Observations and Conclusions

This chapter looked at the representation of the human temperaments of cleverness and stupidity, where animals are used as metaphors to signify and express the broad attributes of cleverness and stupidity of human beings. It was discovered, among other things, that both Archaic Greek and Kalanga cultures depict the fox as the epitome of cunning in their wisdom literatures.

However, while the fox is clever in Kalanga oral literature, it is not superior to the hare.⁷⁷ Some animals, wolves for instance, feature in Greek literature but are simply not present in the countries inhabited by the speakers of Kalanga and so did not feature in their orature. The same can be said of certain animals that feature in Kalanga culture but not in ancient Greek. The major finding of this chapter was that the character of most of the depictions of the fox is derived from observations of its feeding habits (menu-driven intelligence), e.g. stealing goats and raiding vineyards, as evidenced in some of the interviews and written works studied. Another observation is that the deployment of animals in folktale does not necessarily have to be built on

76 Newmner (2008), 118.

77 Mbulawa (2001), 21‒25.

101

the animal realities. Rather, the concept of symbolic affordance comes into play where an animal’s behaviour does not correspond to its appearance in myth.

Likewise, the ambiguity of the hare in Kalanga proved to be a source of confusion. At times we see the hare being presented as a man, and at times performing female roles.⁷⁸ At times the hare goes berserk, killing and eating babies. This assaults the hypothesis that animals’ characters are modelled largely on their interaction with other animals and human beings in the real world.

Wazha Lopang’s dissertation encourages us to read the hare as androgynous like Bugs Bunny, and I think this could make things somewhat easier.

‘In Kalanga mythology the Hare becomes the medium through which human behaviour is scrutinized. The Hare, then, is not only a figure of humour and wit, but more importantly, the Hare depicts certain communal values and principles. The entertainment factor that the trickster tales embody serves as a precursor to other didactic functions.’⁷⁹

In this case, Lopang reads the vague gender of the hare as a challenge to androcentric human societies. I think the androgyny of the hare owes something to its appearance. Without close scrutiny, one may find it difficult to determine whether a hare is male or female. Male and female hares look more uniform than, say, a male and a female lion. Ruth Finnegan summarises the appearance of animals in the following terms:

‘When the narrator speaks of the actions and characters of animals, they are also representing human faults and virtues somewhat removed and detached from reality through being presented in the guise of animals but nevertheless with an indirect relation to observed human action.’⁸⁰

78 Kalanga does not have the pronoun for ‘he’ or ‘she.’ My conclusions on the varied gender of the hare are based on an observation of human gender roles.

79 Lopang (2003), 35.

80 Finnegan (1970), 35.

102

Animals were part of the Archaic Greek experience inasmuch as they still are in an average rural Kalanga setup, so that animals are a ready and available means to model human cleverness and stupidity in wisdom literatures. To say that animal characters are solely based on everyday observations of their behaviour by humans as they go about trying to look for food will be an oversimplification as the characterisation of Hare, Ape and Baboon prove otherwise. However, this criterion fits the character of the fox as typically cunning. The slinking gait of the fox as it hunts for food has attracted relevant epithets that are based on this observation. Foxes were identified by the habits of stealing goats in Africa, and destroying vineyards in the Mediterranean. This makes it easy to use the fox as a foil for a human cheat.

The question of whether the two wisdom literatures illuminate one another cannot be over emphasised at this stage. However, there are similar motifs in both traditions, for example, when a fox gets trapped by his midriff on account of food. Foxes (and jackals) in both Greek and Kalanga wisdom literatures are deceptive, and one can tentatively conclude that the two oral traditions do illuminate one another as far as foxes are concerned.

Another observation I made is that the position of an animal in the food chain also seems to have a bearing on the way it operates in these wisdom narratives. Scavengers like foxes, crows and jackals feature in both Greek and Kalanga wisdom literatures playing various roles of cheating. It has also emerged that domestic animals like goats and sheep feature as victims of intrigue. One might also look at aetiological stories that explain why a dog will always chase a hare, or why a lion does not bother chasing a hare that were handled in this chapter.

103

104 Chapter Four

Power relations 4.1 Introduction

The present chapter continues the critical interpretation of both Kalanga and Greek wisdom narratives’ use of animals in the depiction and representation of human power relations. The research asks questions around the typologies of animals as they appear in the fabulous depiction of human political societies, asking how animal tales reflect leadership systems for respective societies. How are animals used to dispense political wisdom? Which animals are symbols of power, and which animals are symbols of weakness? How do the two bodies of literature assign literary roles to animals? There is careful incorporation of animals in similes and praise poetry, such that it becomes clear that animals are not merely used as poetic devices, but they do actually hold cultural capital.¹ By cultural capital I mean the way praise poetry is the poetry of power and the way power can be expressed in these two cultures by animal allusions. Mention of animal virtues and strengths is essential in a praise poem because it transfers an animal’s power into the human world. In that sense the animals have cultural capital which is used by both artisans and poets to give their recipients cultural status.

Animals in wisdom literatures are based on the usual behaviour of these animals. Lions, leopards, wolves and boars are united by a reputation for aggression and violence, and are therefore the best representations of various types of power in human societies. A quick example

1 This will be illustrated towards the end of the chapter, where I hypothesize on the ancient Kalanga kingdom of Mapungubwe using data from both myth (animals) and archaeological evidence.

105

is in Babr. 122 where a wolf chides himself for showing the traits of a physician, rather than being a butcher/cook (μαγειρεύειν, line 16) as he is known. A butcher represents violence and brutality that is involved in killing animals, while a physician represents kindness because he saves lives. The current chapter thus focuses on the depiction of human power relations through animals. Material is treated under four subheadings, namely the deployment of animals in images of the hunter, the guardian, animals as symbols of royalty (comparative) and lastly, as divine agent, so roughly in order of increasing social status or power: soldier, overseer, royalty, priesthood.