War as continuity and the maintenance of the priesthood
This period of rupture had consequences for the politics of the cosmos in the Bilnyang and challenged priestly authority. At the same time, stories of the baany e biith in the 1980s–2000s narrate continuity instead of rupture. What we do not see is a period where culture and claims of cosmic powers are static; the world was changing fast and divine power had to be responsive. Instead, we see the fast-paced creative remaking of culture and the reassertion of priestly authority. New norms were asserted as a way to creatively refuse claims of impunity of the hakuma and gun carriers. Ideas of the divine were reinterpreted to highlight the continued significance of the baany e biith. The histories, part of the cultural archive, are now still being told about the continued prominence of the baany e biith in this period. The stories described below are part of these campaigns to assert the continuity of cosmological hierarchies.
Firstly, baany e biith accepted to provide support to the SPLA. They were themselves challenging the division between the hakuma and other divine power so that they could simultaneously draw on multiple sources of power. While there was no formal link to the operations of the SPLA, military figures in the SPLA stationed in Gogrial did seek support and protection from the baany e biith.1 Cormack, ‘The Making and Remaking of Gogrial’, page 255. For example, Sudan government offensives against the SPLA in Gogrial included aerial bombardment.2 Jok, Sudan. At this time, popular stories in Luonayaker (contemporary Gogrial East County, Warrap State) retell of how SPLA leaders called together baany e biith to mess up the sky so that they would remain safe from aerial attack. Famously, one of the only bombs that fell in Luonyaker fell directly into a cooking pot, preventing the spread of shrapnel and any deaths.3 A common story of the 1990s told in Luonyaker marketplace and homes during fieldwork 2010–13. Leaders of the SPLA were criticised for their ad hoc demands of baany e biith. They would ask for support but then not return to thank them or display reverence. Many years later one elder mused that maybe the SPLA’s lack of thanks had meant that the baany e biith never restored the order of the sky. He pondered whether that was why Garang’s helicopter crashed in 2005.4 Interview with man in Gogrial, May 2018, in Dinka.
Other histories perceive divine support as the cause of SPLA victories. In January 1997, a powerful bany e bith called Manyual Kuol Jok brought two bulls out from his herd – white and black – and tied them to his shrine peg. He then recited invocations over them over many days. People brought home-brewed alcoholic drinks and crowds gathered. As his invocations concluded, he told the bulls to face Warrap Town. At this time, Warrap Town was controlled by the Sudan government. Manyual declared that if Warrap Town belonged to the Sudan soldiers they would remain there, but if it was his they would leave by the end of the year. He then killed the bulls. In May 1997, the SPLA retook control of Warrap Town. The large SPLA offensives across Bahr el Ghazal at the time prevented the Sudanese soldiers from receiving support from Wau or Tonj, and Warrap became SPLA-controlled.5 Ibid.
Secondly, the baany e biith continued to demonstrate their power, even against the Sudan government. Others still testified to the baany e biith’s powers to provide protection. For example, in 1997, one well known bany e bith was hunting in the lil (grasslands) between what became Gogrial East and Gogrial West. Here there is only long grass and no trees to hide behind. Kerubino’s forces appeared and started moving across the lil in a long line. The bany e bith was in their path. To defend himself, he picked up some of the dust on the ground. He threw some on the left and some on the right. The line of soldiers curved off to the left and the right, and the bany e bith was saved.6 Ibid. The point of these histories was not to simply assert causation but to establish the baany e biith as able to claim authority despite and even over the militarised might of the hakuma.
Thirdly, the baany e biith also sought to rein in the hakuma, including Southern rebels. The destruction and defiance of the military did challenge the powers of the baany e biith. Cormack documents Ajingdit (a very powerful bany e bith)’s failure to persuade Kerubino to stop his rebellion against the SPLA as an example of the limits of baany e biith power.7 Cormack, ‘The Making and Remaking of Gogrial’, page 255. However, other histories of the period interpret Kerubino’s defiance of the baany e biith as having lethal consequences. In 1998 Kerubino managed to seize control of Wau and, from this position of strength, sought to rejoin the SPLA. These events fell shortly after chiefs and baany e biith in Gogrial had come together to sacrifice bulls and ask Nhialic to change the heart of Kerubino so that he would return to the SPLA. Garang accepted Kerubino’s return and organised for him to fly to Nairobi. At this point, before leaving Gogrial, a large gathering was organised by Pieng Deng Majok (SPLA commander) in Luonyaker, at Giir Thiik’s yik (shrine), to bless Kerubino’s departure and peace. During this meeting and the invocations over the animals that would be sacrificed, the baany e biith declared that if Kerubino were to rebel again he would never return home to them in Gogrial.8 Interview with two village elders (including one relative of Giir Thiik), Luonyaker, December 2018.
Kerubino went on from there to Nairobi to meet Garang. He joined the SPLA. Garang gave Kerubino a headquarters role instead of as a significant commander in the field. Kerubino almost immediately rebelled again and joined the Khartoum-aligned South Sudan United Army led by Paulino Matip from Mayom. Shortly afterwards, Matip fell out with his deputy – Peter Gadet. During fighting in Mayom in 1999, Kerubino was killed. This has been interpreted by supporters of these priests as demonstrative of the power of the baany e biith’s curse including over the most powerful military actors. This highlighted the continued lack of impunity of the hakuma, even in times of war, and the continued power of the baany e biith to curse those, even army generals, who break a peace. The cosmic contestations continued, but the hakuma remained constrained by the divine.
Fourthly, baany e biith asserted their authority over the titweng and armed youth of their communities. Growing numbers of cattle camp youth were armed as they formed a vanguard of community defence, as well as acting as supporting militia for the SPLA.9 Pendle, ‘“They Are Now Community Police”’. While many young men still sought divine protection from external forces in battle, the new power of the gun was also challenging governance within the cattle camps, whose occupants were starting to reject the necessity of having a bany e bith as the leading public authority, instead opting for those with strength in cattle. Yet stories and baany e biith contested this. For example, there was a cattle camp of Gogrial in the 1980s that was in the toc adjacent to Mayom. This was an increasingly precarious position as, in the early 1980s, it became the frontline between the SPLA- and Anya-Nya-II-controlled areas. The young men in the cattle camp were heavily armed by the SPLA and through community purchase of arms. At this time, it is said that a man came to the cattle camp. He was welcomed and given milk. In the evening, the man asked who the bany e bith of the camp was. The members of the camp replied that there was no bany e bith in charge and that they were happy to be led by a brave man known as Anguet. The guest disputed whether a cattle camp could be led by a brave person instead of a bany e bith. The man left. The next morning, the calves were led into the forest by the boys. The guest had transformed himself into a lion and started attacking the calves. On hearing the commotion, the young men of the cattle camp, including Anguet, ran to the scene. The lion waited, ran past the other young men and killed Anguet. At the death of Anguet, the others raised their spears to kill the lion. The lion returned to the form of a man. The visitor then ordered the camp to appoint a bany e bith as leader. There was a member of Pagong (a ‘bitter’ clan of the baany e biith) in the camp and he was appointed as the leader and bany e bith of the camp, based on his ancestral authority. During an interview in 2018, one middle-aged man paraphrased the visitor’s words as follows:
I want you to look for the bany e bith and to make him the one responsible and the leader of you because the bany e bith can find the footprint of the lion in front of the camp in the morning and pick the soil where the footprint is and throw it away so that the lion cannot come back to kill the cows and people. If the cattle diseases break out, then the bany e bith can take it away. If the people have fought in the camp, then the bany e bith can solve it and reconcile them.10 Interview with man in Gogrial, June 2018, in Dinka.
Fifthly, people creatively remade cultural norms in order to spatially expand the power of the baany e biith over new spaces far from home. For example, in the 1980s, as discussed above, many people were recruited by the SPLA in Wau and Gogrial, and then walked to the SPLA training camps in Ethiopia. Many died along the way of disease, starvation and drowning. When talking in 2018 in Luonyaker, one person recalled being in a group with another young man from the bany e bith clan of Pakuec (the clan of Chief Giir Thiik). The man had never acted as a bany e bith and he would not act as a bany e bith after the war. However, his membership of the clan connected him to the powers of the baany e biith. This group, as they journeyed to Ethiopia, had already lost many men during fighting with Anya-Nya II forces and as a result of disease. One day, someone in the group found the skin of a gong (hedgehog). The hedgehog is associated with many of the most bitter (i.e. spiritually powerful and dangerous) clans of baany e biith.11 For more discussions of ‘bitterness’, see Eisei Kurimoto, ‘An Ethnography of “Bitterness”: Cucumber and Sacrifice Reconsidered’, Journal of Religion in Africa 22:1 (1992): 47–65. The skin was given to the group’s leader to use as a bowl. They found water and placed it in the skin and found a bull to slaughter. The leader sprinkled the water over the group. When the bull was killed, the femoral bone was removed and given to the man from Pakuac; the femoral bone was associated with this clan as well as other clans of the baany e biith such as Pa’hol. This man of Pakuac accepted the bone, dipped it in the water in the gong skin and sprinkled it over the people in the group to bless them and protect them. After this blessing, no-one else in their group died during the rest of their journey to the SPLA camps in Ethiopia. This man from Pakuac went on to be a senior military and political figure in the SPLA and did not continue practicing as a bany e bith.
Importantly, this is an example of the remaking of rituals in ways that allowed their continuity despite massive ruptures in space and circumstance. People creatively insisted that the war allowed the most bitter powers of the priesthood, at least temporarily, to be dispersed to others, making room for a larger priesthood in the absence of a bany e bith.12 Interview with man in Gogrial, June 2018, in Dinka. At the same time, as the man was from a bany e bith clan, this authority remained tightly connected to kinship and clan configurations of authority.
 
1      Cormack, ‘The Making and Remaking of Gogrial’, page 255. »
2      Jok, Sudan. »
3      A common story of the 1990s told in Luonyaker marketplace and homes during fieldwork 2010–13. »
4      Interview with man in Gogrial, May 2018, in Dinka. »
5      Ibid. »
6      Ibid. »
7      Cormack, ‘The Making and Remaking of Gogrial’, page 255. »
8      Interview with two village elders (including one relative of Giir Thiik), Luonyaker, December 2018.  »
9      Pendle, ‘“They Are Now Community Police”’. »
10      Interview with man in Gogrial, June 2018, in Dinka. »
11      For more discussions of ‘bitterness’, see Eisei Kurimoto, ‘An Ethnography of “Bitterness”: Cucumber and Sacrifice Reconsidered’, Journal of Religion in Africa 22:1 (1992): 47–65. »
12      Interview with man in Gogrial, June 2018, in Dinka. »