THE INTERPRETATION OF MYTH IN THE CONTEXT OF POPULAR ISLAM Part I Wim van Binsbergen

homepage | index page 'Íslamic myth' | Part II

1. Introduction[1]

The interpretation of myths, and the relative weight that should be attributed to mythical materials in historical reconstructions based, partly or wholly, on oral evidence, has been a bone of contention ever since Jan Vansina presented a comprehensive statement on methodology in this field (Vansina, 1965). In the domain of Central African history, which has been Vansina’s main interest, this debate has been carried on by such scholars as Luc de Heusch (1972), Joseph Miller (1976), Roy Willis (1976) and Thomas Reefe (1977). Scholarly opinion has oscillated between the rather literalist early views of Vansina and the dismissively structuralist approach of de Heusch (which would read myths uniquely as timeless statement of dominant symbolic themes in a culture). As the body of available data expanded, and experience in the handling of such data accumulated, we have seen the emergence, of more relativist approaches, best exemplified by Willis’s work, which try to specify the conditions under which what aspects of what sorts of myth become amenable to what types of historical interpretation.[2]

                         Central Africa can be regarded in several aspects as the cradle of modern oral history and in my recent work on religious change in that region (1979 and 1981), I have had occasion to tough upon these problems. In the present article, however, I shall draw upon materials from North Africa collected during fieldwork in the Khumiriya[3] highlands of North-Western Tunisia in 1968 and 1970.[4] The myth I shall focus upon is that of [5] Mhammad, a local saint venerated in the area where the foothills of the cool, forest-covered Khumiriya mountains (which reach their summit near the town of cAin Draham, a colonial creation) give way to the luscious, wide-open plain of the Wad al Kebir. This plain receives its name from a major river which stretches over fifteen kilometres, from its confluence with the Wad Ghanaka, northward to the age-old harbour-town of Tabarka. After presenting the myth[6] and briefly indicating the relatively a historical elements it has to offer to a cultural and structural analysis, within the simplifications enforced by an essay of limited length I shall build up a framework which opens out the historical content of this myth for analysis. This framework is informed, first by an analysis of the social and religious organization of contemporary rural society in this region (such as it was at the end of the 1960s) and, second, by the historical evidence derived from other oral sources in the locality.

                         My argument will thus add a footnote to the religious anthropology and history of the Maghrib. But my main purpose is more general. I aim to show how the historical interpretation of myths should not be attempted in isolation, but against the background of much more comprehensive information about the past and present of a society and of a region. While in this way we may manage to decode a myth’s historical message, it also becomes clear that the decoding procedure may be long, devious and uncertain. Finally, I shall demonstrate that, at least in the case of this one myth, the historical message may be carried over into later period where the myth no longer can be claimed to sum up, in a detectable form, events that were of primary significance in the shaping of the political and social structures of that later period. The myth of Mhammad will turn out to be nothing like the key to the local past. Exciting as the process of interpreting the myth of Mhammad may prove to be, the conclusion will come as an anti-climax. The historical events encoded within the myth will turn out to be rather trivial and commonplace occurrences in nineteenth-century Khumiri society.

                         This suggests that the great importance attached to the analysis of myth within the field of oral history may be somewhat exaggerated. Yet in many cases, particularly for the more distant past, and in the context of religious studies, a myth is all the evidence we have got. In such circumstance it would be a pity if we were forced tow holly fall back on the a historical structuralist alternative: and it is advisable for us to steer a middle course with the understanding that it would be dangerous to try to build historical reconstructions on mythical grounds alone.

2. The myth of Mhammad

The myth of Mhammad was known, in more or less elaborate form, to almost every adult inhabitant of my research are and adjacent localities. I managed to record as many as twenty variants of the myth. All agreed as to the basic narrative and only differed in the degree of detail that each informant spontaneously offered. On all occasions I recorded the myth as volunteered, without probing for more details. The variants could be aggregated so as to form one hypothetical version. I am aware of the fact that his version is an analytical construct; yet the high rate of agreement of convergence between the variants seem to warrant such treatment. Table 1 summarizes which informants (numbered i-xx) presented which elements of the aggregate version. It is the public, consensual content of the myth that shall occupy us in the course of my argument, and not the specific minutiae of verbal activity as exemplified in the individual informants’ presentations of the myth. I have not, therefore, attempted to relate systematically the differences (in length, precision, inclusion of certain elements and omission of others) to differences in sex, age, place of residence, descent group membership, etc., of the various informants. A more impressionistic inspection of these background variables, however, has convinced me that they had no significant effect on the distribution of variants. Variants of the myth that were recounted with third parties present did not differ significantly from those offered to me in private, and never gave rise to disagreement and critical discussion. This in itself suffices to place this myth, along with the other pious legends circulating in the region, in a class apart from other oral-historical statements in Khumiriya. For (as we shall see, particularly in relation to evidence on genealogies, residential history, and histories of clans and lineage segments) oral-historical statements in contemporary Khumiri society tend to be contentious, idiosyncratic, non-consensual and manipulative rather than collectively accumulated, shared historical images; and in this sense reflect the individual speaker’s transitory position in a shifting network of interest and relationships.

                         The aggregate version, then, of the myth of Mhammad runs as follows (the elements, numbered 1-28, correspond to those in Table 1):

Mhammad (1) was a herdsman (2) employed by Salima (3) of Ulad bin Sayid in the Khadayriya area (4). Mhammad took the cattle to graze in the immediate surroundings of what today are the hamlets of Mhammad, Mayziya, Tra’aya-sud and Tra’aya-bidh (5); various names of localities are specifically mentioned in this connection (6). There (implied or expressly: on the Hill-top[7] where later his main shrine would be located) he would sit down in order to sleep or to meditate (7). For that purpose he would take off some, or all, of his clothes (sometimes specified: his white burnous); towards the evening he would put these on again (8). The cattle he allowed to roam freely ((0 in those parts (various names of localities are again specified in this connection) (10). Partridges came and alighted on his body (11), in order to pick away the lice (12). At dusk Mhammad would call the cattle to return to him (various ways are specified: he clapped his hands; he waved a flap of his burnous; or he made a to-and-fro movement with his walking-stick, which had a particularly large head) (13). The birds left him (14). He returned home (with all the cattle unhurt) (15). Salima became aware of this unusual way of herding (various ways are specified in which this information reached Salima: he is said to have followed his herdsman in the morning to watch secretly if the latter was doing a good job; or Salima’s wife, or a passer-by, is said to have informed Salima of the strange ways of his herdsman) (16). From his own reflection on this matter, or at the suggestion from others) Salima now understood that Mhammad was a saint (17), and notably: one greater than Salima himself (18). There were other signs to the same effect (e.g. Salima’s wife noticed that Mhammad performed the Moslem’s obligatory prayers before he went to sleep) (19). Therefore, when Mhammad returned home once again, he was treated with all signs of respect (his feet were washed, he was offered a choice meal - either by Salima or by the latter’s wife but on his instigation) (20). Salima decided that the relationship of dependence between Mhammad and himself should be brought to an end (21). Mhammad settled on the Hill-top (22), which had been given to him (either by Salima or by some unspecified owner show may, or may not, have been Salima) (23) after Salima had urged him to name any gift that he might fancy (24). Good relationships, as between neighbours, continued to exist between Mhammad and Salima (25). Now everyone came to consider Mhammad as a saint (26). After his death he was buried on the Hill-top (27). And this was the origin of his present main shrine, called Mhammad al Kabir (the Elder) (28).