How does Djeli Mamadou Kouyaté authenticate his knowledge?
How does the text/story/source use both Bantu oral traditions and Islam to claim legitimacy for the kings of Mali?
What other traditions/stories include reference to descent or lineage?
Both hunters and blacksmiths equated with sorcery/power/knowledge. Where else have we seen this?
To echo some of my classmates, the West usually dismisses oral traditions as evidence because they seem too fictional to have value. Niane writes in his preface, “Unfortunately the West has taught us to scorn oral sources in matters of history, all that is not written in black in white being considered without foundation.” However, I find these supernatural elements stories like the Sundiata (Bible and Greek mythology too), real or not, have important cultural value. The story certainly reflects customs, traditions and relationships of the past. Can the Sundiata be used to support and make sense of other kinds of evidence? (Artifacts, etc.)
During class, I enjoyed discussing the importance of structural lineage and how it has played a key role in the story of King Magan Kon Fatta and Sundiata. We also discussed how polygamy has been a common theme among western African politics. Oral history, channeled through the accounts and stories of several African griots, has shed light to the struggles over succession due to polygamy. This is especially true in the tale of King Magan Kon Fatta’s politically powerful and polygamist family. One of his wives, Sassouma Bérété, stirred trouble in hopes of having her son become the heir to the thrown instead of Sundiata. However, her efforts clearly failed, but made an impact on the family.
From my understanding, usually, Western societies associate polygamy with certain religions instead of powerful political families. I am wondering if current Western African societies associate polygamy and the internal conflicts it ignites more with religion or with a certain kind of dynamic politics.
I understand why Djeli Mamadou Kouyate believes he has the most truthful knowledge of his people’s history, but how can it ever be authenticated? Even though he believes it is his job to only tell truths, sometimes memories become inevitably warped over time or are sugarcoated because they are difficult to recount. He is also a different person from his ancestors and he is going through different experiences, so he automatically has a different bias than those who taught him the histories. How can he trust himself? Do historians and anthropologists take his word for granted or do they question his stories’ validity?
I loved our discussion in class regarding the authenticity of “Sundiata.” I think it is very easy, especially in modern-day Western society, to immediately disprove all notions of history when supernatural elements are involved. We can easily justify these incidences as metaphors or analogies, displaying particular strengths and animal qualities (like Sogolon easily shape-shifting into a buffalo and back to a human). The most prominent reason for disproving the Holy Bible are the multiple “magical” occurrences, like the parting of the Red Sea and Jesus turning water to wine. Putting aside Western perceptions, however, I wonder how the people of modern-day Western Africa perceive these stories. Do they, like Christians or Jews, revere the stories of their prophets (or griots in this case) as pure history? Do they doubt authenticity because of supernatural elements or do they immediately see it as truth?
I was wondering this too! For some reason, I kept thinking of Hercules and Greek Mythology (and The Lion King storyline)…of course we know these are fictitious stories…but at one point or another, I think in any culture or religion, there was some- at least temporary-belief in the supernatural. In my opinion, the response to truth or non-truth could overlap based on the environment people are raised in. For example, one person may call fake because magic is involved, while another person says truth because they see that magic as a sign or miracle. (sorry I’m going on a tangent..)
I was wondering this as well. I will have to agree with you on this. There might have been a time when the people, who heard Sundiata’s story, believed in the supernatural element of the it. They must have perceived this story to be true; however, as time passes and we reach our modern era and Western way of thinking, I believe the perception of these stories changes. Many of us today, would listen to these stories and think of them as fictitious accounts. It does depend in the environment that the person was raised in.
Annie, I think your comparison the Bible is interesting. The supernatural presence within that particular text seems to parallel the Sunidata, yet one has significantly greater historical value in the West…. Why is that?
I am not sure about how modern day Africans would perceive stories like Sundiata or the Bible, but I have an example for previous generations. I recently watched La Amistad, which follows 53 Africans from Sierra Leone (Mende-speakers) who are captured during the Atlantic slave trade in 1839. Throughout the capture, one African man holds onto the Bible given to him while in jail, and even though he cannot understand the words, the illustrations gave him hope of salvation; he then brings the book back with him to Africa to spread the message. The whole movie is incredible, but I thought that was an interesting sub-plot that showed the powerful effect storytelling has on culture. I would like to think Africans today would appreciate the message in Sundiata for its cultural value, but I wonder whether that’s true.
Although many Christians do believe the stories of the bible to be pure truth, many also believe them to be stories with underlying lessons and messages. I believe the same can be said for Sundiata and other African stories. At one point I would think many believed the stories to be true. It was not uncommon for people to observe something they have never seen before and assume it to be magical. There are countless examples of this in history, such as when the Spanish first arrived in Latin America. The natives believed the Spaniards to be gods because they had never seen domesticated horses, guns, or whites before. Hundreds of years ago, when the majority of people lacked common knowledge, things that seem simple to us now were seen as magical. To answer your question I would think the modern day people of West Africa keep this stories in circulation in order to maintain their culture, but I do not believe they take them as pure truth. It is hard for anyone to fully believe in anything considered magical until they see it themselves or hear about from someone they have the utmost trust in. Humans usually need reinforcements in order to accept claims they find farfetched, either personal evidence or hearing it from a trustworthy source.
A while back in one of my other classes, we were discussing religion, and the professor said something along the lines of “It doesn’t matter if it’s true – as long as it carries meaning, it will have its importance to a society.” Nowadays in our Western perception we like to think that various peoples in different cultures and time periods – or even some people within Western culture – automatically believe anything supernatural if it’s an important part of their culture. I don’t think this is necessarily true – people in different cultures are able to at least consider the possibility that something they’re being told is false. At the least they might consider one supernatural thing false and another true. Ultimately, again, what’s important here is not whether people believe it or not, but whether it still carries meaning. For instance, we might not believe that comic superheroes exist. However, in America at least, Superman exists as a symbol of good, of the victory of justice over tyranny, and so on. I believe Sundiata may have, and still does, hold a similar sort of thing for certain groups in West African society – what sort of things should a good leader do, for instance? Well, he must then look to Sundiata. Then again, even in Western culture, many might still believe fictitious stories – they don’t necessarily have to be religious. An example in our present-day American culture might be how many Americans are led to believe that during the American Revolution the British were 18th century equivalent of Nazis while the Founding Fathers were pure and righteous. Most American historians, however, would probably recognize that the true political and socio-economic situation was much more complex. And yet, many Americans still go on continuing to believe this historical narrative. I think it ultimately shows that any culture, no matter where it is, or from what time period, will try to build up narratives of historical events and persons in order to suit their own needs and create meaning that is relevant to them.
This question is very thought provoking and interesting. I come from an ethnic background where stories and oral tradition are a big part of cultural history and still to this day serve an important role in continuing traditions and understanding why and how certain cultural aspects are the way they are. I am sure that, just as modern societies all over the world, current Western African societies have adopted more realistic interpretations of stories in history and have accepted the fact that such supernatural elements indeed are not so very possible. However, I believe that holding on to these orally passed down stories and the belief in supernatural instances will keep traditions and culture alive and preserve the richness and uniqueness of the cultures in modern Western African societies, as well as in societies throughout the world.
Djeli Mamadou Kouyaté expresses a significant and hereditary claim to this knowledge, which, it would seem, the reader would have to take at face value. After all, there is little to corroborate or discount the information Djeli produces except the accounts of other griots. This raises a question: can a tale viewed through a single lens be considered history? Or is history an aggregation of data?
…I’m assuming you are question how credible griots’ stories are? I also wonder where bias can fall in to these stories. Of course, I believe that accumulation adds to history. But as we discussed in class (ex. Batwa & Bantu iron story) one of the ways we can determine truth is if there are more than one source that agrees on the same idea.
I agree with you Nina. We have learned that there are actually 4 big categories about sources for African past to understand the past of a place that didn’t precisely have a history. Based on two of the main groups – oral traditions and language – I’m guessing that the oral traditions of Sundiata paired with the original language may work together as a somewhat credible source for the history. Also, if you think about it, the epic of Sundiata is a very long, detailed, and complicated story of which Djeli Mamadou Kouyaté is telling. It is clear that Djeli Mamadou Kouyaté wasn’t accompanying Sundiata on his journey and people must have filled him in with many of the stories, easily seen with the dialogue we read when Sundiata is traveling from kingdom to kingdom.
I guess I am just making the connection now that oral history can be incorporated into oral tradition because the griots that we hear from speak in so much detail that the characters featured must have passed along their “oral history” to the griots in order for them to fluently recite a detailed “oral tradition.” Does anyone else see this incorporation or have any insight on it?
Both hunters and blacksmiths equated with sorcery/power/knowledge. Where else have we seen this?
We have seen this sort of power and knowledge in “Eternal Djenne.” The masons of Djenne are builders with a certain feel for the earth. They mix clay that has been dug up from plains that have been flooded by the waters of the Bani, which is a tributary of the Niger River. The city’s master mason said, “What we know is the earth,” on page 104 of this text. So by this, we know that builders have a connection to the earth.
On page 114 of “Eternal Djenne” readers are introduced to the word “nyama,” meaning a life force tapped by experts to wield supernatural power. It is the masons who control nyama, giving masons a heightened respect in the city. For example, masons cast spells to protect the houses, families, and themselves. When we learn about nyama, we also learn that Roderick McIntosh (one of the original excavators of the ancient Jenne-Jeno site) believes that “one type of expert was respected above all others for his control of nyama: the blacksmith, with his ability to transform earth into iron with fire.” (pg. 114).
After reading Sundiata, I see that Sundiata’s allies who made him the iron bars were, too, seen to have great power.
Mamadou Kouyaté authenticates his knowledge by reminding the reader more than once of the importance of oral tradition. Near the midway point of the story, there is a “history” section and Kouyaté’s personal voice is integrated in this part. “Other peoples use writing to record the past, but this invention has killed the faculty of memory among them. They do not feel the past any more, for writing lacks the warmth of the human voice,” (41) he argues. By reiterating the significance of oral tradition in the middle of the story, Kouyaté attempts to establish legitimacy of the story that he is telling. “We griots are depositories of the knowledge of the past…I am the result of a long tradition” (41). To me, this in a way also demonstrates the significance of ancestry to their culture and the way in which it is highly valued. To Kouyaté, the definition of a historian isn’t someone who writes in a textbook or publishes writing, but rather maintains knowledge in his head and preserves it to be passed down to future generations.
He also says during this quote that the history that has been passed down was without “untruth” and he, too, will tell history without any falsifications. With this, he further authenticates his knowledge. Great post!
I understand that oral tradition is part of their culture. I even agree with Kouyaté’s claim that writing lacks the warmth of the human voice and that the feeling of the past can get lost in them. I still would have preferred that they wrote things out at times in order to have primary sources to study. As a history major I always want to have undeniable facts to support whatever it is I am studying, but in this case I believe the authenticity of the story teller is not as important as why the people believed in him. The fact that the griots fellow people trusted them due to lineage and tradition tells me more about the society than the actual story does. These griots were very trusted people and they held the very important role of handing down the past to the future generations. This was an important aspect of this culture and it shows their trust in one another, something that is lost in modern times. As these peoples seemed to have taken much pride in their cultural roles, I do not doubt that the griot told the story as honestly as he could in order to preserve the dignity of his peoples.
One thing that struck me about Sundiata’a story is his overcoming of the various obstacles that faced him, such as his being crippled and his father’s first wife. Sundiata being crippled reminded me of the Pygmies because of the prejudice against them. But my question about the story is why is there such glorification of hunting and fighting?
If I remember correctly, this society was one largely based on hunting (which can be considered a form of fighting). Ancient Mali revered hunters because it was a skill required to live. This ability to provide for (and protect) the family and community in this most basic way inevitably found its way into the old tales/histories, which were meant teach and inspire later generations in the ways of their culture.
It is a survival tactic. It is prized because it shows a strength. It is the same way that we in the United States glorify people whom are very fit. They are skilled and appear best fit for breeding. It is natural for people to want to glorify hunters because they ensure survival for a family, and they also will provide better children with whom ever they bear babies with.
I enjoyed this story and how the groups came together to build a friendship. I also liked how they spoke in metaphors. I was wondering if that’s how they actually speak.
I also remember where Sundiata would speak in metaphors to his companions, and I believe thay did this to seem like adults, although Sundiata was already wise by a young age. They “talked in the bush like men”, is a close explanation to why they enjoyed the use of metaphors, and made them have a sense of power. (31)
Both the Mande and the Bantu who lived alongside the “Pygmy” peoples in Central Africa originated from the Niger-Congo tradition. Both also share a reverence for hunters, a reverence that has some religious overtones. In the Epic of Sundaiata, from the Mande tradition, for instance, it is hunters with supernatural powers (particularly Prophecy) who herald the coming of Sundiata to his father; while in the Central African region, the Bantu peoples believe the Pygmies have special magical and spiritual powers. I wonder if there’s a connection between all this – did the Niger-Congo peoples have a sort of special respect for hunters from the beginnings of their culture? Was it something that spread into the regions where the Niger-Congo languages spread? Or is this simply a cultural motif that happened to be where Niger-Congo-speaking peoples lived, a motif that developed somewhat independently?