central African Tribe, Tribe, African Studies 22:1-21. 22:1-21.
_____---:~-_, -=--:- __ , 1963b, IlitchcraftllitchcraftITitchcraft as a Social Strain-Gauge,Strain-Gauee, i~ustralianAustralianAustralia.n JournalJourmi.l of of ---S-c-i-e-n-c-e,Science·Science' 2626:263-8. :··263-8. ______, 1965a, Sorcery in its Social Setting, HanchesterIIanchesterIIancbester University Press, l1anchester.I-1anchester.
______~=-_=-'--:=-_:::--' , 1965b 'JitchcraftilitchcraftUitchcraft anda.nd SorcerJ,SorceI"J,SorceI"'J, in African Systems of Thought,Thou{:Jlt, pp.21pp.21_pp.21- 27. Preface by M. Fortes and G. Dieterlen, Oxford Universi~University Press, London.
____--...~,, 1967. The Stud.yStud.Y of 1/iIfitchcraftIIitchcrafttchcraft in The Craft of Social Anthropology, ------~p~p~.~2~3~1-244,-----:p::"::p::-.~21"::!3:'rI-244,pp. 231-244, &d.00. A. L. Epstein,Bpstein, Tavistock PUbhcahons,Publ~cations,PUbl~cat~ons, London.
1-1ayer,1·1ayer,IJIayer, P. 1954, llitches,l-Titches, Inaugural Lecture delivered at Rhodes University, Graham·Graham town.
IUddleton,Middleton,rUddleton, J., 1954, Some Social Aspects ofo~ Lugbara Myth,Hyth,I1yth, Africa 24: 189-99.
______, 1955, The Concept of "Bewitching""BeWitching" in Lugbara.,Lugbara, Africa 25:252-60.
______, 1960, Lugbara Religion; Oxford University Press, London.
______-,-...,...~_, __, 1963,1963~ and 8.E. H. 1tlinterllinter (eds.) 11itchcraft1Jitchcraft1,1itchcraft and Sorcery in East Africa, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London.
~litcllell,NiNitchell, tchell, Clyde, 1956, The Yaorao Village, !~IanchesterNanchesterManchester University Press, lTanchester.IJanchester.
Needham, Rodney, 1960, The Left HandHand. of the ~Iug11e,I>Iugue,Nugue, Africa 30:20-33.
______...... _.,..-..,-- ______-, , 1963, Introducti.onIntroduct:i,onIntroduct.~on to: Primitive Classification by E Durkheim and 11.H.IvI. !1auss,rIauss,Hauos, pp. vii-xlviii,vii....:xlviii, CohenCOJ:1en and TJest,\Test,Uest, London.
______, 1966, Shiva's Earings, Lecture delivered at Institute of Social ----~-~Anthropology, 0?C!0rd.O;ford.0?d'0rd.
Reynolds, Barrie, 1963,Ig63, ·r-1agic,'11agic,'r-iagic, DiviniationDivinia.tion and 1:1itchcrafti:litchcraftT:litchcraft Among the Barotse of Northernnorthern Rhodesia, Chatto and llindus,Windus, London. .' l{ichards,Richards,Hichards, A. 1.,I., 1950, SOI:leSome Types of Family structureStructure Amongst the Central Bantu, in African Systems of lCinsh:i,plCinsh~pKinsh:i,p and I-'Iarriage,~larriage,pp~I>iarriage, pp. 207-251, eds. A. R. Radcliffe-BrolTnRadcliffe-BrounRadcliffe-Brol1n and D. Forde, Oxford University Press, London. ..- 17 ......
Richards, .A.A. I., 1964, Review of }litChcraftUitchcraft and Sorcery in East Africa,Africa f eds. JJ. .• Midd1etonMiddleton and E. H. Winter,Ilinter,~finter, ~ 64: 187-188.
Schapera, I., 1934a, Oral Sorcery Among the 1.'TativesNatives of Bechuanaland in Essays presented to C. G. Seligman, pp~pp. 293-305 eds.ads. E. E.E~ Evans-Pritc11a.rdEvans-Pritchard et aleal.a.l. KaganKegan Paul,Trench,Paul, ·Trench,Trench, Trubner and Co. London.London •.
___~~_, , 1934b, Sorcery and 11itchcraft\Jitchcraft in Bechuanaland,Bechuana1and, African Affairs: ...... -----~51:41-52.-
Tumer,Turner,V V.•. ~j~,il~,if~, 1964,1964. i1itchcrafti-Titchcraft~-ritchcra.ft and Sorcery, Taxonomy vs. Dynamics, Africa 34:314-324. v/ilson;vTilson;'trlilson; r.lonica,rvlonica, 1951, lritchvlitchviitch Beliefs and.and Social structure,Structure, .AmericanAmerican Journal of Sociology, 56:307-13.